Talk:Queer/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Series box

I have an idea for new series box called Queer (or maybe LGBT). it would include: lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual, transgender, intersex, queer. and also gay_village, rainbow flag, gay rights, heteronormativity --Sonjaaa 13:31, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)

LGBT

Lesbian

Gay

Bisexual

Transsexual

Transgender

Intersex

Queer

Gay village

Rainbow flag

Gay rights

Heteronormativity

There's one on the right, with those links in verbatim order. Tinker around with it, further suggest things, &/c, and we can implement it later. Dysprosia 14:13, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hmm. Template:Lgbt -IOH|taq

May I point to that page, or rather its discussion page again? Because somehow that box gets thrown into articles, but nobody seems to be willing to talk about it. And talking about it is definitely necessary! -- AlexR 08:43, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sonjaa's last edit

I don't object to it because "meaning" is better than "signifying" here, but is there some sort of rule about using simpler language? Exploding Boy 10:30, Jul 14, 2004 (UTC)

Not to my knowledge, AFAIK; it's just good style. Montrealais

Good style is using the best word for what you want to convey, not oversimplifying. Exploding Boy 00:06, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)

queer used to mean "gay men"?

Excellent article, but I wonder if the last paragraph of the main text is accurate: "historically, (queer) was an epithet for gay men"?

In fact even the word gay was used (pre-stonewall) to cover much the same ground of non-normative gender and sex behaviours. Effeminate men, cross-dressers and transpeople may have been the ones most targetted with the words "queer" and "gay", thus making it perhaps even more of an issue of gender than of sexuality, although of course the two have often been conflated. Post gay-lib, the meaning of the term "gay" has been narrowed to cover just homosexual men (and women).

I propose to alter the sentence to read: "Historically, the term (queer) was often used as an epithet for effeminate and homosexual men".

what do others think?

it may require a more major re-wording of the last paragraph.

Good point. Please have at it. - Montréalais 17:34, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A little cumbersome ..

I find reading this article to be a little cumbersome. There's a lot of stuff that doesn't flow very well, and the origin and history sections are somewhat redundant. I would start off with a clear discussion of the original usage of queer (strange), to it's usage as a slur against LGBT people, then finally it's adoption by the LGBT community. The article seems to really skimp on the first two points, there.

Must say that in re-reading the article I don't find it cumbersome or confusing. It seems very straight-forward (pardon the expression). But of course, to some degree this is a matter of personal aesthetic. Jliberty 00:09, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Much of the first section seems to deal with queer theory, not queerness as the word is most generally used. Perhaps it should be moved to queer theory. -- Montrealais

It's cumbersome. The academic vocabulary (non-heteronormative, different nomination, posit, etc.) and the construction of entire paragraphs out of footnoted quotes contribute to that. I feel like I'm reading an early draft of someone's master's thesis in Queer Studies. It's also a bit lacking in multiple perspectives. When the "origin" section jumped from its Germanic etymology right to the term's "emergence" in 1989, I nearly dropped my sandwich. The use of "queer" as an epithet or for self-deprecation isn't an historical footnote; it's a living, breathing aspect of the term, and the post-modern usage makes no sense without that understanding. Furthermore, there's some definite redundancies. I'm trying to correct some of this. Tverbeek 14:10, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Non-homosexual usage

I think there should be more in this article to state that in some parts of the English world, its use for primarily "homosexual" is quite recent. For example in the UK, it was used as a near synonym for "odd" and "strange" up until at least the 1960s. The Carry On films did camp it up with the line "Ooh I do feel queer", with the obviously gay Kenneth Williams, but "queer" was as often used for someone who was eccentric, or perhaps mentally ill, up until very recently, more so than specifically gay. --MacRusgail 14:33, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

What about people who prefer solitary masturbation to sex with a partner?

Since I read that there are people who are asexual, I think it is very possible that there might be people who prefer solitary masturbation to sex with a partner. If so, they might also be under the unifying sociopolitical umbrella term "queer" which is used for people who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, and also for those who are transgender, transsexual, and/or intersexual. It can also include asexual people, as well as heterosexuals whose sexual preferences or activities place them outside the mainstream (e.g. BDSM practitioners, or polyamorists).

Being German, I don't know if there is an English word for people who prefer solitary masturbation. Irene1949

Maybe "autosexual" might be an appropriate word. Irene1949

Oh, just now I have seen that there is already an article about Autosexuality. So I feel entitled to add autosexuals to Queer Irene1949

Maybe it could be Onasexual, from onanism.

Woh, Asexuality isn't the same thing that Autosexuality. They are asexuals who don't masturbate. Maybe even most of them.

Usage in Ireland

Usage in Ireland is very common and almost never to refer to 'sexual deviance', but to oddness, as in 'well, that's kind of queer'. As you can imagine, the primary word for oddness in Ireland is used quite a lot.

This page is suitable only for Americans. The usage in the rest of the anglosphere is quite mixed between the two, depending upon context.

This needs to be referenced, + disambiguation.

This Amero-centric page must be changed.

Actually, this encyclopedia article isn't about every use of the term queer. For that see the dictionary Wiktionary. Hyacinth 23:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

It is not true that the term in Ireland is "never" used to refer to sexual deviance. (Yet another emerald-tinted falsehood on Wikipedia). While it's true that "queer" in the sense of strange ("he's a queer old bird") is still common there, its use with reference to homosexuality is also widespread and long-attested. One example that comes immediately to mind is an RTE interview with Luke Kelly in the 70s when the interviewer asks him "Is it true you are going to play King Herod as queer?" (In "Jesus Christ Superstar"). Pleidhce (talk) 02:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect Butler-quotation

The quotation in the article attributed to Judith Butler (1993) P. 226 is incorrect. No such passage exist on P. 226 in Butler (1993) and I've been unable to locate the passage anywhere else within the same work.

