"Not Queer, Just Gay. No, Thanks."

Peep this and I hate it. Glad they're getting hella push back for it BUT I didn't frequent the site much due to their frequent focus on all things effeminate and non-people of color....like most gay mainstream sites.

 

There must be a better term that can be used to be 'all inclusive' or as close to that as possible. I also think it may be an age or generational thing. It reminds me of when feminists first started to try and 'reclaim' the word 'b@tch'... which did not really work out so well I think.

I never used it. But I also never referred to myself or other gay men with feminine pronouns or 'girl', 'mary' miss thing' etc.

So what are we to embrace next?

Pantywaist?
P*ssy?
F*ggot?

What do the bisexuals, lesbians, transgender people, etc. think about this particular umbrella term being used to 'include' them? Did Huffpost Gay Queer voices get any feedback from them...or the intersex people, asexual people, pansexual people, polyamorous people, etc. ?

 

Words matter. I never shied away from by the book dictionary terms. I'm fine with homosexual. There is no guess work or confusion involved.

 

Do they not know that Queer means strange/odd?

Bye Stacey Dash, Raven-Symone, and Rachael Dolezal!!!

 

They seem like they want to include so many people or groups they might just as well call it HuffPost Non-Heterosexual Voices.

 

I understand people might not like the word but it is an academic accepted word used for gay/sgl people. Queer at one time just meant different/weird not necessary a insult just like the word gay use to mean just happy/jolly. It would be good if new word was created. Queer sometimes seems antiquated just like if someone would say negro or colored to me its not necessarily insulting but we use newer words.

 

I am just plain old, run of the mill gay. I don't want to be lumped in with the gender non conformists, trans, or intersexed. Those are not my life. I get people want to be all inclusive but it's hard enough as a black masculine gay man. Adding groups that don't really apply to me doesn't make sense.

I only look at a few Gay Voices articles as is. The few black guys writing for them I don't relate to. I have to be my own aggregate service for issues that affect me or ID with and most of that comes through here or Facebook.

 

It's definitely a generational thing. Older gay dudes hate it, but the younger crowd tends to emrbrace it more. I didn't like the term at first either, but I've learned to tolerate it. I remember my school renamed one of the organizations Queer and Ally Student Assembly when I was an undergrad. At first I was annoyed, but then I realized it was a lot simpler than saying LGBTQQIAA.......Student Assembly. It is what it is.

 

I'm definitely one of the older crowd who hates the term queer. To me that is a slur and I as a gay man don't want to be identified with a term meant to denigrate people like me. Also I agree with @ControlledXaos point that I don't appreciate, nor do I think it's proper to lump homosexual people in with all these other "sexual minorities" like gender nonconforming etc. However I could be a bit more understanding if they didn't use queer as catch-all term.

 

I get it. I don't think it's necessarily about lumping us all together in every single aspect. We're still individual identities. It's just that a site like HuffPost Gay Voices exists to discuss not just gay issues, but lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and other sexual minority issues. So it wouldn't make sense for them to just call it "gay" when "queer" would be a more encompassing term. The site addresses the alphabet soup individually in its articles. There will be topics solely for gay men. And topics solely for trans people. Take Cypher Ave for example. Most of us would agree that this site is targeted towards gay and bisexual men of color. Few of us would say "queer men of color." And that's fine. But if HuffPost decided to write an article about the site, it would be in the QueerVoices section not because they necessarily label the site queer, but because in addition to having an article about this site, they'll have one on trans discrimination. There are trans specific groups and sites. There are gay specific groups and sites. But if a site like HuffPost exist to be inclusive of all those groups, then they have to find a term to include all of it. They could break it up. TransVoices, GayVoices, LesbianVoices, BiVoices, IntersexVoices, AsexualVoices, but that would take up a lot of space. May as well have one section, with group specific articles.

 

I agree with the point and logic here. I also think it would be nice if the wannabe all inclusive Huff Post Queer voices included masculinity and non-white people but...

 

UGGGH! When will it stop though. Before you know it, we'll have an acronym with 200,000,000 letters just so everyone feels included.

While "Queer" is not my favorite term, nor do I truly understand what it means vs. what it represents. I like it much better than LGBTQQIAA.

 

I think there needs to be a term that refers to the spectrum that is non normative, non heterosexual, but 'queer' just seems to be a cop out. The other terms are all respectable terms, but 'queer' does not have that same 'feel' to it. It seems like it is a word that is 'beneath' the others, or like some radical jargon. It is like a term the Gay Elite would use to drag us all in to their own agenda. The word seems 'agenda driven' to me... like something you would hear chanted at a rally or something, not something to identify oneself with. I guess it is a generational thing.

