Are You "Queer"?

[Guest fountainhall]

Would you describe yourself as “queer”? Would you like others to do so?

 

I ask because I regularly read some of the gay-related articles posted on the fridae website. I have noticed a tendency amongst some writers, especially from Singapore, to refer constantly to members of the LGBT community – of which they form part – as “queer”. One poster even said he prefers to use the word “queer” as this is easier than saying “LGBT community" or “homosexual”. Ever thought about just plain “gay”, my friend?

 

Yet it is not just Singaporeans. Hong Kong University Press has published several books on the theme “Queer Asia” and talks openly about “Queer Studies” and “Queer Theory”. Two of its publications are titled “Queer Bangkok” and “Queer Politics and Sexual Modernity in Taiwan.”

 

When I learned about this series, I wrote to the Chief Editor at HKUP of my disgust at the use of such a derogatory term. I received no reply.

 

And I do suggest it is derogatory. It is a throwback to over 50 years ago when members of the LGBT community were all referred to as “queer”. And, after all, in addition to “gay”, the word can mean any and all of the following –

 

"deviating from the expected or normal; strange"

"odd or unconventional, as in behavior; eccentric"

"of a questionable nature or character; suspicious"

"differing from the normal or usual in a way regarded as odd or strange"

"suspicious, dubious, or shady"

 

Whilst some may disagree , I am not a deviant, nor odd, nor of questionable character, nor suspicious, nor strange, nor shady, nor dubious, nor different from normal - although I grant I am sometimes slightly eccentric! One thing I am not, though, is “queer”!

[Rogie]

I think you were quite within your rights to contact HKUP about this. Assuming you have given the Chief Editor a reasonable period in which to reply, his failure to do so is poor form. I would be surprised if he is unaware of such feelings beyond the groves of Academe.

 

As far as my memory serves, one of the reasons for adopting the word 'gay' was to take the bad taste out of the mouth that 'queer' (and other even worse names) had built up. My suspicion, and that's all it is as I have no evidence and haven't spoken to anybody about it, is that the older generation, those of us born before gay rights were taken for granted, probably resent this word more than those born since then. A comparison could be drawn with words used to address Africans. Negroes (a perfectly reasonable word as it just means 'black') became 'blacks', or the PC term African-Americans if referring to the north American continent. Unfortunately negro spawned the 'n' word. However whereas use of the 'n' word is no longer acceptable if used by a white person, it can and is occasionally used by certain sections of black people amongst themselves.

[Bob]

Would you describe yourself as “queer”? Would you like others to do so?

 

I'm not queer but I suppose my boyfriend is.

 

A little more seriously, it seems humans throughout history have treated "different" people (tall people, fat people, gays, people not from your community or neighborhood, people not of your political party, etc., etc.) as odd, queer, or whatever. Even the gay community tends to label gays who are different - using terms such as "fem" or "twink" or whatever to describe different members of our own community. The labelling itself doesn't bother me to the extent it's intended to describe some differences and the only time I get somewhat offended by it is when some assign negative connotations ("wrong", "evil", "immoral", or "sinful") to the labelling. Heck, some of us at another message board got all huffy (justifiably so in my view) when one poster was clearly attempting to portray anybody acting "fem" as something bad or wrong (he, of course, was "undauntedly" attempting to describe anything that didn't meet his particular sexual preferences as slimey or worthless).

 

Being called a "queer" or "fag" by Khun Khortose achieves a comical (and almost respectful) response from me whereas being called a "fucking queer" by some inebrieated slob in a straight bar tends to generate either a flight response and/or a resolve to beat the crap out of him. So, to me, it's more about the intent than the label itself.

[KhorTose]

Being called a "queer" or "fag" by Khun Khortose achieves a comical (and almost respectful) response from me whereas being called a "fucking queer" by some inebrieated slob in a straight bar tends to generate either a flight response and/or a resolve to beat the crap out of him. So, to me, it's more about the intent than the label itself.

 

I could not agree more with the above. Intent is everything, and by the way Bob, you arn't queer your just an old faggot. As for the haters of the word, sorry, but the gay youth of Seattle voting overwhelmingly to be called Queer. It seems they like the word far more then LBGTQ where Q is questioning. From my understanding this is a movement that is strong thoughout America in the Queer community. Yes, we grew up where it was a bad word, but by adopting it, they youth are taking the sting out of it. Read your Foucault.

 

a complete college dissertation: http://www.colorado....r_BRONTSEMA.pdf

[Bob]

Intent is everything, and by the way Bob, you arn't queer your just an old faggot.

 

Hey, I resemble that! Now I'll be nice and not mention I'm old enough to be Khun Khortose's much younger brother....

[Guest thaiworthy]

. . . whereas being called a "fucking queer" by some inebrieated slob in a straight bar tends to generate either a flight response and/or a resolve to beat the crap out of him. So, to me, it's more about the intent than the label itself.