Would the person who originally entered the quote please revise this?

First, Please sign your posts on talk pages per Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. Thanks!

According to academic and feminist theorist Judith Butler (1993):

'This appropriation of the word, and its transformation from an insult used by somebody outside the community to a neutral term used by those inside the community can be seen as similar to the metamorphosis of the word "nigger" and its adoption by some in the African American community.'

I added the Butler citation and a quote by her, and not the one above. I'm assuming the page has also sustained other damage and needs to be combed through. Hyacinth 21:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

This information was lost but for the citation which was then applied to some made up quote:

"The term 'queer' itself, as positive nomination rather than hurtful slur" dates from 1990 (Thomas 2000 and Berlant and Warner 1995) and was popularized by the activist group Queer Nation. The term was then used by Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick (1991) in her Epistemology of the Closet and broadened to include contexts, nuances, connections, and potentials in addition to self-identities (Gantz 2000). According to Judith Butler (1993), "'Queer' derives its force precisely through the repeated invocation by which it has become linked to accusation, pathologization, insult. This is an invocation by which a social bond among homophobic communities is formed through time. The interpellation echoes past interpellations, and binds the speakers, as if they spoke in unison across time. In this sense, it is always an imaginary chorus that taunts 'queer'".

and

Andrew Parker (1994), among others, defines queer as, "a non-gender-specific rubric that defines itself diacritically not against heterosexuality but against the normative," while Michael Warner (1993) defines queer as "resistance to regimes of the normal." ....However, Lauren Berlant and Michael Warner (1995) suggest that participation in "queer publics," is, "more a matter of aspiration than it is the expression of an identity or a history," though this may say more about the possiblity or impossiblity of subverting the normative.

and

Leo Bersani (1995) argues against definitions of queer, specifically Warner's, that put "all resisters in the same queer bag--a universalizing move I appreciate but that fails to specify the sexual distinctiveness of the resistance. I find this particularly unfortunate since queer theorists protest, albeit ambiguously, against the exclusion of the sexual from the political."

and

Bibliography

• Sedgwick, Eve Kosofsky (1991). Epistemology of the Closet.
• Inside/Out: Lesbian Theories, Gay Theories (1991)
• Butler, Judith (1993). Bodies That Matter: On the Discursive Limits of "Sex", p.226. New York: Routledge.
• Warner, Michael ed. (1993). Fear of a Queer Planet: Queer Politics and Social Theory. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Sources

• Thomas, Calvin, ed. (2000). "Introduction: Identification, Appropriation, Proliferation", Straight with a Twist: Queer Theory and the Subject of Heterosexuality. University of Illinois Press. ISBN 0252068130.
  • Parker, Andrew (Fall 1994). "Foucault's Tongues", Mediations 18:2: 80.
  • Berlant, Lauren and Warner, Michael (May 1995). "What Does Queer Theory Teach Us about X?" PMLA 110:3:343.
  • Warner, Michael (1993). "Introduction", Fear of a Queer Planet: Queer Politics and Social Theory, p.xxvii. Ed. Michael Warner. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
  • Leo Bersani (1995). Homos. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
  • Butler, Judith (1993). Bodies That Matter: On the Discursive Limits of "Sex", p.226. New York: Routledge.
  • Gantz, Katherine (2000). "Not That There's Anything Wrong with That: Reading the Queer in Seinfeld", Straight with a Twist: Queer Theory and the Subject of Heterosexuality. Ed. Calvin Thomas. University of Illinois Press. ISBN 0252068130.

Hyacinth 23:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Origins of the modern meaning

>its current usage dates back to the early 20th century, when homosexual men in the New York urban and suburban areas began using it to describe themselves and their subculture.[...] the term was meant as a "code word" to hide them from the so-called 'straight world'.<

Does anyone have a source on this? The dating seems more or less right (though see below), but I'm really not sure that it began as a code word. Bruce Rodgers's The Queens' Vernacular (1972, London: Blond and Briggs) lists it as 'pejorative heterosexual slang' and Mark Morton's Dirty Words (2005, London: Atlantic Books) claims that though it 'had been applied to homosexual men since the 1920s' (322) it had still not been reclaimed by the early 1980s. I've also failed to find any evidence on where it emerged - it's certainly been in use on both sides of the Atlantic for a good long while. Moreover, the article goes on to claim that the modern sense was in use in Britain at the end of the nineteenth century (at least by the Marquess of Queensbury) and that the meaning was generally pejorative, even among gay people themselves. As most sources seem to agree on an origin in the early 20th century (see also www.etymonline.com), that's presumably when its use became reasonably widespread, but all the evidence I can find suggests that it was a straight word before it was a gay one.

Any thoughts or sources?

Garik 12:14, 10 May 2006 (BST)

Well, as no source has been given and the claim is at odds not only with other sources, but with the rest if the article, I've edited it to make it rather more tentative. Garik 12:14, 12 May 2006 (BST)

"or of any other atypical sexuality,"

I erroniously suggested that asexuality wasn't queer. In correcting me, another editor said that "Queer is an *inclusive* term that includes zoosexuality and any other non-heteronormative orientation." How inclusive are we really talking about? And what about necrophilia? Well necro's not hurting anybody, so maybe so, but pedophilia? Biastophilia? Is there any boundary? And if not, this is pretty hard to believe, so some citations are in order. — coelacan talk — 14:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Queer isn't a collection of categories. It contests categories altogether precisely by exposing the operation by which things come to "naturally" fit into or be excluded by different categories. I think it would be safe to say that "queer" includes all categories to the extent that, and by which, it critiques them.--Agnaramasi 01:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Pejorative terms for people, Yes or No?

