So far we have raised 0% of our monthly running costs! Thanks for your generosity!

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Why be unkind?
#21
OrphanPip Wrote:In the academic context, queer and gay are not synonymous, queer is used precisely to get away from the problems of words like gay, lesbian and bisexual, which to some extent are professed identities. How do we talk about those who don't feel they fit into those strict categories? How do we address certain sexual behaviors in a historical context, where concepts of gay or lesbian identity didn't exist?

David Halperan's definition makes the distinction clearer: "Queer is by definition whatever is at odds with the normal, the legitimate, the dominant. There is nothing in particular to which it necessarily refers. It is an identity without an essence. 'Queer' then, demarcates not a positivity but a positionality vis-à-vis the normative."

In this sense, gay people may be defined as queer (some might begin to argue that gays have moved out of the deviant category into the normative, but I think that would be difficult to defend), but they are not all that queerness is. The S&M community is queer, the fetishist is queer, the pedophile is queer. To discuss the nature of queerness is not really to discuss LGBT people, but to discuss how society as a whole speaks of and understands difference.

I think I understood all that. I believe what I am trying to say is that it is an imensely poor word to choose because of its history. How do you avoid excluding people like me from studying your the subject? You realize when you write about queer people you are specifically excluding people like me who are offended and self identify as definitely not one of them? Do you see? Academics used to use the word homosexual but don't anymore because it offends people to whom that was applied as a mental illness. For what ever reasons, academics decided to ignore those who protest against the word when they adopted it and they can stop ignoring us and adopt another word now. Or intentionally exclude us from being involved, even tangetially.
Reply
#22
It's kind of hard to take a new word for something we already have an accepted one. The problem with coming up with something entirely different to address the subject is that it loses a visceral connection to the subject, queer works precisely because it is so provocative. The word is already a stand in for the older term "deviant," and queer has the benefit of being more open to positive reinterpretations.
When a subject is highly controversial — and any question about sex is that — one cannot hope to tell the truth. One can only show how one came to hold whatever opinion one does hold. One can only give one's audience the chance of drawing their own conclusions as they observe the limitations, the prejudices, the idiosyncrasies of the speaker.
- Virginia Woolf
Reply
#23
a lot has changed in the last few years.
read something >5years old and it will be outdated
this is a better time than any to be gay
Reply
#24
OrphanPip Wrote:It's kind of hard to take a new word for something we already have an accepted one. The problem with coming up with something entirely different to address the subject is that it loses a visceral connection to the subject, queer works precisely because it is so provocative. The word is already a stand in for the older term "deviant," and queer has the benefit of being more open to positive reinterpretations.

And the disadvantage of already unavoidably negative and hurtful. Why would you purposely use a word that excludes people? I am neither represented by the word queer nor can I read any article where that is being used to refer to a group of people I should otherwise belong to. It leaves me sick and shakeing. Can't you see that it is important to accomodate those of us who have already been hurt the most?
Reply
#25
OrphanPip Wrote:It's kind of hard to take a new word for something we already have an accepted one. The problem with coming up with something entirely different to address the subject is that it loses a visceral connection to the subject, queer works precisely because it is so provocative. The word is already a stand in for the older term "deviant," and queer has the benefit of being more open to positive reinterpretations.

Queer is intentionally exclusive precisely because it is so provacative. Most actual scholars look to be as neutral as possible in their language, I understand from a mathematician friend of mine.
Reply
#26
I personally am against all forms of censorship, because it sets a standard of which certain people will have to decide what's allowed and what isn't, and when you give any group of people that kind of power, it inevitably will be lusted after and abused.

Not to mention, I think it's stupid to bleep/silence words out of shows or songs because you'll know what word was being used almost every time...so what's the point?

I'm someone who can come forward and say that I'm extremely guilty of using words like queer, gay, homo, and fag in my daily language, even now. However, when I am around someone who I know (or think) is homosexual or bi, I stop myself from saying them until I've determined their stance on it. I'm also someone who doesn't give a shit what you call me, whether joking or not.

I personally don't want to go around pissing people off. I think it's great if we can all say what we want without reprucussions, but I don't see the point in callously ignoring how other's feel just to satisfy some internal desire to be dominant and allowed to say whatever.