It is not as bad as that 'cis' term though...that just creeps me out.

 

Lol.. yeah, I still don't understand "cis".
I am also thinking that defining us [non normative, non hetrosexual] more and more specifically is only serving nurture divisiveness within out communities. it's this constant comparison between them and us. While many may call it being inclusive, I have to question it. I mean, I understand the need to feel identified and included, but I believe we are pushing the Political Correctness Envelope too far.

Regarding the Gay Elite, perhaps they are the young protesters of the 80's who started using "Queer" and are not in have position, power, and funds to push this agenda further now that they have the means. You raised a good point, @ColumbusGuy , there does appear to be an agenda

 

I first heard it used in marches here in Columbus in the 80's. 'We're here, we're queer, get use to it!' or something like that. I would not be surprised if it is agenda driven, and I think there has been a push to 'adopt' or 'take back' the word much like women started to do with the word 'bytch'. Look at 'Queer as Folk'-mainstreaming the word.

This is an excerpt from a longer article that reads like the 'gay' equivalent of a radical Hebrew Israelite!"

"
WHY QUEER

Well, yes, "gay " is great. It has its place. But when
a lot of lesbians and gay men wake up in the morning we feel
angry and disgusted, not gay. So we've chosen to call
ourselves queer. Using "queer" is a way of reminding us how
we are perceived by the rest of the world. It's a way of
telling ourselves we don't have to be witty and charming
people who keep our lives discreet and marginalized in the
straight world. We use queer as gay men loving lesbians and
lesbians loving being queer.
Queer, unlike GAY, doesn't mean MALE.
And when spoken to other gays and lesbians it's a way of
suggesting we close ranks, and forget (temporarily) our
individual differences because we face a more insidious
common enemy. Yeah, QUEER can be a rough word but it is
also a sly and ironic weapon we can steal from the
homophobe's hands and use against him. "

Article: http://www.qrd.org/qrd/misc/text/queers.read.this

That article is from this article:6 Reasons You Need to Use the Word "Queer"

It seems to be agenda driven.

I remember 1990 very well, but the anger in that article(the first one) the quote is from is something else. Although I have to admit that at that time I remember the phrase 'bomb throwing f@g' and it meant just that- terrorism..and I thought that if it came to that...I would just have to do just that...so I guess I was a bit radicalized by what was going on then. The AIDS epidemic and the suspicion and hate for gays it generated was intense, and it provoked an intense response.


*this site automatically changes 'f@g' to 'gay' lol.

Reminds me a site I was on that made bytch = pregnant dog, sl@t = very friendly person, and @sshole = not a very nice person. lol

 

I think "cis" makes people uncomfortable because us non-trans people have the privilege of not being labeled by society. We get to be seen as just "people" with no label and we want to keep it that way. Trans people don't have that privilege. Cis is just an identity marker that makes discussion of gender a lot easier. It's similar to discussions regarding race. Especially during black history month. Some white people get uncomfortable when you refer to most of history taught in schools as "white history" which is why black history month unfortunately has to exist. To them, it's just "history." But not emphasizing the fact that it is "white" would be disingenuous. Basically, using the term "cisgender" is no different than using the term "transgender."

 

But how can terms like "Cis" be used to make discussions easier if no one knows what it means. In reality, the term, or prefix, "Cis" is not mainstreamed. These terms are not part of the english language as a whole. I understand it now [thank you @acessential], but so many others never will.

No, aren't we...us... non-trans people labeled by society already? I mean, I can probably come up with a dozen labels about that describe me, both affirming and detrimental to the spirit. Do people feel like the labels will make them visible and respected?

When I think of the descriptor, "gay", I think of an same gender loving individual, not just men who love men. But now, gay is used for men and lesbian is used for women because withing SGL community, women felt slighted (and were to a certain extent).

I still have trouble associating the term, 'Queer" with anything but that which is strange or weird... and that's just not me.

 

I try to live by if you want me to refer to you in a certain way, then I'll certainly try to oblige you as best I can but don't expect me to embrace or take on your labels.
I have my own and I don't push for wholesale adoption of them.
I find queer voices off putting and it's silly to me but it makes me less inclined to want to read anything stemming from that section that was already mostly exclusionary to me.

 

I meant our gender identity isn't given a label. We're just men, but a transman trying to exert his manhood would run into more hoops based on society's perception of gender. People don't think about that if they're not trans. Race, sexual orientation, and all that are a different story.

Language in itself isn't static. It's constantly evolving. It's supposed to. So even if the word seems foreign, that doesn't mean it lacks meaning or isn't useful. It's slowly creeping into everyday vernacular. Us having this conversation is evidence of that. I personally just leave it with what it is. It's not hurting anyone. So it's just that.