The word is sometimes used as a pejorative term, but I don't know if it (the category) would fit after reading the article. Crumbsucker 00:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Tecoate's last edit

I think there's something wrong with adding the phrase "straight(non-conformist) homosexuals" for 2 reasons -- first I'm not sure what "straight homosexual" means (is it the same as "straight acting"?)-- but also, I think this might contradict something earlier in the paragraph that says that to be queer is to be against heteronormativity...scotteaux 13:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

That's actually sort of the point - that there's a distinction between going along with heteronormative structures (marriage, belief in strict divisions between sexes) and preferring men or women. Ah. I see what you mean though - it should say 'conformist' not 'non-conformist'. Basically the theory is that there can be 'straight' homosexuals who buy into heteronormative structures and try and emulate them, and 'queer' heterosexuals who resist the labelling and heteronormative structures. I can find some references if you'd like... There's a reference here: http://www.newstatesman.com/200002140012 Tom Coates 09:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that I understand what you mean -- but I still think there might be something contradictory in this paragraph, which says in an early sentence that (1) queers are against heteronormativity and at the end that (2) you can be queer and embrace a straight/conformist model.scotteaux 13:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah - now I think you're misunderstanding. Because there's a distinction between being homosexual and being queer. The paragraph we're looking at talks about how one use of 'queer' is to indicate a break with heteronormativity specifically in terms of being 'outside the bounds of normal society'. It later states, "In this context "queer" is not a synonym for LGBT". The argument is that while one use of the term 'queer' is to be a reclaimed synonym for homosexual, another use is as a declaration that standard sexual categorisations and the life patterns and stereotyping associated with them do not apply to you. One group of people use it to mean 'gay' and another use it to mean 'defying conventional sexual categorisation'.

Under this latter circumstance, some queer theories have described the possibility of 'queer heterosexuals' - ie. people who confound easy categorisation, defy heteronormativity and yet sleep primarily with people of the opposite sex. Similarly the idea of 'straight homosexuals' would refer to people who primarily had sex with members of their own gender but otherwised tried to minimise their difference from straight people.

Another way to think about it is that 'straight homosexuals' would work for assimiliation into a culture created primarily for heterosexuals and would minimise their differences from heterosexuals to do so, whereas 'queer heterosexuals' would fight to open up that culture so that it was natively attractive and suited to people of various sexualities, freeing heterosexuals from the dogmatic enforcement of traditional ideologies and structures in the process. Does that make more sense? Tom Coates

I understand that there is a difference between being homosexual and being queer. I’m just saying that I think that there’s a problem if the definition queer means being against heteronormativity unless you are gay (the case of the straight-acting, conformist homosexual).

No, heteronormativity does not mean just being “outside the bounds of normal society” (which would be the case for the straight-acting homosexual) – HETEROnormative describes an imitation of the model heterosexual couple. In fact, your example of the straight-acting homosexual is precisely what the term heteronormative refers to.

So, we cannot say that queer is to be against heternormativity – except when you happen to be homosexual and heteronormative. This doesn’t make sense.

I’m not sure how we want to define queer here, but we shouldn’t contradict ourselves. Either we should get rid of the idea that to be queer means to be against heteronormativity (perhaps we should say that being queer just means being against normalcy?) OR we need to get rid of the statement that says that the homosexual who embraces a heteronormative ideal is somehow queer.

I’ve copied this conversation over to the queer discussion page, because I think that other folks might be interested in participating.

Thanks for your patience with all this! I do appreciate all the time and energy you’ve put into this!scotteaux 22:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Queer-identified

I think there should be a section on the term "queer-identified" in its usage as an attempt to reject labels. Perhaps a few examples of people who self-identify as "queer" rather than gay or bi, are in order. LeaHazel : talk : contribs 12:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Some examples? Benjiboi 18:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Opening sentence

I was wondering why the opening sentence lists only LGBTA communities when Queer is intentionally much more broad than that. An addition of 'amongst others' or similar qualifier would make the opening sentence more clear. 82.47.146.228 21:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)Random queer

Does the current version work better? Benjiboi 18:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Peter Paige picture

I don't think the picture of Peter Paige belongs at the top of the article on Queer so that it is the first thing one sees on the page. One picture of one queer person cannot stand in for the word queer. To be honest, I don't know that it necessarily belongs on the page at all. -- Irn (talk) 01:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

What picture would you suggest replace it? Hyacinth (talk) 01:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why there has to be an image there. -- Irn (talk) 01:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

For instance, without an image this will never even be a good article. Many people are visual learners and assisted by appropriate images. It should not be hard to think of or find images. Lastly, if you have more than one image on the page the primary concern about this picture (whether or not Paige represents "queer") is lessened. Hyacinth (talk) 02:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

In searching for, or even imagining, what would represent queer there's more than a few issues so I felt the least problematic route was to find an image of someone associated with Queer as Folk who also identified as queer. Recently the LGBT project has been trying to lessen the impact of the LGBT sidebox and, as noted, images on articles are generally considered helpful. Other images and ideas are certainly welcome. Banjeboi 02:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

What about the pink triangle? Hyacinth (talk) 23:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Excellent idea, I've move the Paige photo down and replaced the lede image with the queer rights version of the pink triangle. Banjeboi 01:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I've been trying to think of what would be a better image, and, also, why I so dislike the chosen image. I like the pink triangle better, because it's not a specific person and is more of an abstract representation, but, and maybe this is just me, the pink triangle is still very gay, and not specifically queer. I think that whatever image accompanies the lede (and let me be clear, I don't think the article should have no image, I'm just dubious about the image for the lede) needs to somehow incoroprate more than just a (white) gay (male) identity. I just did a few google image searches for ideas, and I really like this image because it speaks to multiple levels (specifically, the reappropriative politics [with names like Black Fag and Sissy Boyz], the presentation of multiple queer identities, and the way it plays with gender and sexuality). I don't necessarily think that this is the best image for the lede, but is that helpful? -- Irn (talk) 01:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree that the pink triangle is white and male per se since its reclaiming but I do agree that better images are helpful. The image you link makes me think that a photo of self-identified queer activists or artists, etc might be a solution. Queer Nation or similar photo would work well. Banjeboi 01:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Pink triangle caption confusing

Image caption says:

"The pink triangle was originally used (in inverted form) to denote homosexual men as a Nazi concentration camp badge. It has since been reclaimed, and turned upright, as a symbol of queer resistance, gay pride and gay rights."

