What does the Q in LGBTQ stand for?

Syth

Last week one someone approached me and asked to sign a petition about the UCD lecturer's remarks, as mentioned in a recent thread. The text at the top mentioned LGBTQ student. L, G, B and T I understand, but Q? I asked her and she said it stood for Queer. I asked what was the difference between queer and homosexual. She said that homosexual was to strict a definition, so queer was made up to be more broad. Made some kind of sense at the time.

But thinking about it, I wondered. (for the sake of simplicity, i'm using men in my example) Hetrosexual men like women, homosexual men like men, bisexual men like men and women, what do queer men like? Can one be queer and hetrosexual or is mutually exclusive? Basically what does 'queer' mean?

yellum

Apparently this is the UCD Definition (got this via the UCC LGB Soc website)

Queer theory emerged from the writings of Michelle Foucault and was based on a Marxist premise of the 19th century. Basically in the 19th century industrial capitalism was born. The new cites and factories needed a readily available (and cheap) labour force.

Hence the nuclear family was constructed/emerged which was a cheap, efficient and reliable way of producing children (rather than the tribal groups that had been the dominant social organisation prior to this).

This creates a problem, as heterosexual and homosexual acts were common to both sexes before this and were not seen as a detriment to a healthy marriage as long as you still produced children (there is a lot of historical documentation to this effect - especially around the nobility).

Capitalist 'modern' families were required however to produce children to be used in the labour force. (People engaging in homosexual acts weren't creating babies - or so it was thought) Hence an artificial binary was set up between heterosexuality (word first used 1879) & homosexuality (word first used 1869). The words didn't even exist for these things till after 1860 (and "homosexuality" came first). Hence heterosexuality can only exist in opposition to homosexuality. One can't exist without the other.

Therefore being gay/lesbian and fighting a battle for equality merely props up the notion that there is a binary between the two: hetero & homo. Queers don't believe this. We are opposed to the idea of heterosexuality as "normal". Why is it normal, who or what made it so? Why is orientation so important as an identity? Surely who I want to sleep with is not the most important part of our sexual identity? S/M people's identity is more concerned with what they do in bed, Transgendered people with
their gender (- which will obviously have a big effect on your sexual identity) etc.

Queers define themselves in opposition to the idea of heterosexuality, patriarchy, two cast iron genders, vanilla sex etc. as the "norm" or as we put it hetro-normativity. We want to tear down the assumptions and binaries i.e. hetero-homo, vanilla-s/m, male-female, public-private.

Gay and lesbian as terms don't cover us. How do you define either of those? If you ask 10 LGB people you'll get 10 different answers. Lots of people who are "straight" have had same sex sexual experiences, many people who call themselves G&L have had mixed sex experiences - does that make them any less gay/lesbian? G&L are identities/lifestyles we have attached to certain sexual practices. The problem is the more you look at the barriers between straight-gay the weaker they become. What about Men-who-sleep-with-men (MSM's). What about men who define as straight and "play around" in the locker room. What about the s/m straights - are they considered normal? Or are they lumped in as deviants with the faggots? What about the self-proclaimed lesbian who sleeps with men? If she doesn't define as bisexual does she stop being a lesbian? + Who are any of us to tell someone what their identity is? Our qualm about bisexuality (while there would be lots of queers who would sleep with both sexes) is that if, as we see it, the division between hetero-homo doesn't exist: changing it to hetero-homo-bi doesn't make it any better at defining the complicated mess that is sexuality/gender for so many people.

Queer identities are deeply political. We define ourselves against what we see as wrong with society. We use the word "Queer" because it has negative connotations. Why should we let a word have such power over us -why should homophobes be able to use it against us? When we use it about ourselves, we reclaim it - we take its power over us away, and the power of others to use it to hurt us. We believe all of us who are outside the sexuality- gender mainstream (and this can include those who engage in heterosexual acts on occasion
as well) have to work together to combat homophobia, patriarchy and gender terrorism.

