GLBTQ

[Absaroka]

I went to college orientation a couple of days ago with my daughter. Many presentations by many people about the resources available to the students. One of them was labeled GLBTQ which is gay, lesbian, bisexual, transexual, queer. I hadn't heard this before. Kind of nice that they now have a "none of the above" category.

Absaroka

[CJ]

Hi all,

I've been into what scholars (and would-be scholars) call "Queer Studies" for quite some time now. It's not so much that "Queer" means "none of the above" as it does "all of the above." Queer Studies examine (or, in the case of Queer Theory, "deconstruct") both sexual orientation and gender as they pertain to social discourse, the arts, literature, and the Humanities in general. "Queer" is meant to be an inclusive term. Moreover, queerness is political. If you're a highly politicized fag, you're queer. If you're a strutting, flaming queen, you're queer. If you openly swing both ways, you're queer. Queer is anyone who is visibly not straight, not vanilla, not bland, and not gender-traditional. By this definition, some (many?) of us, here, on the forum, are queer (or, more accurately, genderqueer). The straight SOs are an exception (and this is where some of the tension in our couples can originate).

There's some controversy with the use of the term. Many (most?) non-scholar TGs will reject it because of the word being traditionally associated with homosexuality exclusively. I, for one, think the term useful and, well, cute. I like my queerness. In its original meaning, the word simply meant "strange" or "bent." I'll drink to that! I'm proud of my "bentness" (or, is that "bentity"? ). I am a charmed bentity; call me a Quark!

If you think GLBTQ is inclusive, here in Montreal the umbrella moniker is "GLBTTA": "Gai(e), Lesbienne, Bisexuel(le), Travesti(e), Transsexuel(le), et Ami(e)s" (In English, "Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Crossdresser, Transsexual, and Friends.") Now that's inclusive! Most people, when discussing the group, just join the two "Ts" and call it "GLBTA." Still, the whole shebang could come under the term "Queer."

For more info:

Wikipedia on the term "Queer"
Wikipedia on Queer Studies

Love,
CJ

[Kay]

call me a Quark!

In the sixth season of DS9, transvestism is used for humorous effect in "Profit and Lace". Quark's mother suffers a heart attack prior to a critical meeting with an influential businessman she had hoped to recruit to the cause of women's rights on the Ferengi home world. As there are no other Ferengi females on the station, Quark undergoes a temporary sex change, becoming a female named Lumba. She attempts to impress the man, who flirts and falls in love with her, chasing Lumba around a room. The episode was intended to be lighthearted.

Kay

[Virginia]

Thanks, CJ!

Another "site" that I visit has what seem to be endless agruments about "terminology" and who is what. I, like, you feel that a lot of us on this forum fall under the term, as you describe, and the "medical" community is adopting, as "Queer." It is kinda cute and even without a name attached to an individual that fits the definition, it does place those who are looking for some distinguishing "style" if you will. Someone who is not quite sure where they fit and/or are quite happy with there "lot in life" that is to have someone "pigeon-hole" them. To be able to say, "Yes that is what I am, someone who is not quite sure who I am, yet I know I am different (ah! the 'gift!")

Go Forth Woman and BE!!!!

Love you all,

Virginia

[DonnaT]

Besides Queer Studies
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queer_studies

the Q stands for Genderqueer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genderqueer

[Anita]

Hi--
I've seen it taken out to include "I" (intersexed) and a second "Q" for "questioning." At that point, it's very unwieldy, and gets a lot of parodies in the news columns of the local gay paper.

CJ, I don't think most or any of us are what I've come to think of as "genderqueer." That's the individuals who do not want to be identified as either gender, or want to be free to be both genders simultaneously. They are usually very political about this issue, and dress in ways that are as gender neutral as they can. Or they dress in ways that are as outrageous as they can, but they don't concentrate on one gender's clothing to do it (as a drag queen would do).

[SandiAnne]

Ah, labels. As a comic once said, call me anything you like. Just don't call me late for dinner.

Now "Quark?" Hmmm. Don't I remember that from a physics class a zillion years ago?

And as for people who dress outrageously - did you mean as in the now passe term "flaming" or as in a case of a bearded gentleman in a cami and a mini skirt which at one time was called genderf***?

When I am with GG friends who sometimes forget I am the only male there (even en drab) I always label myself by saying, "Oh, don't mind me. I'm just one of the girls."

Sandianne

[CJ]

Hi all,

Anita,

You're right, of course. People who are very politicized--such as activists, for instance--will understand the term "Queering" in its strictest sense, i.e., as the subversion of all notions of gender. At one time, Kate Bornstein was a good example of someone in this camp (no pun intended). Yet, today, the definition (or connotation) seems to be expanding in order to be more inclusive. Although FtM and MtF crossdressers and transsexuals don't necessarily challenge gender normativity (after all, they're merely "exchanging" one gender for another rather than throwing the very notion of gender down the garbage chute), their "performance" of gender remains transgressive and this, I think, is enough for us to suppose that they, too, engage in the act of queering gender... even if it is the queering of a gender (masculine or feminine) rather than a queering of all gender.

Virginia,

You're right, too. And that's the whole point for Queers (and, presumably, Genderqueers); they refuse to be grouped under a heading (gender) which they believe to be an inconvenient falsehood, a mere social construct. As one of our best exemplars of queerness on the board, Violet, used to argue, the notion of gender is a form of social control that is part and parcel of a culture's dominant ideology, its principal aim being to prevent individuals with transgressive identities (and potentially transgressive identities) from flourishing and so threaten the "established order." Face it, Virginia; though we may be gentle lambs in our hearts (and, yes, in our looks, too, sometimes), we represent a threat to the "common man." Just as the heterotransgressive Gays did, in the recent past. Once people understand or come to see that we, too, are the "common man," we'll be able to breathe a little more easily. I hope.

By the way, if anyone here understands just what the hell queer theorist Judith Butler's talking about, please let me know.

Love,
CJ

[Anita]

By the way, if anyone here understands just what the hell queer theorist Judith Butler's talking about, please let me know.

It is not clear to me at all, given what I read in that link, but I get enough of a glimpse to offer some feedback.

I've heard it said that a big part of gender is performance; we don't just naturally do all the "male" things we're supposed to do--we learn them. It seems like Ms. Butler may be taking the idea to an extreme that discounts biology entirely. She may be saying that we "learn" heterosexuality, too, because we're threatened with ostracism if we don't.

We certainly do learn the behaviors that go with heterosexuality, but the actual feeling/orientation hits like a ton of bricks, once the hormones go to work. I remember reading sex education manuals at around 10 years old, and they just seemed strange to me--why would anyone want to do the things they described? And when I was first in the Boy Scouts, it was boring to listen to the older boys go on and on about girls.

Then the hormones showed up, and suddenly, it all made sense. It was not a choice; I didn't get to pick who I was going to be attracted to. It just happened, from chemicals racing around in my blood. If Ms. Butler is trying to deny that this had an influence on my behavior, then I'd have to argue differently.