This is very confusing. What is an "inverted" triangle? What is an "upright" triangle? Is the triangle depicted in the image "inverted" or "upright"? -- 201.53.7.16 (talk) 02:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I have never seen the pink triangle used as a queer symbol with the point upright. Has anyone got a cite for that? Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 10:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

ACT-UP and Queer Nation come to mind. -- Banjeboi 11:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Neither of which I'm familiar with, except for their stunts. Day-to-day usage, at least as I've seen across Canada, is point downwards. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 11:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I've seen both used but ACT_UP, which, I believe birthed Queer Nation in some way, both were avid users of reclaiming symbols, words and ideas and using them boldly in campaigns. Maybe an image showing some of their works would help? -- Banjeboi 11:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain, based on what little I know, that QN split from AU because the latter wasn't radical enough. It's been a long time since I've been involved with anyone who dealt with queer protesting; up here the whole issue is basically done and dusted, barring blood & semen donations. Anyway... I think the caption should be changed to 'is now displayed either point up or point down as a symbol of blah blah blah,' as both are apparently used. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 11:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Some links to demonstrate: [1], [2], [3], [4], Google image search, "pink triangle". Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 11:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't dispute that both are used. See if my rewording helps. -- Banjeboi 12:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I know you weren't disputing; I was adding for clarification. Really, the only point-up usages (apart from a flag from the UK) I could see were all duplicates of the SILENCE=DEATH poster/tshirt. Point down seems to be far more widespread; I have edited the caption to be more accurate. Cheers. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 12:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to all for your kind attention to this. I'd like to suggest a tweak to the current text.
I propose that the caption read:

The pink triangle was originally used (pointing down) by the Nazis to denote homosexuality in male concentration camp prisoners. It has since been reclaimed as a positive symbol of queer resistance, gay pride and gay rights, with contemporary LGBT-related organizations using both point-upward and point-downward depictions.

- I can't edit this myself as article is semi-protected.
Thanks again, all. -- 201.53.7.16 (talk) 15:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. -- Banjeboi 01:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Hate to nitpick, but I think 'reclaimed as a positive' is redundant; reclaiming a symbol/epithet/whatever implies that it is being used in a positive manner, to me. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 02:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I hear you but I'm unsure of a good alternative. I there a reclaiming article that spells this out? -- Banjeboi 02:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I think Reclaiming (not Starhawk's org ;)) fits the bill.. I'll add it to the caption. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 04:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Straight-acting

From the article: In this context, "queer" is not a synonym for LGBT as it creates a space for "queer" heterosexuals as well as "non-queer" ("straight-acting") homosexuals. As a queer theorist, I do not think anyone, working in a queer context, can equate "non-queer" with "straight-acting". The very idea of straight-acting (surely an offensive term at the best of times, certainly it demonstrates little more than internalised loathing) is a wonderful example of heteronormativity in gay male identities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.138.172.72 (talk) 10:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

How on earth do you "act straight"?--Tyrfing (talk) 16:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

See Straight acting. Banjeboi 17:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I also have a problem with this sentence. As it stands, the article seems to suggest that "Queer" is the best identification for people who wish to identify as "non-queer". It should probably be worded as "...creates a space for..."non-gay" or "non-lesbian" homosexuals." And yeah, do away with this "straight-acting" nonsense. If we can't explain what a "non-gay homosexual" would be without using [possibly] offensive, heteronormative language, then we should re-think the whole article. ;) Sorry I'm not logging in, but I'm being discrete. ;) again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.250.131.254 (talk) 16:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Will you stop your queer politics here. We are talking about information here. You cannot withhold information because it doesn't suit your ideology. (59.180.165.150 (talk) 14:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC))

• I think that "straight-acting" in this context is entirely inappropriate for non-political reasons, as well. What does straight-acting mean here, anyway? Does it mean gender normative? If so, the article should say that instead of straight-acting, which is ambiguous and sounds more like someone who is mimicking straight sex. Also, using straight-acting as an example of a queer political identity is entirely misleading, which I think lends credence to the first statement from the self-identified queer theorist. Leaving politics out of a discussion about a political identity doesn't serve the interest of expressing "information," it simply confuses it. Finally, what is the point of the "straight-acting" qualifier here? The article itself states that queer is meant to be ambiguous, so why qualify it all here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.192.67.131 (talk) 00:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Debate about the use of Queer

Could there be some added piece about the debate about the use of the word Queer in the LGBTTIQQ2 Community? Certainly it is becoming more popular but there is quite a lot of disagreement with it as an all inclusive term, specifically by those individuals who do not follow queer theory. PFLAG Canada has, on their website, added into the definition of Queer that not all individuals accept this term. I think that references to that segment of the community that have decided not to use the term should be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IP address (talk) date

