Queerness

[Colinfromaccounts]

Is anyone else bothered by this becoming a catch-all term?

I’ve had relationships with both men and women, but never felt the need to define myself that way, I feel my sexual and romantic life is fairly private. I suppose in a way I feel both straight and gay rather than one or the other so never wanted to claim the term bisexual either as I then felt hemmed in by the LGBTQ+ label, when for all functional purposes I move through the world as a straight woman.

I’m not anti gay culture, loved a gay bar in my youth and still love gay books and films etc.

I just feel queer has come to define everything, either you’re in the gay and trans soup or you’re not, and it’s quite flattening to the multiplicity of the human experience. I have basically nothing in common with a man who has only been in sexual and romantic relationships with men.

It seems to me that the queer world itself wants to ungender everything. But try asking a gay man on Grindr to fuck a “man” with a vagina and see how far you get.

can anyone relate?

You’re missing—or maybe dodging—my point. I never said I “don’t like non-normative cultures and lives.” Quite the opposite: my whole reply listed examples from history precisely to show that radical ways of living aren’t new, nor some exclusive invention of modern “queer” culture.

My objection is to your attitude that treats people who live “normal” gay, lesbian, or bi lives as dull, conservative, or somehow less worthy because they don’t perform queerness as spectacle. “Non-normative” lives are not automatically more virtuous, radical, or politically significant than the everyday lives many of us fought hard for people to live without fear or shame.

In any case, “non-normative” isn’t some universal badge of rebellion; it’s become so vague it often just means “stuff I personally think is edgy or cool”—like when heterosexual couples suddenly label themselves queer because one partner wears androgynous clothes or uses different pronouns—instead of anything that genuinely challenges power structures.

“Non-normativity” isn’t a moral badge. Nor is fetish or subculture participation inherently political. Living differently isn’t automatically revolutionary, and it doesn’t make someone wiser or more virtuous than those who choose so-called “normal” lives. Politics is about dismantling oppressive systems, not just personal aesthetics or bedroom habits.

The battles for decriminalisation, civil rights, and equal marriage weren’t waged so a new elite could sneer at people who simply want love, family, or stability. That’s the distinction you keep refusing to engage with.

So again: the issue isn’t “non-normative” lives. It’s the condescension without analysis—and the dismissing of the hard-won freedoms that let people choose how they wish to live, whether “normal” or not.

You're describing sexist stereotypes. Which is what 'gender' is. Solely based on sexist stereotypes.

That some people prefer tall men or men with broad shoulders or men with beards or clean shaven men is just a 'type'. Or a 'look'. Not 'gender'.

But trans people are still either male or female. And bi is bi sexual so bi still includes trans people.

But it is not even a gender 'expression'.

It's just looks. A type. Appearance. That's all.

Quite. And that is why the elders, such as Fred Sargent (who was at Stonewall on the actual day, and created the Pride movement), have pleaded with people to STOP using the slur 'que*r'. Fred created Pride. And he has one request, just one - for people to show some RESPECT to him and those like him, who started the movement and endured and fought so the disrespectful little shits of today's day can shit all over his legacy and his forbearance by using the slur - desist from it.

It's not to much to ask. To have some fucking RESPECT for him and fellow elders.

It really is not too much to ask - is it?

???

By using that slur, you are not 'cool'. You are not 'inclusive'. You are not 'modern'. You are not 'hip'. You are not 'edgy'. You're just being a disrespectful turd.

Just stop it. Please.

You already have it - " 😆" or "😂"

OP you're absolutely right it's become a political term.

It doesn't even mean gay / lesbian / bisexual anymore.

The LGBTQ+ umbrella now includes many straight people e.g. many who identify as non-binary, asexual and a range of made up niche sexualities such as "demisexual" ("experiencing sexual attraction only after forming a strong emotional connection with someone").

So, not only does it appropriate a word that still feels like a slur to many actual gay people, it's become such a catch-all term as to be meaningless.

The world is now decided into "queer" (special people who don't call themselves straight and who believe in gender ideology); "allies" (not quite-so-special people who are boringly straight but nevertheless are still virtuous as they believe in gender ideology) and horrible meany bigots including annoying women who insist on describing themselves as words like "lesbian" and deliberately excluding people "assigned male at birth" from that definition.

I heard someone at work then other day say how nice it was that everyone who joined the LGBTQ "and allies" group at work agreed on their world view. I'm bisexual and not in the LGBTQ group as it doesn't represent me, precisely as I don't subscribe to gender ideology. I'm sure he didn't realise what he was saying, but basically LGBTQ groups and spaces have stopped being for all people who are lesbian/gay/straight and instead, are now for people of any sexuality including straight as long as they subscribe to a cult-like political movement that insists that people can change sex.

Damn, I meant to say LGBTQ groups have stopped being for those who are lesbian/gay/bisexual!!

Unintentionally excluding myself there!

