The queer in canonqueer

[sqbr]

I'm not entirely comfortable telling LGBTQIA people what "queer" means but I'm pretty sure the definition of "queer" at canonqueer is too narrow.

Anyway, they look like they would benefit from a wider range of opinions regardless (and could be an interesting comm!).

Comments

[rainbow]

thank you for speaking up over there.

[sqbr]

I was a bit unsure about the appropriateness of me criticising them about it, but I decided this is the sort of thing it's really important to have clarified before the comm gets going.

[softestbullet]

I thought it was fine, as it was an issue of cis privilege. :)

(Thanks from me too.)

[yalovetz]

I actually think their original definition wasn't too bad and am disappointed that they now include all trans characters by default. The new definition automatically defines all trans characters as queer regardless of their identity and this, to me, is problematic. A lot of trans people are not queer identified and if they get lumped under the queer umbrella regardless then that erases their agency, identity, and ability to self-define, which happens to trans people far too often already.

I would have happily joined the community (were I into that kind of fandom) under their initial definition of queer, but not under the new definition.

[cesy]

Thank you for posting this. I see what you mean, and have posted over there to try and get them to clarify and rephrase.

[sqbr]

Ack, sorry for contributing to that :( The thing I was least sure on was straight trans people who don't identify as queer but I wasn't sure how to express that unsureness. It's one of the reasons I made this post, in the hopes someone less clueless might feel like talking about it with them. From the looks of things they are trying to come up with a way to resolve the issue, hopefully they can find one.

[ex_peasant441]

I think that by the time anything has got to an alphabet soup acronym seven letters long it is unlikely you will ever find one definition that anyone is happy with, let alone one that everyone is happy with. Speaking as someone who can identify with several of the letters and knowing a fair few friends in a similar boat, it is not actually something many people towards the end of the alphabet soup get that worked up about. When you are in a minority of a minority you don't expect to be remembered all or even most of the time.

And as a side note, isn't including 'Q' in the soup something of a tautology?

[sqbr]

There seems to be a HUGE variation of opinion within the group-of-people-about-the-name-of-which-there-are-varied-opinions about what terms should be used. I'm still trying to figure out what term to default to. Stupid limitedness of language to express the nuance of human experience.

[ex_peasant441]

Yeh, I get where you're coming from but I think the very fact there is a problem is very informative and tells us we shouldn't be trying to find a solution. I guess I'm now at a point where I reckon even having these discussions about what the group-of-people-about-the-name-of-which-there-are-varied-opinions want is part of the problem, since by lumping us all together people are creating an artificial distinction which causes more problems than it solves.

However, on occasion one needs a word or phrase, and obviously I speak for noone but myself but personally I am happiest with 'minority sexuality'. It's more inclusive than any alphabet soup, far, far less insulting than 'queer' and less liable to misunderstanding than 'gay'.