I'd agree that this should probably be raised. Also, I think many people would take issue with the claim that the reclaimed meaning has now surpassed the orginal meaning in terms of general use. The OED lists it alongside other uses, but it's certainly not the only or even the most common use. I believe what the OED states is that "In some academic contexts it is the preferred adjective ... (cf. queer theory ...); it is also sometimes used of sexual lifestyles that do not conform to conventional heterosexual behaviour, such as bisexuality or transgenderism." Lovely.Bookworm (talk) 22:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The use of queer has raged for a very long time and the acceptance is usually tied to how old someone is with younger generations not caring much at all. I see this similar to other pejoratives used in LGBT and other minority communities which have also been reclaimed but still are not universally accepted. Queer is rarely used in the original meanings in mainstream media and academia likely because it's use is so strongly tied to LGBT movements. -- Banjeboi 08:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The article should definitely cover objections to the 'reclamation' other than passingly in the introduction. Benjiboi, Wikipedia is not the place for you to make unfounded assertions about who does and doesn't think something, so I'm not sure what your point is really. Salopian (talk) 08:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Sources

This article is poorly sourced. I've added tags for additional citations and original research. Please bring this page up to standards. Klopek007 (talk) 02:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 98.232.94.121, 18 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

grammar typo

"This commonplace usage has, ... , has"

98.232.94.121 (talk) 02:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Done Thanks, Stickee (talk) 03:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Pomosexual Link

There is no actual Wikipedia article for "pomosexual" despite the word trying to link there in the article. Should it be linked to the Wiktionary entry instead? I'm not familiar with the guidelines on this. --Thumbtax (talk) 09:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request August 1, 2012

Typo and punctuation error:

Queer as Folk is a reference to the common expression unrelated to homosexuality "There's nowt so queer as folk".

Should read:

Queer as Folk is a reference to the common expression unrelated to homosexuality "There's none so queer as folk."

23:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LauiePower (talk • contribs)

Edit request on 1 September 2012

For " LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transsexual)" this should actually read "n LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender)" and the link for "transgender" go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender .

This is the definition for LGBT offered here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT . Also Trangender is a broader term than Transexual. 86.29.14.100 (talk) 02:14, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I fear you might need consensus for that first. A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 05:37, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Unreadable

I have read the first sentence 4 times, then I gave up. Just so you know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.79.72.22 (talk) 14:46, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Polyamory = Queer?

I understand the arguemtn about why polyamory maybe should be regarded as a type of queer, but is it really? Do any reliable sources designate people as queer purely based on polyamory? Maybe some queer theorists use it like this? If not, i think it should be removed, as OR at least. Plenty of polyamorous people seem very heteronormative and gender-sterotpye-conforming to me, so it seems strange to claim them as queer, at least without assigning this opinion to a source.

The fact that they take part in Pride marches etc does not seem to me to make them automaticaly Queer, any more than PFLAGG members are ,and sites like Polyamory.org seem to indicate that poly is seen as related but distinct from Queer, ratzher than a subset. And this that "queer polyamory" is not the same as polyamory without a modifiying adjective. YobMod 08:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Well queer is in the eye of the beholder and anything not nuclear family is seen as queer to some. Is this about Queer#As_a_contemporary_antonym_of_heteronormative? I would agree with what we have there. -- Banjeboi 04:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I was just wondering if anyone had any source, so we can say who the beholder is. I would use queer as the opposite of heteronormative, but could easily see some polyamorous people being heteronormative. A group relationship could be completely hetero and have defined binary gender roles. Are Mormon polygamists queer? Imo, not, so the situation needs more explanation.YobMod 06:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Based on my personal experience: it's about community overlap really. There is no reason that there cannot exist a polyamorous person who is both strictly heterosexual and enforces heterosexual norms on others (they may go so far as asking their partners not to have relationships with people of the same gender). However, there tends to be strong overlap between the gay and polyamorous communities, to the degree that they have in general become particularly tolerant of one another. A comparison with polygamists, however, isn't the best way of emphasizing this, because there's a pretty strong difference in cultural background between self-identified polyamorous people and traditional polygamists. One can say that many polyamorous configurations, such as triads, necessarily imply some form of homo- or bisexuality (any relationship graph composed entirely of heterosexual relationships is constrained to be bipartite). Dcoetzee 07:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Polyamory identity is not necessarily queer. Someone who is heterosexual and cisgender can be poly, but that does not make them queer, considering any of their polyamorous relationships will still fall into the heteronormative mainstream. An overlap of poly & gay communities does not, in my opinion, mean that any polyamorous person should now fall under the "queer" category. There is not enough agreement about this population to include it in the definition of queer, and it should be removed. Boobearry (talk) 23:04, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Boobearry, not "necessarily" queer but probably. I have been part of a poly discussion group for 16 years and we are often in the pride parade. In those years whenever the subject of bi men comes up, I look around the room, and and every time I see that > 50% of the men are. I have also noticed that they and the poly women are higher than average IQ. I am sure that's no coincidence because, both poly and bi are contranormative. They require thinking and doing outside the box and against heavy cultural sanctions. While writing this I remembered, it was in the copious head space of an ocean crossing when I realized that sex was about energy not hardware. Diooji (talk) 10:09, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Citation needed

"Other LGBT people may avoid queer because they associate it with political radicalism, or simply because they perceive it as the faddish slang of a "younger generation.""