 

That all depends. Is he wearing leather and snapping a whip as he says this?

[Guest fountainhall]

the gay youth of Seattle voting overwhelmingly to be called Queer

 

"Queer" as opposed to "gay"? Does it mean they patronise queer discos and queer bars, go on tours organised by queer travel agencies or join all-queer cruises? I don't see how you can use queer and gay. I find it all very strange - but perhaps I carry too much historical baggage.

 

If we are all going to become queers again, then I suppose the silver lining is that the word "gay" can go back to its original meaning. We can see Ivor Novello's Gay's the Word or listen to the sizzling coloratura aria from Leonard Bernstein's sarcastic operetta Candide "Glitter and be Gay" without some in the audience tut-tutting! Mind you, since it's known Bernstein swung both ways, maybe he intended it to be "gay" in its queer connotation

[kokopelli]

This does remind me of a word exchange between someone, John, I once knew and another man:

 

The other man, "QUEER!"

 

John, "NIGGER!".

 

John did have a big mouth! One day in Washington DC he was robbed at gunpoint and was killed. I always wondered if he shot his mouth off once to often.

[Rogie]

John did have a big mouth!

 

I'm sorry his life ended in such a fashion. Washington isn't a nice place is it, once you get away from the White House Lawn and into the suburbs. Same in London & many large cities. There's always a restless undercurrent, threatening to swamp anyone inadvertently straying into such territory.

 

What is it that makes some people want to insult others? Ok, we know as already agreed upon it's the way you say it and to whom, the intent behind the 'insult'. Maybe some people don't have the ability to reign in their language when appropriate. Their tongue is like a scatter-gun - it cannot fine-tune what it spews forth, so whether you are friend ot foe you get the same vile invective.

[Guest fountainhall]

This does remind me of a word exchange between someone, John, I once knew and another man

 

. . . and the Queer went off to Australia and disappeared. They finally found him in Sydney!

[Rogie]

. . . and the Queer went off to Australia and disappeared. They finally found him in Sydney!

 

Is that right? You've lost me there.

 

Reminds me a bit of another John, a certain John Stonehouse. If memory serves he was, or had been, the Postmaster General (or held some other high office in Britain). He staged his own death by drowning. I forget where he turned up!

[Guest fountainhall]

Sorry Rogie. Think of "in Sydney" as "inside Sidney" and you'll get it

 

Your memory is correct about John Stonehouse. Can't remember why, but when he was Minister of Posts and Telecommunications in the Labour government in the early 1970s, he faked his own death by leaving his clothes and a suicide note on a Miami beach. He was eventually discovered a few months later - quite literally, in Sydney! He was deported back to the UK and jailed.

[Guest]

I consider the use of the term "queer" to be highly derogatory and implying there's something very strange & abnormal. The word simply should not be used in polite company to describe gay people.

 

Of course, the use of the word gay has also evolved to predominantly describe homosexuals & the common alternative use of the word just to mean happy has disappeared.

 

The word "gay" is sometimes used to describe something as poor, or inadequate. I'm not very happy with that particular utilisation of the word.

[Rogie]

And, after all, in addition to “gay”, the word can mean any and all of the following –

 

"deviating from the expected or normal; strange"

"odd or unconventional, as in behavior; eccentric"

"of a questionable nature or character; suspicious"

"differing from the normal or usual in a way regarded as odd or strange"

"suspicious, dubious, or shady"

 

Stonehouse fulfilled all those criteria!

 

The word "gay" is sometimes used to describe something as poor, or inadequate. I'm not very happy with that particular utilisation of the word.

 

Words are at the mercy of changing circumstances: whereas some people take great care in their use of words (Shakespeare) others are happy to latch onto the latest buzz word - more than likely soon to be jetisoned in favour of the next one.

[Guest fountainhall]

"Queer" as opposed to "gay"? Does it mean they patronise queer discos and queer bars, go on tours organised by queer travel agencies or join all-queer cruises? I don't see how you can use queer and gay.

 

Are there any younger posters based outside Asia who can respond to the above? I am merely curous.

[Guest thaiworthy]

"Queer" is derogatory, plain and simple. If you want to start a fight with someone, calling them a name like this is the best way. Calling people names is like putting bullets in a gun. Wars get started that way too, by thinking of yourself better than those around you.

[Guest fountainhall]

To our generation, it is derogatory. Yet, as KhorTose has mentioned and I have seen on a couple of websites, the younger generation seems to be taking the word back as some sort of pride achievement. Why? Totally beats me. That's why I would love to hear the views of anyone under 35 - 40 or so who lives in Europe or America.

[KhorTose]

Why? Totally beats me. That's why I would love to hear the views of anyone under 35 - 40 or so who lives in Europe or America.

