Comments on: Queerness

By: Malinda Lo

Malinda Lo — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 21:44:28 +0000

Welcome, Daphne! Thanks for your comment and for sharing your experience. Every time I talk about ASH I tell people that it’s not about being gay — not in the way we understand it. Ash just falls in love with the person she falls in love with, and gender is irrelevant. I think the lack of labels in ASH is partly what makes it, IMO, a fairy tale. Because we seem to still need them in our world, whether for comfort or for help in building a community. But ideally, I think it would be wonderful if we didn’t need them.

By: Malinda Lo

Malinda Lo — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 21:39:46 +0000

This is so interesting! I would say that I know people who are in relationships with someone of the opposite sex, and yet clearly identify as “queer,” but I don’t know that those people identify as “straight.” (They may or may not identify as bisexual.) I think that one’s actions and behaviors can totally BE queer, but being part of the “queer community” is a different thing.

Like, someone who identifies as straight could be doing some very queer things, but they wouldn’t *be* queer. That’s my instinctual reaction to your question, Kirstin, but Sara raises some good points too. Lots to think about.

By: Malinda Lo

Malinda Lo — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 21:33:59 +0000

“any word that can be used to describe itself is pretty cool to me.” –> this is awesome!

By: Malinda Lo

Malinda Lo — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 21:32:56 +0000

Yeah, I think the word evokes strong reactions in people.

By: Malinda Lo

Malinda Lo — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 21:31:53 +0000

Very true! I have friends like that too. I’m not sure that *they* describe themselves as queer though. I’ll have to ask next time I talk to them.

By: Daphne

Daphne — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 20:23:40 +0000

New here! Wonderful post. I just finished Fingersmith, and I love the Velvet quote you have here. I’m pretty squarely right on the middle of the fence, and have no particular term that I feel comfortable with — mostly I feel hemmed in by labels (which I guess is the point). Generally I go with, “I’m just me, and the person I love is a woman” but some people feel the need to label. Queer is as good as anything, although I actually prefer pansexual since I fall for the person, not the package, and people come in many-layered packages as we all know. Am I straight? No. Have I ever been straight? No, but I’ve been in plenty of heterosexual relationships. Am I currently gay? That depends on your definition, but no, not really — I’m bisexual, as I always have been. Am I in a relationship with a woman? Yes. And she’s the most traditional person I have ever been with. And she identifies as ‘tomboy’. So… it’s complicated. Mostly I just think people are people and we should do away with labels altogether. Would make things so much easier. Just love who you love. And let others love whom THEY love. (I know it’s not that easy, but don’t you wish?)

By: Kirstin Cronn-Mills

Kirstin Cronn-Mills — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 14:05:08 +0000

I think we give LOTS of words too much credit. : ) Our culture forces us to do that, in lots of cases, and words are assigned to us whether we like it or not, so we have to pay attention. And I hadn’t thought about the performance angle of things–excellent point, even if we’re not performing on stage. I think I will also emphasize to my students the idea about choosing your label instead of having that label chosen for you. Not many of them will have contemplated that. And “queer”, to my thinking, is definitely a word of choice, because, as you say, people who choose it tend to contemplate how they function against norms.

By: Sara Epperson

Sara Epperson — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 23:55:16 +0000

I don’t think being straight is enough to qualify someone as being in the “norm.” I definitely think straight people can be queer. I think the word queer is used to describe one’s sexuality, but also one’s gender. Being queer could apply to any letter of the alphabet soup.
The idea of queerness meaning that someone doesn’t fit a “norm” is pretty complicated. I believe when Judith Butler was describing notions of normative gender, she said that that idea was like a copy for which there was no original. This is where all the fascinating conversations come in about what is normal, or what is different from the norm, because it’s so hard to pinpoint what the norm is. Does it really exist? Are the “normal” people that way naturally, or have they perfected their performance (that’s the kind of thing many drag kings/queens poke fun at)? Does it matter?
Maybe being queer goes beyond even those things. Because if there is a quiz that will tell you whether or not you are queer, it could end up like any other label. For someone to identify as queer (or be willing to identify as queer), I think they are doing more than assessing their gender or sexuality. There is some contemplation about how one fits against norms, and a decision is made about how much one values mainstream societal norms.
Am I giving this word too much credit?
This also begs the question– are all gay people queer?

By: Kirstin

Kirstin — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 21:26:15 +0000

Do you think straight people can be queer? Based on your post, if queerness isn’t about sexual identification, then it should be an identity available to the A part of the LGBTA acronym. Yes? No? What do you think? Or is it not available to straights because they are part of the “norm,” and “queer” identifies something outside of “normal”? I’d love to incorporate a conversation like this into my gender comm class next semester, so I’m wondering . . . I’ve never seen it applied to straights, but what about allies?

By: A. Grey

A. Grey — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 18:30:06 +0000

Righteous! I almost added how much I love queer because it is its own definition!