FemPeacePower

I’ve been thinking about the term “queer.” In the past, the word meant “strange, odd, weird,” and, I suppose, technically and literally, still does. But in recent years the word has become something entirely different. It’s been taken and reclaimed, turned around and made positive, by the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) community. As I understand it, the word encompasses even more than the standard LGBT acronym. ‘Queer’ refers to anyone and everyone whose gender, sexual identity, or sexual orientation is non-normative; is weird, is different, is something “other”- pansexuals, asexuals, transvestites, intersex individuals, two-spirits, pomosexuals, hermaphrodites, etc, etc, etc. (I took a course at Evergreen recently about all of this. The theories and terms and names are still all on my mind.)

But there are issues with the reclamation of the word, and disagreements about the current and correct usage of it. One thing I’ve run across: older generations don’t necessarily like the word. They don’t buy that the term “queer” can be a positive descriptor of sex- and gender-deviant persons, that it can be reclaimed and turned positive. For these middle-aged baby boomers, who were the ones to pave the way so that my generation’s homosexuals could be out and proud, ‘queer’ was derogatory, an insult flung at them during riots along with physical objects and other slurs like “faggot” and “dyke.” They know how hurtful “queer” can be, and aren’t so sure that us younger generations taking it back and shifting its meaning to a positive, all-encompassing term, is a good thing.

Another issue: the new meaning of the term is somewhat vague. Who’s to say who’s “queer” and who’s not? Is a primarily heterosexual woman who has had one or two sexual encounters with men queer? Or the opposite: a gay woman who has slept with a few men? What about a FTM who, upon transitioning, starts dating men? What about an individual who rejects both male and female pronouns and instead opts for gender-neutral pronouns like “zie?” What IS queer? The problems start when people begin to get defensive about it. I know some people who use the term, but do so selectively. Some call themselves queer but then tell others that they cannot or should not. Some hesitate to invite certain people to social events because they’re not “queer enough.” Who’s to judge? It seems to me that some of my generation (of early 20-somethings, of college kids) have taken the term too far, become too judgmental with it, too nit-picky.

This issue of “who is queer, who is not” leads to another problem that I’ve seen happen recently among friends of mine in the (fairly small and somewhat exclusive) LGBT/queer community we belong to here in Olympia: the issue of “queer space.” Some individuals I know argue for the importance of creating and strictly maintaining “queer-only” spaces. This essentially means no straight people, no allies. They throw parties which they sometimes advertise as such, as specifically “queer-only.” But, first of all, isn’t this confusing? If no one actually knows who is queer and who isn’t, because the term itself is so damn vague, then who can judge who should be allowed at the party and who shouldn’t? Those who advocate for queer-only spaces do so in the name of creating “safety.” The LGBT/queer community has always been (and continues to be) marginalized and oppressed, they say. We (and I include myself in this; I identify as queer) have been targeted and judged, we’ve feared for our safety. The whole rest of the world is “straight-space,” they say, so it is hugely important to have some spaces that are only for queer people, so we can have somewhere where we can be ourselves and feel safe; a place where, for once, LGBT/queer people won’t feel like a marginalized minority.

I don’t disagree with this. Of course we need some spaces where we can be ourselves and of course we have a basic human right to feel safe in a space. But what happens is that when these gatherings (especially college parties!) are “queer-only,” then they become very exclusive. Anybody who isn’t “queer enough” in the eyes of the party hosts feels judged and unwelcome. Allies of the queer community, people who actually fight alongside us for our rights, but don’t happen to be homosexual, are excluded. Heterosexuals who want to come to the parties feel judged and discriminated against, simply for belonging to the sexual majority. A sort of reverse homophobia happens, where the minority (the LGBT/queer community), which has always fought for equality and for fair treatment for themselves, doesn’t “practice what they preach.” They turn around and perpetuate the same judgment and discrimination on others (namely, non- “queer” people) that they’ve been fighting against!

So what to do? There’s no easy answer to this quandary, but I think a lot of it has to do with everyone’s attitude. Kicking straight people out of a party because the queers have decided they don’t want them there anymore is rude and only perpetuates reverse homophobia (or, I guess, “heterophobia”). (I’ve seen this happen, and many feelings were hurt all around.) I suggest a peaceful, respectful sit-down to discuss the issue and to create safe spaces for queer people without furthering a strict and exclusive queer-only agenda like I know so many people to do. Perhaps in the course of the sit-down we can also discuss the actual meaning of the word “queer,” and how people feel about it, including whether people think that the word is an acceptable identifier, or whether it’s simply a label for a group of homosexual or non-hetero-normative people, which is another issue and one I got into an argument over recently.

Stay tuned for more on this later; I could go on. “Queer” issues seem to me huge and very prevalent right now.
photo credit: -Marlith-