That being said, I think if anyone is getting sick and so stressed out that even seeing a show with a title like "Queer eye for the straight guy" causes them mental anxiety, then that's something they personally need to deal with. That's a bit extreme if you ask me, and I honestly get annoyed when people are so damned sensitive. And that applies to any example you want it to, not just gayness.

For example, I worked at Chili's as a cook and one day my friend (fellow cook) and I were talking and it was busy as hell and I said something to the effect of "Oh god if I could just blow my brains out". There was a waitress on the other side of the heatlamp table and she got all offended saying I shouldn't talk like that because her grandfather committed suicide by gunshot and shit. That sort of incident is what annoys me. How is a stranger or even a friendly acquantance supposed to know something like that? And furthermore, should you rationally expect to never hear someone jokingly say something about shooting themselves or someone else just because of a tragic incident in your family?



So what I'm ultimately saying is, these words are just words. If everyone stopped giving a damn about them, then they wouldn't be a problem. That goes for nigger, cunt, faggot, bitch, queer, dyke, spic, coon, faggot, and any other curse word or racial/gender/sexual slur you can come up with. Words are just words and if people stop getting so up in arms over it, then we'd all have at least 1 less thing to stress out about.
Reply
#27
ZackT Wrote:I personally am against all forms of censorship, because it sets a standard of which certain people will have to decide what's allowed and what isn't, and when you give any group of people that kind of power, it inevitably will be lusted after and abused.

Not to mention, I think it's stupid to bleep/silence words out of shows or songs because you'll know what word was being used almost every time...so what's the point?

I'm someone who can come forward and say that I'm extremely guilty of using words like queer, gay, homo, and fag in my daily language, even now. However, when I am around someone who I know (or think) is homosexual or bi, I stop myself from saying them until I've determined their stance on it. I'm also someone who doesn't give a shit what you call me, whether joking or not.

I personally don't want to go around pissing people off. I think it's great if we can all say what we want without reprucussions, but I don't see the point in callously ignoring how other's feel just to satisfy some internal desire to be dominant and allowed to say whatever.

That being said, I think if anyone is getting sick and so stressed out that even seeing a show with a title like "Queer eye for the straight guy" causes them mental anxiety, then that's something they personally need to deal with. That's a bit extreme if you ask me, and I honestly get annoyed when people are so damned sensitive. And that applies to any example you want it to, not just gayness.

For example, I worked at Chili's as a cook and one day my friend (fellow cook) and I were talking and it was busy as hell and I said something to the effect of "Oh god if I could just blow my brains out". There was a waitress on the other side of the heatlamp table and she got all offended saying I shouldn't talk like that because her grandfather committed suicide by gunshot and shit. That sort of incident is what annoys me. How is a stranger or even a friendly acquantance supposed to know something like that? And furthermore, should you rationally expect to never hear someone jokingly say something about shooting themselves or someone else just because of a tragic incident in your family?



So what I'm ultimately saying is, these words are just words. If everyone stopped giving a damn about them, then they wouldn't be a problem. That goes for nigger, cunt, faggot, bitch, queer, dyke, spic, coon, faggot, and any other curse word or racial/gender/sexual slur you can come up with. Words are just words and if people stop getting so up in arms over it, then we'd all have at least 1 less thing to stress out about.

Excuse me for being so sensitive. It is not my choice. I have Post-tramatic stress dissorder because of experiences I have had around homophobia. I can't help that and if you think it is "all in my mind" or some such, I think you are being ignorant about mental healt issues. I don't blame you. You are a very common person.
Reply
#28
I believe ZackT is a troll.
Reply
#29
Pix Wrote:Actually, I don't like the n word even when used by blacks. I have a thick skin, however, and shrug it off when it's so used.

Speaking of which, my thick skin makes me far more endurable when it comes to people bashing me verbally. I've grown up having to endure slut rumors and satanist rumors and while annoying I found the funny side to it, too. Trolls on the net almost never get under my skin, though I usually hold them in contempt (exceptions for the ones who are actually funny). I personally hate the "that's so gay" description but can overlook it when it's used on South Park, and I don't avoid it for the sake of my health & safety. I've laughed and shrugged off death threats over the net when I knew there was no chance of violence. So given this it's impossible for me to understand how shows like Queer Eye for the Straight Guy threatens your health & safety. And I just can't help but think that surely you've survived far worse things in your life than this and so wonder why this even signifies.

