Can anyone explain queer heterosexuality to me?

Yup, ‘regressive bullshit’ exactly sums it up.

Queer theory denies the binary of man and woman, male and female. Instead, you get BOGOF - two sexes in one non-binary wrapper.

Yes, we can be attracted to someone with a particular personality and presentation - but for most/some of us, we'll never form a sexual/romantic attachment if the accompanying genitalia and physique don't suit. Sexual orientation is pretty fundamental to our being.

It's also an expedient to claim to have a second 'protected characteristic' (LBGT) if you want to get ahead in a political movement or the NUS. A privileged, highly educated female might claim 'intersectional oppression' as both a woman and a trans (non-binary) person, even though she's heterosexual and not trans.

I have seen a few ambitious young men and women take it a stage further and self-identify as 'disabled' (self diagnosed, of course) to get themselves a third protected characteristic. It's like collecting badges, really.

I was going to say then I too have a queer heterosexual relationship (take that, lesbian and gay friends!) but I have already identified that my partner and I are both non binary. Is it possible for two non binaries to have a heterosexual relationship?

I remember when I was about 16, lecturing my Grandad about something I thought was terribly important and fundamental (assuming he was some kind of old fashioned sweet idiot) and he very kindly but firmly explained that actually, I was talking nonsense and there was actually very little difference in most things from one generation to the next. Especially when it came to sex and relationships.
I was a bit put out at the time but I now realise how spot on he was!
Is there actually a point to gender studies, or should we just send in the Grandparents for a bit of plain speaking for a counterpoint to this fluff?

Ohh I earn more than my DH. Does that make me queer?
He does put the bins out though.

There are people who really think this stuff is groundbreaking.

I really wish we could fast forward to a human phase where folk determined their worth based upon what they did, rather than demanding worth for imagined "difference".

This identity thing is so grotesquely self serving, puerile and lazy.

I'm almost lost for words.
So queer now means the opposite of what the majority would think it means.
Bit like 'woman'.
Gotcha.

FOR ANYONE WONDERING WHAT IT MEANS TO BE "QUEER HETEROSEXUAL," it means that the heterosexual relationship is non-conforming, or deviant, than that of the social construct of traditional heterosexual relationships. It has nothing to do with identifying with a different sexual identity, gender, or sex, and is not for attention. BASICALLY, this can be translated to present-time society, in which we are seeing both men and women - in heterosexual relationships - exchanging masculine and feminine characteristics. For example, in present time heterosexual relationships we are seeing men open up more, or learning to embrace their emotional side (this can be considered a queer heterosexual relationship).

Oh FFS.

This makes me want to scream!!!

There are many ways in which DP and I are non-conforming or "deviant" wrt gender norms. It doesn't make us queer. It makes us human.

It'd be a fucking insult to my lesbian and gay friends to call myself queer because I'm the breadwinner and DP is in touch with his feelings or somesuch.

But also, this makes me angry as it's also framing sexist stereotypes as the norm, instead of encouraging everyone to break out of them. Regressive bullshit.

I’ll be off to tell my elderly mother she was in a queer relationship until my dad died, seeing as he cried and cooked and she did diy. I’m sure she’ll be thrilled.

As I understand it queer means a heterosexual person who dyes their hair purple and stomps about the place hoping people will look at them and think they are interesting.

Feminist (meaning wanting equality and freedom for ALL, not just females.)

No, that's something else. Humanitarian?

Feminism is about the liberation of women. All women, and by that I mean adult human females.

You can be a feminist and also support other good causes promoting equality and freedom for disadvantaged groups of men, too. They aren't mutually exclusive. But feminism itself has a meaning, and it is for and about women.

Queer theory is nonsense, and I say that as someone with a social science MA, if that makes one more credible. According to your definition, virtually every heterosexual relationship is queer, except for maybe a few very religious conservative types.

For example, in present time heterosexual relationships we are seeing men open up more, or learning to embrace their emotional side (this can be considered a queer heterosexual relationship). We are also seeing more women taking "male" stances in male dominant careers

Like how it was in the 18th century when men indulged their emotions by crying at funerals and weddings and such and through writing or reading emotional poetry... and wearing flamboyant colours how very "queer".

