One of the primary difficulties that arises in relation to the GLBT movement is the complicated way in which people label themselves and others and further the societal implications of using those labels. In the readings for this week, the inadequacy of the "gay-straight" form of terminology was discussed. The biggest flaw in this "gay-straight binary" is the exclusive way in which it is often used. To be gay or to be straight are very distinct opposites. However, to use this type of terminology often imposes an inflexible vernacular with little room for people who feel in between these two points (bisexuals), or people feel that they belong far outside of merely gay or straight. Thus the term "queer" offers a less binding or confining way of defining oneself.
For our purposes in this class, "queer" seems to take on a definition far beyond something merely of the GLBT community. In its usage, "queer" can be utilized to express something that is outside of what is typically perceived as a cultural norm. By nature "queer" exposes and brings cultural weight to those issues, ideas and people that exist beyond the reach of patriarchy and heteronormativity. In this sense, "queer" does not necessarily pertain to strictly GLBT films, music, television or literature. Rather, to be "queer" could include a film about feminism in the 21st century, or the pursuit of racial and cultural equality because these ideas speak to people who are not foundationally part of a heternormative super-structure.
When one begins to examine the use of the term "queer" in the lexicon of culture and society, ultimately, our understanding and comprehension of heterosexuality must also be brought in to discussion. Can a person in society be completely heterosexual or completely "queer?" As bell hooks discussed in her documentary, at any given time there are numerous societal factors at work influencing the way human beings interact with each other. One's place in society is never stable. And it seems as though to be "queer" is to reconcile with this cultural instability while existing in a heternormative society.
I like how you discuss how positive the term "queer" can be, and how it offers a "less binding" way to self-define. Have you also thought about of how it could be used to unite the GLBT community. Instead of gays fighting for gay rights, trans for trans rights, etc. it's the queers fighting for queer rights in general. It's like all the different minority groups within the "queer" umbrella are joining forces for a similar cause. I also noticed you talk about "queer" in terms of sexuality, but never discuss it in terms of gender. I just wondered how you think it may play a part in that.
I agree with you that "queer" is not strictly limited to talking about the GLBT community, but can be applied to any aspect of society that is non-normative; such as feminism. My only concern with this train of thought, though, is then defining exactly what is "normative" in society. Just as there is a straight/gay binary (among other things), I worry that this could create a normative/non-normative binary that would create more labels and marginalization.
I just want to throw out an idea of the possible harm that can be caused to the gay culture by using the word queer to define anything that is just not normal.
Maybe I am superficial-izing this issue a little too much, but bear with me. Suppose you are a hardcore goth person or a hardcore skateboarder or a hardcore hipster. And suddenly, instead of society viewing you as an outcast (which is probably something you were attracted to in the first place), it starts to commercialize your movement (goth, punk, etc.) and suddenly people who are clearly not gothic start to label themselves as such.
Does anyone see a relation from this example to the idea of using queer to define anything that's not normal? Suddenly you will have people who clearly identify with heterosexual culture labeling themselves as queer because they like to make out with the same-sex at parties occasionally. Is that them expressing inhibited sexual desires which could be accurately labeled as queer, or just looking for some attention, which I don't think should be labeled as queer?
I would just like to point out that in using the categorical label of "bisexual" to describe the in-between of gay and straight, the issue isn't really solved. With this complex of gay or straight or bi, we are still practicing exclusion of anyone who doesn't see themselves as concretely fitting into any of those categories. It is the same problem as the gay-straight binary itself, just with one added category. Many of those who are in between gay and straight do not identify as gay, do not identify as straight, and do not identify as bisexual. Thus, the addition of yet another term that does not fit them feels like a further alienation in society.
I agree with the problem of using queer to define anything that is not normal, as we must then consider who has the privilege and the power to decide what is "normal" or "acceptable" and who is simply observed and measured to these imposing standards. This, however, opens up a whole new conversation about power structures in relation to not only sexuality, but gender, race, and class as well.
"One's place in society is never stable. And it seems as though to be "queer" is to reconcile with this cultural instability while existing in a heternormative society."
I totally like and agree with this line here. I believe that with time all things change. People experiment discover new liking to different things. Ones place in society is never stable and there is a progression towards living outside of the cultural norm. However, I do not agree that individuals between your two points as described above should be classified as "bisexuals". This will eliminate the notion that so much falls under the umbrella of queer. If bisexual was in the middle that would mean that progression towards the middle would have to be concrete in its ways in which its not. Queer should be thought of as something in which a lot of sexual acts, not labels occur.
I think my point about bisexuality was misconstrued a little bit. If you read carefully, I make note that rigidly and systematically using any type of "gay, straight, bi, etc." results in a form of terminology that is inflexible. However, in addition to that, I would argue that it's both reasonable and common for people to refer to themselves as "gay, straight or bi." With this in mind, "queer" takes on a role as more umbrelle-like term, and is therefore non-exclusive. My point was not to say that anyone in between "gay" and "straight" must be "bisexual."