There's no source for this and it seems like original research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Distortion0 (talk • contribs) 05:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

The sentence has been backed up by this source further down in the article – shouldn't we also reference it in the first mention of "political radicalism" in the article? — Jordan Hooper ^(talk) 30 November 2014, 13:20 (UTC)

Removal of the picture

The picture doesn't appear to have a purpose, worth removing? 121.223.115.79 (talk) 09:49, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Hetero normative

Heteronormative appears along hetrosexual in the opening sentence despite being basically synonymous in the context. Heteronormative is merely there to invoke a certain connotation. I'm taking it out.Ancholm (talk) 11:31, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Controversial nature of the term section

Schildewaert created the Controversial nature of the term section section by splitting it off from the Linguistic reappropriation section, stating, "Giving more prominence to important paragraph inappropriately buried in unrelated subsection." I reverted, stating, "Yes, it is in a related section. The section is about 'linguistic reappropriation' and agreeing or disagreeing with that use. It is bad form to create a subheading for such a small paragraph, per MOS:PARAGRAPHS." However, I restored Schildewaert's wording changes. Schildewaert then reverted me while adding a lot more text, WP:Unsourced text, to the split-off section, stating, "repaired unprovoked attack on valid amendments." Schildewaert then sourced a piece of it with a wholly WP:Unreliable source. I commented with a WP:Dummy edit: "No, it was not an 'unprovoked attack on valid amendments.' I'll take this matter to the talk page. If you are going to split off a material in such a way, then at least source it...and reliably source it." And that was before I saw that Schildewaert had added such a WP:Unreliable source.

So, yes, comments from other editors are needed on this matter. I'll leave a note at WP:LGBT about it. Flyer22 (talk) 00:27, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to correct the footnote format (or even find a better footnote), but the paragraph is valid and sorely needed in the article. Schildewaert (talk) 00:32, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

You added more than one paragraph. And changing "most" to "part" while adding another unsourced paragraph elsewhere in the article? Read WP:Verifiability, especially the WP:Burden part of it. Flyer22 (talk) 00:43, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I've made a few amendments to improve the article. The key statements are properly referenced by a credible source. I've added another POV that was not adequately expressed. Everything is in good faith here. The use of "most" was questionable and unreferenced. I can tell you from personal experience that for the last four decades of the 20th century "queer" did not have the usage described in this sentence. I suspect the entire sentence is wrong but since it's referenced I left it in but changed the word from "most" to "part". Who knows, perhaps "queer" did have this usage for a few decades in the early 20th century. I don't believe it, but it's possible. Schildewaert (talk) 00:49, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I hasten to add that the failure to deal properly with the controversy surrounding the use of the word "queer" in the LGBT community could itself be challenged as a major failing in the original article, perhaps even as serious bias and the pushing of a single POV. Schildewaert (talk) 00:53, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I see that the source you added is not actually wholly WP:Unreliable (so I scratched out that description above); I got caught up in the fact that it is hosted at Wikispaces and so I didn't look at the source until a few minutes ago. Still, that one source alone cannot be used authoritatively (such as attributing matters only to North America, as you did here and here), when other sources likely state differently on the topic. Yes, the material you added to this article should be there if all of it is WP:Reliably sourced (though some of it needs tweaks with regard to wording; see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch). However, it is an aspect of linguistic reappropriation, which is why it was partly covered in the "Linguistic reappropriation" section before your changes to this article. So there was not one POV on this matter that was presented. As for the word "most," it might be supported by that Jane Czyzselsk source. Either way, you should not be adding any unsourced material to the article. Flyer22 (talk) 01:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I am sympathetic to the experience of seeing a beloved article being amended by a stranger, but you'll see that the article is stronger now. The article is now more balanced and directly addresses the huge issues that many readers will have when they come to it. This article had serious gaps that have been filled in. There was also a problem with transitioning. It's an issue that Oxford does not even list the primary usage described here. To give the article credibility, there had to be a reference to a good dictionary, and some kind of explanation as to why the article did not refer to the standard definitions listed in the dictionary. There also seemed to be an assumption that all readers are English-speaking North Americans. It's wrong to think that this politically oriented explanation will be understood in, say, India. It doesn't present a global view of how English speakers use the word "queer". I didn't add a "globalise" tag, but I did add a few geographic references to make it comprehensible. I've sourced one part that could possibly be controversial, but I assume no one will take issue with the rest of the amendments. If so, give me time to chase down the references. I note as well that if you are asking me to source every single phrase in my amendments, I'll have to insist that you do the same for the rest of the article because there are many, many unsourced statements in this article. Schildewaert (talk) 01:43, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Any objection I have with regard to your edits to this article has nothing to do with "a beloved article being amended by a stranger." I don't love this article, and I have not made many edits to it. I don't have much of a problem with taking this article off my WP:Watchlist and letting you have at it with all the WP:Original research you want to add to it, especially if no one else objects to your edits. Any objections that I have with regard to your edits have to do with you not following Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines (except for my mistake regarding the aforementioned source). For example, I don't agree with your structure changes; I suggest you read WP:Manual of Style, especially MOS:HEAD, and that you read WP:Dated (words such as current should generally be excised). A title such as "Current meaning" begs the question: What is the original meaning? As for sourcing, again read WP:Burden and see who the burden is on with regard to sourcing and the circumstances for that. Flyer22 (talk) 01:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I accept that your comments are made in good faith, and it's clear you've read the Wikipedia manual. Please feel free to amend my amendments if you must. However, the article is stronger now, so I ask that you please try to maintain it as much as possible. Schildewaert (talk) 02:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't necessarily agree that the article is stronger. I really don't have time to go over it with a fine-toothed comb, but I see several problems with your additions, the most serious one being the almost total lack of sourcing. If you can dig up some reliable sources, great; the material you added can be added again (with some modifications). In the meantime, I am reverting per WP:NOR. Incidentally, I absolutely agree that the article should cover disagreement within LGBT populations about use of the term—but sources aren't optional. Rivertorch (talk) 07:54, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry but the original article was flawed, perhaps deeply flawed, in the ways explained. The editing is careful, balanced, explained, sourced, and preserves 98% of the original language. The article is now much stronger. Schildewaert (talk) 08:57, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Note for others: Because of this request, Schildewaert took a part of my "14:18, 29 January 2014 (UTC)" post below out of context. Flyer22 (talk) 18:58, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