That said, "queer" is like twink, dyke, and other words that I'm never sure is acceptable to use or not. (I never use "fag" but I realize some gays in other countries do and just shrug it off when they use it because they don't mean it in a bad way.) When I know it's ok to use it I will, otherwise I avoid it. However, I'm not offended by being called a queer or a dyke (if I am then it's the context and/or tone of voice, not the word itself)...and back when I was a teenage boi I think I'd have laughed if someone mistakenly called me a twink.

But you want to talk about unfair and unkind? Then let's talk about trying to control people's behavior with guilt tripping and telling others they are terrible people who are no good if they don't do what you say. That's not only unkind but it also implies that you think you're better than the rest of us.

Want to talk about ageist? Then how about telling the younger gays and genderqueers (a liberating word for them as they don't want to be trapped in a "male/female" dichotomy) that they can't use it because it offends SOME in your generation? Expecting younger people to kowtow to you and that there's something wrong with them because they use words differently than you do sounds far more ageist to me because it paints them in a negative light (whereas their intent and meaning does not, no matter how offensive you personally find it) and paints them as self-destructive hooligans for having the temerity to do things differently from your generation.

And for that matter if it's ageist to offend your generation then I suppose I was ageist when I told my Granny that I was a lesbian because she was NOT happy (though she adjusted). Maybe she just wasn't beautiful enough for me to have upset her like that?

Thankfully, change in attitudes and how words are used isn't ageist, it's simply change. Because if we were bound to what our elders think then our community wouldn't even exist at all in the first place (at least not openly) because it would've been "ageist" for your generation to have offended your elders that way back then.

It's ok for you to not appreciate these words, and to ask that others try to refrain from using them around you, but quite another to try to guilt others into believing your way of interpreting the words are the only allowable interpretations and everyone else is wrong, cruel, ageist, harmful, and even imply they're traitors to the gay community. But tolerance isn't just something others owe to you, but is something you owe to others as well.

This is not a matter of not having a thick skin. I can't just "buck up," or something I have to prepare myself for this experience here, and it still leaves me sick and shakeing. I have been in ongoing psycho therapy for more than 15 years. I am on four kinds of Brain Pills. I am not the only person with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder involving homophobia. The specific refrence to physical safety and mental health are because if I go to my any LGBT type community center or bar, my passions are such that I'm likely to either be traumatized mentally by refraining to speak and all the self-esteem loss that involves or risk getting in a fist fight. From the looks of him, I couldn't protect myself from the likes of ZackT, but I would likely get in a fight with him.

I don't see how pointing out my exclusion is unfair or unkind. What do you mean? If you feel guilty because I am pointing out your insensitivity, then perhaps you have a conscience?

I never said anybody can't use the word. I said it should be censored by the media and should not be used publicly in a facility that renders services to the entire community because many of us are traumatized in just this way. Others are sympathetic to our plight and it offends them for that reason. So a little accomodation in public places is all we want. Go ahead and slur yourself in private dear.

I would respond to the bit about your granny, but I don't know what you mean. Did you do it to her in a public place maybe? I don't know.

I said quite clearly that I agree there are other definitions of the words. I never ever said they were wrong in the definition. I just question the necessity of using an ugly slur in place of an all-inclusive word that doesn't exclude those already traumatized once.
Reply
#30
I believe ZackT surmises the way a majority think and feel, just because it is contrary to the way you think and feel doesn't give you the right to lose your manners and call someone a troll.

You started a discussion and asked for opinions and got them, don't go slagging people of who think differently to you.

Your extreme reaction to an inocuous set of letters that happen to spell out a word that you don't like puts you in an extreme minority, it's certainly the first time I have ever heard of anyone being physically sick by the use of any word, and in my mind that isn't natural. Sorry to be blunt, but 6 999 999 999 don't get physically sick by the use of the word Queer and 1 person does...who has the problem?
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)