We believe in direct action and consciousness raising. We want to make the general populace see that their (male-)heterosexual privilege exists at the expense of others. We want them to have to explain their "straight" identity to us as Gay and Lesbian people have had to explain and justify theirs. We are not, or at least in my own case, happy to be a: depoliticised, rhinestone belt & tight t-shirt wearing Gay man who society can put in a stereotyped box and call me acceptable. I don't want to be tolerated/accepted/assimilated by this society, not until it is one free of homophobia, sexism, transphobia and every other disgusting prejudice. And for me the only way to do that is to destroy heterosexuality - to bring down the "normal" and all the assumptions that prop it up.

Edited to highlight this is someone elses definition and not my own.

Syth

Hmmm... interesting... I can see the reason behind coming up with the word Queer, but I think some of the logic is misguided. Such as the idea that it's society that created male and female, or that capatalism created hetrosexuality, or discouraged homosexuality, merely to produce more workers.

heterosexuality (word first used 1879) & homosexuality (word first used 1869). The words didn't even exist for these things till after 1860

Although the words might not have existed until then (in English at least) The concept was know for thousands of years. Just look at the old testament.

Surely who I want to sleep with is not the most important part of our sexual identity?

But one's sexual identity is expressed in the people one sleeps with. Sexual identity and who you sleep with is closely linked

their (male-)heterosexual privilege exists at the expense of others

Huh? what '(male-)heterosexual privilege'?

We want them to have to explain their "straight" identity to us as Gay and Lesbian people have had to explain and justify theirs

But if people are opposed to something, then why try to get other people to do the same? It's the Eye for an Eye 'logic'.

And for me the only way to do that is to destroy heterosexuality - to bring down the "normal" and all the assumptions that prop it up.

My your very inclusive! Destroy the hetrosexuals.

In a way what you have said is related to the nature-nurture debate. How much of sexuality/gender is created by the surrounding culture? Personally I beliveve that it should matter one bit whether one's sexuality/gender is controlled by genes or whether your parents put you in pink or blue clothing, or whether your mother was too dominering or if you lacked a strong male figure, or if you have a 'gay gene' (if they find one).

Equality is an ethical idea that says that we shouldn't care about lots of stuff like sexuality. Thus we shouldn't care if homosexulaity is the norm in the natural world. Just because something is 'natural' don't make it ethical. Sickness is natural, medicine is unnatural.

I still don't really understand what queer means, and I don't see what's wong with using lesbian, gay or bisexual. I like girls, but I like some kinds of girls more than others. To use your 'straight men playing around in the shower' idea, perhaps they are bisexuals who prefer women to a large degree. Everyone could be accustomed.

If someone calls themselfs 'queer' (as opposed to L, G or fair enough. But if someone else was to observe what they did, all their sexual actions would fit into either LG or B, so that person would call then LG or B. Adding in another label is just confusing.

yellum

In a lot of american places the Q stands for Questioning where people have not decided if they are L G or B or straight but here it stands for Queer.

To me Queer is L or G or B but apparently not so for the UCD definition which I posted.

Falkorre

Methinks it *should* stand for "Queen",... as one does not necesserilly have to be the other!

B

Syth

Edited to highlight this is someone elses definition and not my own.

Wise move, I wasn't sure where (if at all) you started and the quote ended. So read my reply as replying to the authour of that quote, not you. kinda pointless since they probably haven't read it... ah well...

Q stands for Questioning

That'd be smarter.

So basically queer could be anything. The vast majority of people will think queer stood for gay (but with negative connections), so it's probably not the best word to use. Ah well.

As for it being the UCD definitiion, the SU just has a LGB rights officer, no Q (or T). Some people in UCD use it.

Andor

I've read UCD's Definition of 'Queer'.

I can totally understand how a person would oppose the idea of fixed labels, however i think that can be done without incorporating so much hip-happenin' coffeeshop cack.

Queer identities are deeply political. We define ourselves against what we see as wrong with society.

