Tag: queer stuff

auntbutch:

people have been debating the political efficacy and ethical concerns of using the word “queer” as a self-identifier, unifying term to describe populations, and/or theoretical framework for decades. these debates are not about two sides, where one side thinks it’s great and the other thinks it’s terrible and everybody in either camp agrees with everybody else in their camp. larry kramer’s argument against the use of “queer” is not at all the same as cathy j. cohen’s critique of queer theory and queer activism and their deployment of “queer”. similarly, the way that michael warner imagines the applications of “queer” is not the same as how karen barad uses “queer” to describe natural phenomena. the way that queer as folk invokes “queer” in its title is different than how the office invokes “queer” as an insult. “smear the queer” uses the word differently than “we’re here, we’re queer”. it’s a difficult word, largely by design when it comes to contemporary applications/reclamations. 

any simplistic single history of the word “queer” or of feelings about the word “queer” is already a failure, not only in terms of accuracy, but also just in understanding of how people have come to conceive of “queer” as a thing that cannot be pinned down, easily defined or made stable. whether or not you agree what that understanding, to not include that aspect of the word in your attempt to theorize around it is an unforgivable blind spot. “queer” is complicated, it has multiple histories and meanings, and not accounting for that, especially when talking as if you’re an expert on the issue, is an enormous failure. lgbtq people have rich and complex histories and cultures. if you’re not willing to account for that, then get out of the business of trying to tell our stories. 

pervocracy:

Tagging and trigger-warning/content-noting ought to be a neutral act–after all, you’re only telling people what’s in a piece of content, you’re not censoring it.  But deciding which things need to be tagged is never entirely neutral.

Imagine if every time you posted a picture of your dog, people reblogged it with “#dog cn,” “#dog tw,” “#dog phobia,” “#d-word.”  And every time you posted a picture of your cat, people reblogged it with “#awww” and “#hi kitty.”

Strictly speaking, they haven’t said anything untrue or negative about your dog, and dog phobia is a real thing that exists.  But you would still get the message loud and clear that these people feel differently about dogs and cats.

arokaladin:

shit tier: that character is popularly headcanoned as gay and they’re implied not to be straight in canon so it’s homophobic to headcanon them as aromantic ://

good tier: headcanons aren’t canon and all lgbt people need them to be able to see themselves in the media they love, also coding isn’t always intended.

god tier: As well as often not being intentional, one type of ‘coding’ can easily overlap with another. A character that easily reads as queer will often be headcanoned as gay, since that identity is better known that asexuality and aromanticism (and has a larger community), but could be headcanoned as aromantic for similar reasons as they are headcanoned as gay, ie. disinterest in dating, especially with their ‘opposite’ gender. A character resonating with both the gay and aromantic community should be a cause of reflection on the fact that both communities have similar experiences and would benefit from solidarity, not an excuse for aphobia.

I think Queer is possibly singled out as an irreclaimable slur/identity term because it is such a fluid and encompassing term. Literally anyone who feels they fall outside of cishetero-normativity can use Queer and that is where it comes up against objections. People who want to cause rifts within the community will fight against its use and shout “Queer is a slur” and exclusionists pick it up and use it as a way to close people out. They don’t want the umbrella wide like Queer gives us

apersnicketylemon:

thefisherqueen:

terflies:

Oh yes, absolutely.

Queer is dangerous to these people; they want it to be a slur.

We’re here, we’re queer, we’re dangerous to gatekeepers, and that’s a good thing

It’s especially apparent that their real issue is not with it ‘being a slur’ when we consider the term ‘MOGAI’.

This term was not a slur. It had no ‘problematic’ beginnings, has never been co-opted by straight and cis society, was for us by us, did not include anyone who did not need to be included, but it was very inclusive. So they lied about it, rejected it, and use it as an insult against people. They talk about ‘The mogai’s and ‘mogai identities’ as though they’re some kind of joke. They talk about it like it’s the worst thing you could be to them.

Again, there is nothing wrong with the term. It’s just too inclusive and encompassing for them. They can’t cause a rift in that community if that’s the acronym. They can’t cut portions out of an ever-expanding community if all the identities are contained within it automatically.

Their current reasoning is ‘it includes pedophiles’ which is a blatant lie (The original coiner was a minor at the time they coined it and they’re also a CSA survivor). The other reasoning I’ve seen is ‘it includes cis and straight women’ (It doesn’t). They have NO real reason to reject that term, especially as it was created to BE the umbrella term they claimed to want so desperately without ‘being a slur’. And yet, they do. Because it’s too inclusive. “Queer is a slur” is at this point, a deflect. They need it to be a slur because it’s too inclusive. They can’t cause a rift in the queer community if the word used for the community is all-encompassing. Just like they need MOGAI to include people it never did, so they can safely reject the label that was just too inclusive for their liking, too difficult to cause rifts in. They need these terms to be dangerous, bad, ‘problematic’ or a slur, because they need us to not have an encompassing umbrella if they are going to maintain their gatekeeping.

calypsolemon:

hot take: the idea that access to rights, community, resources, and aid being limited and therefore it’s necessary to force out groups who don’t need them “as much” is something that’s been ingrained in us from living in a capitalist society that hands us rights and resources as though they are privileges to be earned