This is an editorial forwarded from the Activist Mailing List. I thought some of you might be interested in seeing it. -- Y68 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1992 22:30:19 CST Sender: Activists Mailing List From: Blythe Systems Subject: OPIN:"Queer" -EGCM Editorial Title: "Queer" (EGCM Editorial) Via The NY Transfer News Service 718-448-2358, 718-448-2683 from The (Electronic) Gay Community Magazine - February 1 1992 EDITORIALS: Informed Opinion queer (kweer) adj. 1. strange or odd from a conventional viewpoint; unusually different; singular. 2. of a questionable nature or characters; suspicious; shady. 3. not feeling physically right or well; giddy, faint or qualmish. 4. mentally unbalanced or deranged. 5. Slang. a. homosexual. b. bad, worthless, or counterfeit -- v.t. 6. to spoil; ruin. 7. to put (a person) on a hopeless or disadvantages situation as to success, favor, etc. 8. to jeopardize. -- n. Slang. 9. a homosexual. QUEER By Jeffrey R. Nickel I've been avoiding this. But I can't stand it anymore. It's crept its way into practically every gay newspaper and magazine -- and even a few "mainstream" publications -- in the country. Already I've canceled one subscription because of it, and I'm well on my way to nixing another; all because of the rampantly increasing use of that awful word queer. Previously, mostly because of cowardice, I was loath to criticize this ill-chosen synonym because I feared the juggernaut of politically correct protest that would engulf me. With the exception of one anonymous quote printed in The New York Times several months ago, I haven't read or even heard a single piece of criticism regarding it. Doubtless the self-appointed guardians of radicalness have cowed any dissenting voices into utter and complete submission; except, that is, for this one. I fear not the p.c. police. In the Times piece, a gay man asks the question: "Can you imagine a black organization called [excuse the profanity] 'Nigger Nation'?" I hope not. Similarly, I can't envision Hispanic newspapers referring to its community members as "spics" or Italians publicly calling one another "wops". Yet, when we use the word "queer" in place of gay, we do the same thing, don't we? Or is "queer" somehow different and therefore acceptable? If it is, I don't see it. Proponents of "queer" say it's different because it has the virtue of encompassing several groups: gays (meaning gay men), lesbians, bisexuals, transsexuals, tranvestites, etc. It's an all-purpose word, the argument goes. I'm not totally unsympathetic to this. There's something impersonal and even unreal about speaking of "gay, lesbian, and bisexual" rights rather than simply of "queer" rights. It is difficult to communicate our aspirations to others when the phraseology we use approaches such an absurd degree of unwieldiness. Simpler terms are indeed much less pretentious and much more comprehensible. But "queer" is no solution. Others believe that a parallel can be found in the pink triangle; taking back a symbol that has been used to oppress us and transforming it into a source of pride and power. For most who use it, though, I expect that "queer" is appealing because of its sheer shock value. It's a way of telling others that we know they think there's something wrong with us, but we don't care; it's the ultimate in "in-your-face" politics. Assuming that making people angry for the sake of it is a good thing, there is, however, still another, greater danger. Adopting new labels for ourselves is all right, so long as we don't do so very often. It took a great many years before we were able to convince each other and "the mainstream" to call us, rather than "homosexual", by the much less clinical and much more human term "gay". Should we be so foolish as to attempt it, it would take many more years to change the lexicon once again. And for what? It would seem to be a truism that the rest of America will have no idea how to think and talk about us if we don't first develop some kind of consensus about how we shall think and talk about ourselves. If I refer to myself as gay, but someone else calls himself queer -- or even calls me queer -- what are people supposed to read from that? It wouldn't trouble me so much to be called "queer" if I believed that were the term we had finally settled on. But I know it is not; next week there's an even chance that yet another label will become all the rage. This consensus I'm talking about may at first appear quibbling and trivial, but it's actually very crucial if we are to have a meaningful dialogue about our rights as Americans. Though it won't be sufficient to gain us the freedom we seek, it is certainly necessary, because without this most simple agreement, we can hardly move at all. What harm does "queer" do? A great deal. It tells both ourselves and heterosexuals that we are so fundamentally different from them that they couldn't possibly understand who we are and what we're about. It reinforces the already all-pervasive notion that gay people lead lives that are totally unlike those led by straight people. That can only harm us. "Queer" reminds me of when the chant "black power" first rang out in the land some twenty-five years ago. It too had many positive connotations; it was a simple message that really seemed to empower people. But it was nevertheless deeply troubling to many black civil rights leaders of that era -- especially to the leader, Martin Luther King, Jr. He would say that if by "black power" they meant strength through