I was thinking about this last night... what exactly does queer mean? Just for fun... let's check the dictionary (though I hardly consider it an authority in this matter)
Usage Problem. Of or relating to lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, or transgendered people.
Okay, that didn't really help. The usage problem, by the way, talked about the history of the word, the word being reclaimed, but the word still being potentially offensive, yadeeyada. For this post, please forget that 'queer' has this potentially offensive usage... I don't think that will lead us into any problems in reasoning. If there was another umbrella term that could be used in place of queer, I'd use it.
Back to what I was thinking.... what does 'queer' mean?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think a good definition is a description that is necessary and sufficient. If something fits the definition, it must be 'queer'. If it doesn't fit the definition, it must not be 'queer'.
Consider the above definition... relating to lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, or transgendered people. I suppose this is fairly straightforward and satisfies the criteria for a good definition. Lesbian, gay, bisexual... these are more straightforward and dealing with sexual orientation. Consider transgendered and things get a little more complicated... transgendered, I'd like to say, includes those that do not fit their (socially) normative gender role (in appearance or behavoir). I sort of feel that this definition is too narrow... that there are people that are not lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgenered yet still identify as queer (consider someone that is straight and socially normatively genered, but rejects the concept of gender and is very active within the queer community...). And it's also too broad (what constitutes bisexual or transgenered? How much variation from straight/normatively gendered is required to fufill that definition?
Overall, I have thought that a good definition for queer is something like... "non-heterosexual or not fitting their (socially) normative gender role". This falls into the same problems as the previous definition. I think probably there is an element of intention on the part of the person... if they wish to identify as queer, that is a big part of it. Whether other's accept them as queer will depend on their own beliefs...
Regardless, I think we can say that the definition of queer is very fluid and flexible to accomidate different people and situations. In some sense, it can be said to potentially include everyone as any slight variation from the never-achieved ideal of the socially normative male or female might be considered queer. Considering that that ideal varries from person to person and especially culture to culture (whatever this means...) and time to time... we may never be able to have a terribly strict definition for queer. It could be said to potentially include nobody.
I'm probably taking this all too far. Afterall, there are a lot of words that become meaningless as a result of this style of overanalysis, of trying to pinpoint an exact and stable meaning (even if that meaning has an arbitary nature to it). Perhaps I/we should be happy to see queer as one of the above suggested definitions and not think too hard about it; be happy with those who wish to be queer as don't fall under the definition(s), and be happy withi those that do fall under the definition but don't wish to identify as queer.
Cai had a cool point last night... mentioning that when she uses the word queer what she is exactly is presisely nothing (taking nothing to be something). I'm queer means... don't make assumptions about my gender and sexuality. So it's not so much that queer has a meaning, but that the lack of rigid meaning has a purpose. Communicating to someone "I'm queer" doesn't mean anything in particular... it doesn't even necessarily mean I'm non-heterosexual or not identifying or conforming to a socially normative gender. The statement just has the purpose of communicating "don't make assumptions about my gender or sexuality".
Consider the idea of speech acts... (http://www.sil.org/linguistics/GlossaryOfLinguisticTerms/WhatIsASpeechAct.htm). When someone yells "Fire!", this doesn't mean literally "fire", or even (at least explicitally) "There is a fire and everyone should leave immediately"... but instead, it is an act that has the purpose of alerting people to the nearby danger of fire.
This post, like most of my posts on this site, are not well developed, but ideas I'm throwing out there for discussion and contemplation. Your questions and comments are welcome :)
- mekyla.