No, Rivertorch was completely in the right to revert you...per the reasons given by me and him above. It was not a bad-faith edit; there was no violation of WP:Assume good faith whatsoever on his part. You were in the wrong to revert him. It is not our job to source your content for you! Neither is it our job to guide you on how to edit Wikipedia! If you intend to keep editing this site, then I suggest you become very familiar with the way it works. Otherwise, you will continue to come into the type of "attack on your edits" problems you have come into here at this article. In some of those cases, you will not be given any breathing room (room to add your unsourced material and/or bad formatting). You have been editing Wikipedia under your Schildewaert account since February 2008; thus, you should be far better at editing it than you currently are. You seem to think that all that matters when objecting to someone's edit is whether or not the edit was done in good or bad faith. Well, that is not the case. And Rivertorch and I could continue to revert you at this article until you are forced to stop and discuss your edits, get WP:Consensus for them, before implementing them. How would you be forced to stop? By the WP:Edit warring policy, that's how. Cross the WP:3RR aspect of that policy, and you would very likely be temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia. I doubt that you want that. But like I stated, I don't have much of a problem dropping this article and letting you have your way with it. If the WP:LGBT Wikipedia community, with the exception of Rivertorch, is not concerned enough to intervene and/or revert your edits, then oh well. They can have another deteriorating article. Consider yourself lucky that this article is not one that I am especially concerned with. And while you're speaking of one-sidedness, this edit you made at Queer (disambiguation) is one-sided because it currently fails to mention that the term queer is also accepted by the LGBT community; but knowing what little I know of your editing style, you'd attribute that matter to only being a North American thing. So whatever. Flyer22 (talk) 14:18, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Flyer22, I'm sure you're posting in good faith, despite your tone and...well, insults and threats. I apologise if my editing has run roughshod over any rules or any sensibilities. I know what it's like to have an article thoroughly reviewed by a stranger from afar. I don't like it either, but that's how Wikipedia works. I don't have time to master the intricacies of Wikipedia procedure, but I do sometimes have the time to edit articles that need help and that interest me. The article was in need of a serious boost, a rebalancing, and I had the time and interest to do it last night. I changed or took out only a few words. I added one dubious tag. The rest was language editing, supplementation and reformatting. The article still needs a lot of work though. You say that the word "queer" is accepted by the LGBT community, but I don't think that is right. You'd need a source. And you'd need to define what you mean by "LGBT community", preferably something that is not entirely dependent on a group of American queer academics and queer activists. I think for most people in North America "queer" is still primarily a serious epithet and a grave insult.Schildewaert (talk) 18:00, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

You see my tone as problematic and as including insults and threats; I see it as simply being stern with you about the way Wikipedia is supposed to work. You stated that "hav[ing] an article thoroughly reviewed by a stranger from afar" is "how Wikipedia works." From what I see, however, you are not too familiar with how Wikipedia works (meaning "is supposed to work"), as is clear by your editing this article, the replies you have given in this section and below this section, and in this discussion on your talk page. With regard to this Wikipedia article, I don't need a source to state that queer is accepted by the LGBT community; this article already provides sources for that, WP:Reliable sources for it (though the vast majority of the sources in the article are WP:Unreliable or otherwise poor). And either way, sources are not required for assertions on a talk page (unless involving material that is a WP:BLP violation if not reliably sourced in the article or on the talk page). Also note that I stated "also accepted by the LGBT community." I did not state "all of the LGBT community." Obviously, the term queer is not accepted by all of the LGBT community.

It is best that I cease discussing this matter with you, because editors who have been editing Wikipedia for years but have the editing experience of a WP:Newbie very much aggravate me. I am no longer inclined to teach you as I discuss things with you and I am not at all inclined to teach you as I edit with you. Flyer22 (talk) 18:58, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Weakness of the original article

There is no need for the guardians of this article to declare war on the edits. The edits are modest, free of POV, sensible and made in good faith. However, I want to point out that the original article had problems, despite its inexplicable "B" rating.

• The article was (and still is) filled with unsourced statements.
• Some of the sourced statements are obviously wrong (e.g. "Subsequently, for most of the 20th century, "queer" was frequently used as a derogatory term for effeminate gay males who were believed to engage in receptive or passive anal/oral sex with men, and others exhibiting untraditional (i.e., trans[3]) gender behaviour. Furthermore, masculine males, who performed the role of the "penetrator" were considered "straights".) Really?? I'm pretty sure that the word "queer" was and is used as an insult for all homosexual men.
• The article dealt primarily with a tertiary usage of the word, and one that is not found in Oxford.
• The article treated this tertiary usage of the word as if it were the primary usage throughout the world.
• The article failed to explain the usage of the word in English as invective, although it did hint at it. There was an assumption that the reader knew how "queer" is used as an insult in English.
• In general, the article assumed a native English speaker's point of view. (Yes, there is such a thing. English is not just used by native English speakers. The English Wikipedia is not just relied on by native speakers.) A non-English speaker who wanted to understand the power of the word "queer", and how this power could have led to this word becoming the name for a new political movement, found nothing here about that. People for whom English is a second language struggle with how English speakers are using this word. The article failed to address this. This article still needs a proper, balanced usage section to describe exactly how this word is being used. Something similar to the Wisegeek article.
• In general, the article assumed a North American point of view. Or alternatively, the First World's point of view. How is the word "queer" used in other English-speaking countries? Nigeria? India? Pakistan? Malaysia? Malta? Hong Kong? I think the "odd" usage is still predominant even in the UK, although I'm not sure.
• This article presented (and still presents) a very specific POV based on language, geography, political orientation, class, and perhaps age.
• As a result of the failure to properly explain the insulting nature of the word, the discussion of "reappropriation" was confusing and unclear. "Reappropriation" from what?
• The article dismissed the controversy involving the word "queer" (i.e. within the LGBT community) in a single, poorly written sentence that was dismissive in tone and content. It was not strong enough to reflect the fact that the majority of LGBT people (even in North America) do not self-identify as "queer".
• The article seemed (and still seems) to assume that all, or at least the majority of, LGBT people DO use this endonym. If this is true, provide a source please. I quite disagree. This usage seems to be what the authors want, not what is actually happening.
• The controversy surrounding this word was buried in an unrelated paragraph. This issue of controversy is not really part of "reappropriation". The controversy surrounding the word is a separate larger issue about divisions in the LGBT community and how the word "queer" is part of that. The article really did not deal with these divisions adequately, incorrectly giving the impression of a politically united LGBT community.
• It was inadequate and a little odd for this article to present the word "queer" from such a singular perspective. It was unbalanced and not encyclopedic in tone. This article felt (and still feels) didactic.