It appears that the students who wish to identify themselves as queer are doing so because they themselves wish to subscribe to yet another label, this one being more 'trendy', complete with neo-revolutionist undertones.

qwertyphobia

Queer is one of thoese things that means lots of different things to different people

It came to the fore in the US during the 80's as part of the whole ACT UP and Queer Nation responce to HIV and the lack of political involment in the responce.

In europe it has tended to be dominated by a more middle class/college/interlectual set who go into the whole Foucault side of things.

But there is a set of people who use it just because they don't like the limitations and divisions set up by the LGB.

I have more time for the third set of people

Zombrex

Originally posted by Dawntreader
Methinks it *should* stand for "Queen",... as one does not necesserilly have to be the other!

B

"Today we do the dance of the Fairy Queen. You can either be a fairy or a queen."

The Simpsons

dr_manhattan

Kinda surprised by this: so here's my 2,341 cents ;-)

As someone who has experimented extensively with my sexuality, I am often introduced by gay friends in the US as 'queer'. Queer is a word I am fond of, as it is undefined: and an awful lot of "definition", i.e. "are you gay, bi, trans" has been forced on people by the so-called heterosexual majority.

These days, I'm in a steady "hetero" relationship, but I still feel "queer". My mate L. from the states uses the term "genderqueer", but hey, sexuality is enough of an essay without going inot gender: do people here see gender as separate from sexuality? I know I damn well do.

Anyways, where was I? Aha:

I think it's important to realise that sexuality is not some lego style this-peg-goes-in-this-hole 5-way limited permutation scenario. For example, what would you call someone who prefers both sexes at the same time? Not really bi, "bisexual" describes someone who wants one or the other: what about those who prefer both?

Howsabout this; Is wanting sex with one woman the same as wanting sex with 6 women? (and I mean, actually wanting it. Most heteros are conditioned to want loads of sex, not all heteros actually enjoy threesomes/orgies as much as they're "supposed to". Nor, despite the stereotype of a revenous sexual appetite, do all gay people. It's a predilection, a taste, a.... sexual orientation.

Another concrete example is gay men who only fancy straight men: this, IMHO, is different to gay men who like any man. Friends of mine have been utterly uninterested in gay men, because they want something qualitatively different.

...and then there's those who get sexual gratification from all sorts of mad things. Feet, pedals, enclosure, whatever... all the way down the line to shagging animals while you stab them ;-)

Now, please don't get bogged down with these examples, they're silly. I'd just liek to ask a few questions and I'll beon my way, folks...

Though pretty pompous and revolution oriented, I approve strongly of the rhetoric used by these UCD student benders, LOL. Sexuality is fundamental to society and its rigid structure, therefore Thinking about sexuality is almost a duty whilst in college (and anywhere else - but college is usually experiment time). Also, when attempting to ground oneself AS oneself, surely it's best to approach the problem as important: and people think of politics as important. So why not use politics?

Syth, A few points:

1) sexuality is not just who you choose to sleep with. This would mean that I am the same as all other heterosexual men. I am not. There is more to sex than 5 permutations, you know. Society convinces us that sex is about whyou ****: so what are celibates then? Do they have no sexuality? What about those for whom sexual gratification requires no penetration?

Also, remember that in much of the world, homosexuality carries severe punishment, whether from society or your peers. there are gay men in the world who have never slept with a man, and never will: this is a terrible thing. But see above - sexuality can be about many other things.

2) the fact is, heerosexuality *was* invented by industrialised society. To say that the "term" was coined, but the concept existed beforehand is a misnomer: fact is, gay dogs exist but we do not consider them abnormal. Hterosexuality is about having a norm, and then deviations from that norm: whereas real life is all about rainbows, ahem ;-)

Seriously though, there is no "norm" in human sexuality, and developing new terms to make things less heterocentric is a good thing, and a harmless thing, and a healthy thing.

you mention the old testament. Which is christian, and christianity, in its drive to conquer the world, has made a lot of snap decisions about who should **** who, and who should be the boss. Only 400 years ago christianity was okay with the idea that black people had no souls, convenient to slavery. I don't think women have ever been rated highly by the bible, and you have to remember that the old and new testament are also very political texts.