Or in the 20's when Coco Chanel designed houte couture trousers for women, which were immensely popular, all those "queer" women, hey.

Or in the WW decades where women whose husbands were sent to war ended up doing the "men's" work themselves and did it very well in fact. They were obviously all "queer"

Also the 60's where men exploring their emotional side through music and the arts and abandoning conventional dress codes for men like short hair, they were all obviously "queer".

Any woman ever who has challenged conventions around gender are labelled "queer" now.

The only modern element to this ideology is how it forces people into a box labelled "queer" rather than simply an individual maybe gender non-conforming or challenging gender norms which has happened since time immemorial. This is very regressive, insulting and ridiculous. Gender norms change over time. They should just be eradicated.

Oh god, someone spent a long time introducing queer theory to me; it's just semantics. Yes, normal relationships.

So it's a heterosexual relationship for navel gazers then, thanks for clearing that up.

Am I missing something or is that just a description of most people’s relationships?

Is queer similar to what used to be called 'bicurious'? kind of, open to anything? I'm confused.. is that because the word has become so broad/vague as to have lost it's meaning?

FOR ANYONE WONDERING WHAT IT MEANS TO BE "QUEER HETEROSEXUAL," it means that the heterosexual relationship is non-conforming, or deviant, than that of the social construct of traditional heterosexual relationships. It has nothing to do with identifying with a different sexual identity, gender, or sex, and is not for attention. BASICALLY, this can be translated to present-time society, in which we are seeing both men and women - in heterosexual relationships - exchanging masculine and feminine characteristics. For example, in present time heterosexual relationships we are seeing men open up more, or learning to embrace their emotional side (this can be considered a queer heterosexual relationship). We are also seeing more women taking "male" stances in male dominant careers, and are moving away from the traditional ideologies that women are supposed to be docile and sensitive individuals, and men are supposed to be strong masculine individuals. So for everyone else who didn't know what the term meant, YOU ARE PROBABLY IN A QUEER HETEROSEXUAL RELATIONSHIP. There is nothing wrong with it, it's just another name to describe a progressive relationship.

My credibility includes: B.A. in Women and Gender Studies, B.A. in Mass Comm; Feminist (meaning wanting equality and freedom for ALL, not just females.)

I don't like telling forms I am disabled

I'm especially uncomfortable telling the DWP in minute detail, but I need to eat!!

I know there are often valid reasons, but I still have an image of the daily fail getting hold of it and releasing selective parts based on who they want to vilify that day.

Exactly terry there may in some cases be a statistical justification but it's not mandatory.

I don't feel queasy providing this information, it's more I just think it's none of their business. (Although I do like telling any Scottish government forms that I'm British not Scottish and always tick no religion)

"kinder egg"
😂😂😂

Overies
None of it's a problem if you want to give the info, I was just trying to clarify for anyone who might be wondering that for most forms of that type it's not mandatory to fill in any questions that service users might find too personal.

I'm quite happy to put that I'm bisexual on the forms, in the same way that I'm happy to say I'm female and white British and speak Welsh.

You are?

I always feel a bit queasy about filling out things on forms that they don't need to know.

Other than in a medical context, why would they need to know I am female? Why would they need to know my sexual orientation?

One of the first things the nazi regime did was requiring Jews to change their passports to declare their Jewishness.

Someone might want to know those things for legitimate reasons of statistics, etc, but whenever I have to reveal that I am a member of an oppressed class, I get suspicious.

Still do it, most of the time, as you just don't have a choice, and my name is obviously female anyway, but I think I would be even more wary of giving them information that they cannot just see by looking at me. Like sexual orientation. I'm hetero, so am safe, but if I was lesbian, I don't know if I would want this to be on some paper in some government database.

Your post was in reply to my question about why is it necessary to disclose one's sexuality. Your post gave me the impression you thought there was some sort of requirement to provide this information on "official forms"

There isn't. The information is asked for (for various reasons, all of which will almost certainly be completely irrelevant to the main purpose of the form) but your answer, or non-answer, will have no bearing whatsoever on whether the form is processed.