community, he was for it. But he was concerned that "black power" might be sending another, far less helpful message; a startling, threatening message that could only alienate and inflame white America. Martin Luther King was so right about so many things. Could he have been so wrong about that? The case of gay people using the word "queer" is worse than most of the self-deprecating and self-defeating terms used by other minorities, because many gay people are not completely convinced that the stereotypes about us are nonsense. Certainly those of us who are just coming out don't know they're nonsense. They are frightened enough about "gay" people. Think about how frightened they must be about people who call themselves "queers". But even more importantly, too many gay people are convinced that at least some of society's harmful views about us are true. How many of us believe that gay men are far more sexually active than straight men are, or even that lesbians are far less sexually active than heterosexual women? Not only is there no evidence of any of this; we know from psychological studies that these ideas are absolutely false. When we refer to ourselves as "queer", are we more or less likely to view ourselves through the same stereotypical lens that homophobes do? I fear that my criticism of "queer" could be taken as a condemnation of the activities of Queer Nation. This is not at all my intention. I believe that the old debate between insider/outsider politics is at its core a false one; we clearly need both. The "conservative" inside players would accomplish little without others protesting outside. And the "radical" activists would be a useless cacophony if the "team players" weren't there looking infinitely more reasonable. No. It's not as if we would win faster if only we were more "respectable". Those who most ardently oppose us will always find excuses for doing so, no matter what we do. No, this isn't about militancy v. moderation. It's about making a choice between convincing people that we're just as abnormal as many already think we are, or convincing them that we are human beings, with many of the same problems, hopes and dreams. Some people argue that calling ourselves "queer" is simply the same kind of playful kidding that all other minority groups engage in. It's true that members of other groups will joke about themselves among themselves, just as we do. But it's also true that such derision is not funny at all when engaged in by people outside of the group. What is mere banter in the community becomes bigotry in society at large. The only acceptable venue for Jewish jokes is a closed gathering of Jewish people. If I -- as a Gentile -- were to tell one publicly I'd get into trouble, as I should. Jews and other minorities, it would seem, know that the stereotypes about them are untrue. Others, however, do not know that. Such "jokes" in their presence would confirm and reinforce their prejudices. Sigmund Freud was quite right when he said: "There are no jokes." "Queer" has come to such ubiquity that there's simply no way that others aren't going to hear about it. Maybe the biggest problem with its use is the likelihood that the rest of society will conclude that they are supposed to treat us as a joke. What a tragedy that would be. "Queer" is unlike other pejorative terms for minorities. It has a distinct, inarguably negative meaning far before it became a slang synonym for homosexual. Unlike "queer", "gay" was a word with very positive origins; it meant happy and lighthearted. Actually, I was surprised to learn that "gay" has been at least an oblique reference to homosexuality for at least a hundred years. And certainly by the 1960's it has solidly secured its place as our term of choice. What's wrong with "gay" anyway? Would a parent be more likely to try to understand a child who came home and said she was gay, or a child who came home and said she was queer? Would it be easier to pass a gay rights bill, or a queer rights bill? I recently spoke at a press conference in Boston on behalf of a statewide gay youth services bill. There were a few people -- some of whom I know -- standing outside handing out flyers that talked about "queer youth suicide". I thought to myself: How many heartstrings does that pull? "Gay" youth, sure. But queer youth? I wondered how many state legislators would vote for something called "The Queer Youth Services Bill." Hell, even if I were in their shoes, even though I'd probably vote for it, I'm not sure I could be a great proponent of it. Somehow, speaking about "queer youth" (or perhaps "young faggots") just doesn't seem to help others empathize with our young people. Precisely the opposite: When we talk about "queer" children (or queer anything else), those who are still unsure of what we're about -- the vast majority of Americans -- find it virtually impossible to take us seriously. Can anyone really be surprised about that? The slogan says: "We're here, we're queer; get used to it." But they never will. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The entire contents of The (Electronic) Gay Community Magazine are Copyright 1992 by The Land of Awes Computer Information System (316-269-0913 Voice, 316-269-4208 FAX/BBS) but may be reproduced by any means without permission from the publishers provided that the information is not edited and the copyright notice remain unchanged. -Tm_Write Version 1.30 -ALL the News That Doesn't Fit -LESBIAN & GAY Newsfeed - NY Transfer News Service 718-448-2358