Not to mention the fact that "queer" has a decidedly derogatory connotation, which "gay" does not. Gays referring to themselves as queer falls into the same bucket as African Americans calling each other the "N" word (I never did understand why any given group would want to "own" the most demeaning slurs against themselves as some kind of badge).
KM's "double meaning" rationale is meaningless in the context of the issue at hand.
And I see The Groupie will accompany His Minus on the road trip — head thrust out the car window, tongue and ears flapping in the wind, spittle dripping down the side of the door. ARF!
Thinking that your lame attempt at a personal attack was misdirected since MY avatar is a Faerie/Luna Moth While your "groupie's" is of a *e-hem* Female Dog is therefore not an unreasonable assumption on my part.
Slow kvetch day for you is it, Mothra? You may want to learn the difference btwn groupie and friend. The latter doesn't require the slobber and needy whining that the former does. Now go eat a sweater or something.
The way that the gay/lesbian community, not to mention the academic community has appropriated "queer" makes the term very different from any of the others in the discussion so far. To be "queer" is to be at odds with dominant discourses, and that doesn't require one to be gay or lesbian.
I wouldn't say they've 'appropriated' it but certainly the sense in which Tatchell uses the word is limited to 'homosexual'. In fact neither 'gay' nor 'queer' require one to be homosexual so the only word that really stands apart for its precision is 'homosexual' itself.
I'm just telling you the way that "queer" has been appropriated (I'll repeat the term, because that's exactly what's been done) the term "queer," as for instance inbooks edited by Jonathan Goldberg (Queering the Renaissance), or by Glenn Burger (Queering the Middle Ages) or by Charles Morris (Queering Public Address). Lee Edelman's No Future: Queer Theory and the Death Drive is perhaps a more comprehensive study of the theoretical grounding for the term, but certainly Queering the Renaissance is an excellent, important book. I've only glanced at the book on the middle ages and on public speaking.
_________________________ MACTECHubi dolor ibi digitus
Loc: Alexandria, VA
Oh I see... no informal words can be standard words
No, an "alternative" can't be "standard", unless it's an "alternative standard", which would still be a "standard". I was reading your phrasing as "are informal alternatives to the standard definition" ;-)
I would suggest, though, that all the terms in question are "standard", with "Gay" and "Lesbian" being subsets of the more generic "Homosexual" ... the interesting point being that the more generic term appears to have more negative baggage associated with it than the two subsets ...
Loc: Alexandria, VA
so the only word that really stands apart for its precision is 'homosexual' itself
For what it's worth, I would submit the term "lesbian" is equally precise -- the only thing missing is a term for a homosexual male that has no additional definitions ... (although in a practical modern sense, "Gay" fits this role, since the term is less apt to mean "happy or light-hearted" anymore) ...
Xplain's use of MacNews, AppleCentral and AppleExpo are not affiliated with Apple, Inc. MacTech is a registered trademark of Xplain Corporation. AppleCentral, MacNews, Xplain, "The journal of Apple technology", Apple Expo, Explain It, MacDev, MacDev-1, THINK Reference, NetProfessional, MacTech Central, MacTech Domains, MacForge, and the MacTutorMan are trademarks or service marks of Xplain Corp. Sprocket is a registered trademark of eSprocket Corp. Other trademarks and copyrights appearing in this printing or software remain the property of their respective holders.
All contents are Copyright 1984-2010 by Xplain Corporation. All rights reserved. Theme designed by Icreon.