The edits are quite modest when you consider all this. They address these problems head on, leading to a stronger article. Most article has been preserved word for word (with one or two exceptions). The edits are supplementations and format related.

• I've provided a source from the best, most international dictionary in the world.
• I've provided a source explaining (or at least illustrating) the controversy in detail. I've summarised the details from that source accurately.
• I agree that I have not sourced the "North America" additions. Although I do recognize that it may have been easier for me to put a globalize tag on the article rather than explain that this usage arose in North America. I did not want to "ruin" an article (especially one that carried a "B" rating) by adding a globalise tag. If the word has gained universal usage, I think some explanation of that is necessary. You can't just assume this is the case, especially when this usage does not appear in many dictionaries. The article itself does not explain the geographic usage of this word adequately. If we are to pretend that "queer" is universally used in this way, please at least provide a source to justify this. However, to deal with this criticism of my edits, I've taken out the references to "North America" and replaced it with "in some countries".
• The description "faddish slang of a younger generation" was in the original article. It was another unreferenced statement in the original article. Whoever wrote this phrase, it's taken on a life of its own. I could not find an original source for this comment, just rehashings from the Wikipedia article. I don't think the age-related usage is true anymore. The term has been around since the early 1990s. The "faddish slang" phrase may apply to some people (because who amongst us really appreciates faddish slang), but it seems unsourceable. And even these people have noticed by now that this usage is becoming mainstream and permanent, despite the controversy. I left it in though out of respect for the original author. Someone please take it out or source it.

Schildewaert (talk) 09:22, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

The scope of the article isn't about all the meanings of the word, though. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The scope is (or was, at least) queer as an "an umbrella term for sexual and gender minorities that are not heterosexual, or gender-binary." We could, if warranted by sources, have a separate article on Queer (epithet).

I don't think the material that has been added surrounding controversies is generally reflective of the literature on queer as a reclaimed word. It's hard to tell though, since only one source has been added. You are right that the original article wasn't overly strong on sourcing. However, the rule is "any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material."

Per WP:BRD, I would invite you to gain consensus on the talk page before reintroducing your edits to the article.--Trystan (talk) 14:48, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with your comment about having separate articles. That would have been better. There should be a proper page explaining the different ways that "queer" is used. The current usage is very complicated, and even English speakers have trouble sorting it out. Perhaps "queer (academic theory)" and "queer (political movement)"? On the other hand, there is a strong linkage between "queer" as epithet and "queer" as political movement. Perhaps they do belong in the same article? I think for most people in North America "queer" is still primarily a serious epithet and a grave insult. I'm not saying I disagree with the effort to reappropriate the word. The article is more balanced now. Schildewaert (talk) 18:12, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Balance is determined by how well an article represents the views found in reliable sources in due proportion. The addition of largely unsourced material does not make an article more balanced. Your edits give far more coverage to dispute over the term than is supported by the literature. Even if it is true that the epithet usage is predominant (I highly doubt it is more prominent in reliable sources), that only needs to have a passing mention as background in this article, because the topic of this article is the identity.--Trystan (talk) 19:58, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Trystan, I've read your points carefully. I disagree. The article is called "queer". My points have been explained at great length above. I've added the necessary sources. Your reversion of the article to its earlier inferior form is uncalled for and unsupported, and amounts to a declaration of an editing war. If you disagree with the editing, spend five hours going over the text (as I have) and improve it. It seems very wrong that someone can spend five minutes casually reviewing five hours of careful editing, and then with an explanation three sentences in length undo the whole thing. The whole point of Wikipedia is to improve these articles, not to argue with each other. If you dislike the new article, I ask you to improve it, if you wish, not to destroy the improvements. If there is some kind of adjudicator who can resolve this expeditiously, let's go to that process. I really do not wish to be forced into an "undo" battle. This article was a mess, and now it's much better. It still needs work though. Who's going to do that? Schildewaert (talk) 19:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

It's difficult to understand how this article got a "B" rating. Someone needs to review that. Schildewaert (talk) 19:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

As an outsider to this debate right now, I can see advantages to the current structure, but political, non-neutral point of view WP:NPOV phrasing in the new descriptions, particularly repetition and hightlighting of "strange" and "odd" and a lack of WP:VERIFY. Frankly, the repetition/highlighting comes across just as some editor doing the same to a definition of 'gay' meaning 'happy'. Non-political usages of queer are as diverse as Queer as Folk (disambiguation page to show multi-region Uk/US use of the term), and Queer Screen, Australia. Nsw2042 (talk) 00:31, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Schildewaert, in an attempt to keep this discussion focusing on the substance of the article, I have replied to you at some length on your talk page. Rivertorch (talk) 17:02, 31 January 2014 (UTC)