readinglgbt.org

The Case for 'Queer'
by Nathalie

In the run-up to the 2006 NUS LGBT Conference, Reading LGBT members were asked what they thought of the motions to be submitted at conference. The motion that garnered most attention was a proposed renaming from LGBT Campaign to Queer Campaign, with all responses being some variation on 'hell no'. Apparently Reading LGBT members don't consider the word 'queer' to be representative of themselves, but evidently there are other LGBT students in the NUS, and by extension other LGBT people, that do.

I'm sure that everyone has at least a basic familiarity with the history of the word 'queer': thanks to Wikipedia I can tell you that historically it was used to mean 'strange' or 'unusual', acquiring the connotation of 'sexual deviance' in the 19th century. Consequently, in the 20th century its use to mean 'not quite right' often carried very strong sexual or gender undertones, and was even used disparagingly in lesbian and gay communities at that time. While the word is still understood to mean 'strange' today, I would argue that its modern use always carries the connotation of behaviour deviating from a sexual or gender 'norm'. According to the Free Online Dictionary, it carries the additional meanings of: 'of a questionable nature or character; suspicious', 'fake; counterfeit' and 'feeling slightly ill; queasy'. So by definition, a queer person can be varying parts strange, not quite right, suspicious, fake, sexually deviant and make one feel slightly ill. And this is all in addition to its decades of use as a homosexual slur.

So why do those in support of the name 'Queer Campaign' wish to use this clearly loaded and offensive word to describe themselves? I can only assume that it is an extension of the movement 'reclaiming' the word. According to the website glbtq.com, people first sought to reclaim the word 'queer' in the 1980s. The reasoning behind this move is easy to understand: LGBT people unashamed to be 'queer' will display their pride through language; the word 'queer' cannot have the same impact as a homophobic slur if the LGBT community uses it themselves as a badge of honour. I have a great deal of respect for this argument, however it does require an entire community to bond together and take this task on rather than just a portion of one; and as there can hardly said to be one 'gay community' at all, rather just a series of smaller communities, that seems pretty unlikely to happen. I think we can say with certainty that it definitely has not happened yet, certainly most of my LGBT friends find the word 'queer' offensive and would not use it to describe themselves or anybody else.

On the flip side, it is important to consider the fact that 'queer' is in a unique position as regards representation of LGBT people. Its modern usage is very often as an umbrella term encompassing all sexual orientations, practices, and gender identities that differ from the heterosexual, cisgendered norm.* The term 'LGBT' does not include asexuals, those who are unsure of sexual orientation (or gender identity), or heterosexuals with non-standard sexual practices (for example BDSM, swinging), although it is important to note that in practice I'd imagine most LGBT groups would be open to such people, and ours certainly is. I have my own issue with the term 'LGBT', because it's very easy to see it as a series of boxes, which makes it very easy to sideline these others as not defining as one of the 'big four'. While I believe this is worth a whole other article in itself, the fact remains that the term 'queer' is incredibly useful in encompassing 'alternative' sexual and gender identities, in a unique way; no other word is widely recognised as serving a similar purpose, and while some groups are called for example 'LGBT?', 'LGBTQ' and so on, this simply adds more letters and a greater number of boxes to a term that many straight people who don't have contact with any gay communities are confused by in the first place. One simple, all-inclusive world with which we can present a united front would probably do quite a bit for representing our community to the non-LGBT majority.

However, what seems to be the sticking point for most people is that while many LGBT people consider 'queer' a reclaimed and perfectly acceptable word used to describe themselves and others, many others still consider it deeply offensive. While I support the principles of those who have reclaimed 'queer' - a symbol of their pride in something that others condemn - the history of the word still stings. And with the original meaning of 'sexually deviant' still holding weight in our minds, can this really be an appropriate term for a community that on the whole, considers itself no more 'deviant' than anybody else?

In conclusion, the word 'queer' is not one I'd use to describe myself, and in my opinion it is not an acceptable title for an NUS campaign when the word is not only rejected by but actually offends so many of the LGBT Campaign's members. You can't force an identity onto a community, and sadly there doesn't seem to be one all-encompassing word that the majority of young LGBT adults are happy applying to themselves - however, while true equality is still so far away, we shouldn't spend hundreds of hours searching for one and instead should focus on the many important liberation issues that we need to fight for.

*cisgendered - a gender identity that society considers to match one's sex. For example, someone who was female at birth, raised as a girl and identifies as a woman.

Back to Articles