 

I've been told that they think gay/lesbian/bi-sexual/transgender/questioning is too long, and kind of stupid when queer--meaning to them sexually different--says it all. More frank, more in you face with less BS and describes all the five mostly legal sexual minorities at once. However, it was years ago that I had this discussion with a bunch of gay youths and Who knows what is fadish and popular now. I too would like to hear from gay youth, but many of them are not in Thailand but home with boys their own age----sighhhhhhhhh.

[Guest fountainhall]

One westerner who has lived in Asia for a few years replied to my comments on fridae with this response -

Perhaps you've lived in Asia too long to be aware that the word 'queer' has been reclaimed by the LGBT community, and that it means an active political engagement in equality issues, which connotations the word 'gay' does not have. 'Queer studies', for example, is the term used in academia now to describe gay readings of cultural products. I see nothing wrong with the word 'queer'. I think you might be a bit out of touch.

 

Indeed, I am out of touch. But apart from the article on fridae and the HK University Press series, I had never before heard of "queer" being used in this context in the last 25 years and more.

[Guest thaiworthy]

I think it is the intent that defines the word. In some manner of speaking it can be derogatory if the context of how it is used demeans a person's character. In another sense it may be just a modern colloquialism, regardless of the age of the person using it. Either way, the intent and therefore, the meaning-- will be obvious.

[Rogie]

----sighhhhhhhhh.

 

Siamese if you please . . .

[Guest fountainhall]

In some manner of speaking it can be derogatory if the context of how it is used demeans a person's character. In another sense it may be just a modern colloquialism, regardless of the age of the person using it

 

"You're just a bunch of queers!" used to be such a derogatory phrase that it could lead to fights. Noways, it seems to be a badge of pride! Yet, if that is the case, how do you distinguish between the two, and thus, how do you determine the intent? Equally, "we're just a bunch of queers" can have a number of hidden meanings with similar consequences.

 

The problem with intent, surely, is the possibility of misinterpretation. And when - it again seems - only some people are starting to reuse the word to define their sexuality but (probably) the majority still look on it as degrading, misinterpretation is lying in wait.

[Bob]

The problem with intent, surely, is the possibility of misinterpretation. And when - it again seems - only some people are starting to reuse the word to define their sexuality but (probably) the majority still look on it as degrading, misinterpretation is lying in wait.

 

Misinterpretation is theoretically possible but I've never experienced the problem. The context of the situation, who the speaker is, the tone used, etc., always have made it fairly clear to me. I don't recall misinterpreting it before.

 

It seems to me.....just based on my experiences and impressions.....that much of the use of these older "hurtful" words has been by the groups affected by the words in the first place. In the last decade or two, I'm not sure if I've ever heard the word "queer" used by anyone other than by a member of the gay community. Another analogous example might be American blacks using the "n" word these days amongst themselves. Such words are typically used by the affected groups humorously and maybe (just speculating here) some of the resurgence in use of some of the older words is a method of bravado and/or demonstrating to either ourselves or others the old saying that "sticks and stones can break my bones but words can never hurt me."

[Guest fountainhall]

Having dug a bit further into this and been in touch with a westerner in his early '40s who lives in Taiwan and approves of the word queer, it seems that it is used mainly by activists for political protest movements. This is what he wrote -

 

Insofar as going to bars, discos, cruises bath houses etc is not a political activity, perhaps we can agree to call that 'gay'; insofar as academic studies, advocacy groups, marches for equality, rallies etc are political activities, perhaps we can call those 'queer'. It's not double speak, it's just different names for how political one feels.

 

And a writer from Singapore has chipped in that the term is now used by all Asians. That, frankly, is baloney. At the Taipei Gay Pride March last October, there was not one pamphlet or sign I noticed that used the word "queer" - and the 30,000 plus people in that Parade were also protesting at the lack of action on promoting LGBT rights (how come not "queer" rights - huh?).

[Rogie]

Useful to delve into the way people use the language.

 

The quote FH has from his Taiwanese contact seems in line with other comments that've been made in this thread. Perhaps the 'Q' word is less often heard and therefore causes those hearing it (or reading it) in many western countries to question the speaker's (or writer's) bona fides. I notice the Taiwan chap cites "academic studies, advocacy groups, marches for equality, rallies etc". I'll admit I'm not a fan of 'academic studies'. That leaves the three others he mentions. Has anyone reading this Forum been on either an equality march or rally recently or is currently a member of an advocacy group? If so, is it fashionable to use the Q word? I'm sure you can see where I am going and I shall hypothesise thus - in places where equality marches exist the Q-word may quite possibly be often heard, in those places they don't (by which I mean they are not necessary, rather than any law forbidding them) the Q-word will seldom be spoken or heard (other than by some homophobic loony).