Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

shellshocktm t1_ixydw7r wrote

The people who advocate for queerness haven't come to a consensus yet because it's a nebulous term that doesn't really mean anything. The simplest explanation is queer = anything that isn't heteronormative.

5

[deleted] t1_ixyfpnd wrote

[removed]

−28

shellshocktm t1_ixyhc1g wrote

There's no need to be hostile. Heteronormative simply means the belief that there are just two sexes/genders that are immutable and that sexual orientation is immutable as well and naturally only directed towards the opposite sex/gender. Anything outside of this both in terms of sex and sexual orientation including intersex is not considered a separate category but is seen as simply being born out of a biological anomaly. So anyone who identifies as not being within the heteronormative frame may refer to themselves as queer as an umbrella term.

8

geek_fire t1_iy07k47 wrote

I feel like either this definition or the above definition of queer is wrong. I don't believe there are only two genders, or any of the above, but I am cis-gendered and heterosexual, so I'm not queer. That is to say, as far as I understand, queer isn't about belief at all.

1

shellshocktm t1_iy2fv6r wrote

You're misunderstanding me. I'm not saying not being queer means believing the heteronormative ideology. I'm saying anyone who doesn't meet the criteria set by heteronormativity is definitionally queer. It just helps with categorisation.

1

geek_fire t1_iy2h1aq wrote

I agree with your clarification. But to clarify (maybe belabor?) my earlier point, I'm not specifically saying you were wrong. I'm combining the above definition (not from you):

>The simplest explanation is queer = anything that isn't heteronormative

With your definition that "heteronormative simply means the belief..." I don't think those are both true.

1

shellshocktm t1_iy2iooz wrote

They're both ideologies and thus necessitate belief. Either one of them may be closer to the objective truth but that hasn't been explored adequately. I used that framing as a working definition rather than something concrete.

1

geek_fire t1_iy2isnx wrote

I guess I've never seen 'queer' as an ideology, so much as a descriptor of personal characteristics and identity.

1

jensjoy t1_ixz23ug wrote

Looks like someone needs a safespace without dictionaries.

8