Yes exactly. So it's an interesting word to consider in an LGBT context. Unless LGBT groups are in the habit of embarking on deep dives into other synonyms, like how saying "kid" is warmer than "child", or "dad" is friendlier than "father".

Yes, technically it does, but I do not find trans people who’ve modified themselves attractive.

I'm straight but I don't find most men attractive.

Well that’s my point.

Let's talk about words being exclusionary.

The definition of every word is supposed to exclude everything/one that isn't what that word actually means.

That's how words work.

The word "women" (meaning "female people") is supposed to exclude all male people.

The word "children" is supposed to exclude all adults.

The word "human" is supposed to exclude all other species.

The word "animal" is supposed to exclude all vegetables and minerals.

And so on.

This is, in fact, the point of words.

So that when you use one, I know what the fuck you are referring to, on the basis that we all agree that the word you are using means "X" and excludes all things which are not "X".

But it means we don't need the word "pansexual" any more than we need a word that means "bisexual and attracted to people of all races".

If anything the word "pansexual" is inherently a bit transphobic because it implies that regular bisexuals couldn't possibly be attracted to trans people.

I also don't think it does the job it's supposed to because I suspect a lot of people who would date a trans person would not date a trans person of either sex. There are so many different permutations. I know a trans (possibly non binary or gender fluid) person who is bisexual and polyamorous. I know a woman who is heterosexual, married and expecting her second child with her spouse who now identifies as a woman. She has never had a same sex relationship and isn't attracted to women, so I wouldn't call her a lesbian or bisexual or pansexual, she was previously interested in men and is now only interested in her spouse who is a biological man who identifies as a woman. I know a trans woman in a relationship with another trans woman and am pretty sure they are both only attracted to other biological males (so, a couple of gay men identifying as a couple of lesbians, I guess). There are trans men who are only attracted to other female people and date lesbians, lesbians who will happily date women or trans men but not men or trans women, trans men who are straight women but identify as gay men and are interested in dating gay men, who aren't interested in dating them because they are actually women.

Seriously, the word "pansexual" isn't helpful.

A lot of teens are calling themselves pansexual, because bi is old and boring.

I agree. I just assume that's why it's been coined as a word - to be more trans inclusive - and I suppose it can be useful to differentiate between people like me and those bi people who would date trans partners in some circles. But, I think it's a bit silly in all honesty.

As a general rule of thumb, the more we try to make a word "trans inclusive", the less meaningful it becomes.

Again, I don't really disagree. I'm very much a GC person. I was just trying to make sense of the pansexual thing. I'm pretty sick of all these unnecessary and confusing labels, actually!

It might be helpful to disambiguate sexual orientation and sexuality.

Sexual orientation is protected in the equality act and it means which sex we are attracted to - i.e. the same sex, the opposite sex, or both sexes. Homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual. That's it. Everyone has a sex and there are only two so everyone is covered (except for 'asexual' I suppose, but that's a whole other thread).

Sexuality is much, much broader and includes what kinds of men, women or both we are attracted to, what we like to do, how we express ourselves, how we flirt, how we date, what kinds of relationships we have with others, and with our own bodies, what turns us on, what turns us off ... it also includes kinks, fetishes and paraphilia, porn use, buying sex and all sexual offences against adults, children and animals.

Sexual orientation is just one aspect of our sexuality. It does not begin to cover the variety and subtlety of our individual experience as sexual beings and it's not supposed to. The vast majority of people are fully on board with LGB rights but what 'queerness' seeks to do is replace sexual orientation with sexuality, smerge them together and demand rights on that basis.

This is a problem because queerness does not tolerate boundaries and will never draw a line between those aspects of sexuality which are lovely, fluffy and harmless and those which cause terrible harm to others.

So while adopting the label queer is certainly inclusive, it may be rather a lot more inclusive than you'd actually want.

Eh? There's no deep dive. Lots of people say folk and people, these are just normal synonyms. Lots of people say kid instead of child. Why on earth does this bother you?

It doesn't. You're the only one getting bothered here. The rest of us are just having a discussion. I think you need to chill

Are straight men really calling themselves queer?.Why on earth would they ?

So they seem less boring is what it seems to boil down to. I know a few straight men and women who call themselves queer despite always being in heterosexual vanilla relationships ( I only know this because they like to overshare their sex lives - maybe that’s what makes them queer)

I think it's important to recognise that exclusive same-sex attraction does exist, it's a minority and thus it's important that there is language and resources available for them. Part of this whole fiasco has been ignoring that most people are only attracted to one sex, and that exclusively same-sex attracted people have a unique experience. It's been v frustrating for lesbians recently when both bio men and bi women (most of whom don't consider settling with women are both trying to take up space for them.

That's unfair. Someone gay raised by straight parents shouldn't feel their sexuality is wrong, or vice versa. Always, parents should try to prevent this.