However, many, many prechristian (i.e. "pagan" or "animist") recognised more than 2 sexes: many native american tribes recognised 5: a woman, a man (as we understand it) a man-woman, a woman-man, and an asexual intermediate. These "intermediates" were often the religious leaders of the tribe, and utterly revolted early european explorers: the term "berdache" was used to describe them.

Hell, if you remove surgical intervention from birth, you find that a very high statistic of people are born with ambiguous genitalia, or "both sets". This points to a "nature" in our very anatomy that is much less obsessed with reproduction than more industrialised religions would have us think.

3) the text says "destroy heterosexuality" and 2 lines later you ask "destroy heteropsexuals? That's inclusive"

I'm wondering if you are straight and feeling excluded from this: either way, the text and what you say are very different things. Destroying the concept of heterosexuality, in otherwords removing the facility whereby people go through life expecting to be "normal" and then having to "come out" as "not-normal" if they are not heterosexual.

Imagine "coming out" as heterosexual...? I mean, I kinda did. Not that I ever thought I was that big word "G.A.Y" - but I did have this whole journey thing. It was nice: nicer than assuming that you will marry a person with boobs and a vagina from the age of 10, and use her as a platform to express your precious maleness into the world, via a family home, some strappin' kids and a nice shiny peni- sorry, I mean car.

To be honest, for someone who's really pretty much straight, I get pretty damn militant about this: I have seen awful, terrible things happen to gay men and women because they cannot come to terms with themselves, because everyone thinks it's okay to marginalise gays as "different". It makes me really angry that people think gay marriage is some kind of concession to give to a bunch of wierdoes, and the concept of this, to be honest, is an insult to those who have hated themselves and felt ashamed of themselves over the years.

So I approve of this student activism. There's much more to be learned from analysis of sexuality than there is, for example, from parotting anti bush slogans or insisting Nike get out of Chiapas. Colleges are not the most rebellious places anymore, so I aprrove of true self exploration like this.

4) what male heterosexual privilege?

? This kinda shocks me. but maybe you're kidding...?

Well, the freedom to hold hands in public. The freedom to marry. The freedom to not be the "different" people. The freedom to live, in some countries. The freedom to look at every piece of mainstream advertisement, cinema, literature, whatever and think "this is aimed at me. I am normal". The freedom to adopt children. These freedoms amount to a heterosexual privilege - one which has often in the past (and still does in amny countries) meant life or death.

The freedom to flirt without fear of a beating?

It's very easy, in our 15% of the world, to look around and see a few gay bars, check graham norton on the TV, catch an annual pride march and think "wow things are changing". I presonally feel this isn't even a beginning. I hope that in 100 years we will seem as stupid and hung-up and ridiuclous as people in the 1900s do to us now.

Or do you disagree?

and finally:

5) "But if people are opposed to something, then why try to get other people to do the same? It's the Eye for an Eye 'logic'."

Getting heteros to "explain" their sexual identities is problematic for me, to a degree - you're right, there is a degree of "eye for an eye" logic. But think about it this way: how else can straight people realise that everyone is different? How can you break the idea of a "normal" sexuality, and let people see how we are victims of our own reproductive authoritarian systems?

Okay, fair enough, it probably makes most heteros mad as hell that they have to explain themselves at all. But it's getting to that time in the world where we ALL better start explaining ourselves and what exactly we're doing. Answers such as "I'm just doing the normal thing" are not acceptable anymore. The sublimation of human sexual energies into empire building and wage slavery cannot go on forever, we've got to start looking inwards soon, because as the planet begins to fill up, and living with one another begins to literally mean just that, the old victoirian explanations may not stand up.

And besides which, **** straight people and their comforst zones. They have it so goddamn easy, it's about time they started paying the admission fee.

bye folks