Talk:Queer/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Sexual Connotation is SECONDARY not primary

The word queer must be secondary in the article as the origin of the word in the English language remains to describe something strange or weird. The term is still in use,; subsequently the original meaning of the term must have primacy in the article where the sexual slang/slur is far more recent. Twobells (talk) 08:23, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

If you looked up gay in Wikipedia, you'd be surprised if most of it was about happiness. The page is talks about the term and mentions the dated "carefree" meaning but focuses on today's meaning: homosexuals.

Since Wikipedia is not a dictionary, the word "queer" in the sense of "strange" does not really deserve an article - although in Wiktionary, it does have a definition (under the tag "(slightly dated)"). I'd imagine most people who search "queer" in Wikipedia are looking for the umbrella term and that's what the article is about. The article's subject is the umbrella term for non-heterosexuals, not the word meaning "strange", so it need not talk about the latter other than as an etymology.

I would think the word "queer" is used more commonly to mean "non-heterosexual" or as a homophobic insult today: that's certainly the main connotation that springs to mind when I hear the word. Bilorv ^(Talk)_(Contribs) 09:37, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Question: Scope

Can a person who identifies as queer solely be attracted to a person of the same sex? It seems like the term is typically used to describe a person who is at least somewhat attracted to the opposite sex (whether they're bisexual, pansexual, homoflexible, etc.) Should this be added into the article? 2604:2000:FFC0:1F9:4BE:10F9:EAC4:E40D (talk) 05:21, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

The term queer is used with regard to a person who is solely, primarily or somewhat romantically/sexually attracted to the same sex. That's why the lead currently states, in part, "umbrella term for sexual and gender minorities that are not heterosexual, or gender-binary." I wonder if "not heterosexual" should be changed to "non-heterosexual," though. What you want addressed in the article is already addressed in the "Inclusivity and scope" section, though it doesn't mention "homoflexible" (which currently redirects to the Heteroflexibility article) or state or indicate that "the term is usually used to describe a person who is at least somewhat attracted to the opposite sex." Flyer22 (talk) 05:36, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

On a side note: I altered the heading of this section with ": Scope" so that it is clear as to what this section is about; it will also help identifying the section once it is archived. Flyer22 (talk) 05:42, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Note: The IP changed the original wording I was responding to above. Flyer22 (talk) 01:46, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Gay and lesbian are not synonyms

The proof: you can't call a gay male a lesbian. Why is the media so determined use the term gay as if it meant both things? The only words that can do that are queer and same-sex.Godofredo29 (talk) 10:58, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

On the Wiktionary article on the term 'gay', it carries this under the subheading 'homosexual':

1. (of a person or animal, especially a male person) Possessing sexual and emotional attraction towards members of the same gender or sex.

Therefore, it's obvious that in common usage, 'gay' refers to men (generally speaking). However, gay means 'homosexual' in this context, and 'homosexual' can be applied to both men and women - the Wiktionary article doesn't say that it is solely referring to men, just primarily. But saying that 'you can't call a gay male a lesbian' and claiming it's proof that lesbians aren't gay isn't really an argument here.

(P.S: Your mentioning of 'the media' being 'so determined' to use the term gay in both context seems very conspiratorial. Grandiose claims like that require a lot of evidence). - Jordan Hooper ^(talk) 21:05, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

"make a political move against heteronormativity"

"Make a political move" doesn't sound like idiomatic English to me. How about "take a political stance"? 109.157.79.50 (talk) 05:29, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't know about other editors, but I agree. – Jordan Hooper ^(talk)_(contribs) 20:54, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I've changed it. Thanks for bringing it up. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c) 09:15, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Suggested Edits, methinks this article needs a LOT of work!

1) no mention of Judith Butler!?! She, and her conception of 'performativity' has been central to the academic battle to make Queer Theory not just A theory of gender within academia but THE theory within acadamia that has more heft even than feminism does in gender studies in terms of dominating the discussion and is even pushed within the Ivy Leagues.

You need a section on the concept of performativity and the practice of drag at the very least. Queer can be used in the verb form, and actively bending other people's rigid conceptions of gender by conceiving of life as a performance is at the heart of a lot of Trans AND Queer activity (the line isn't particularly clear cut between where trans ends and where queer begins, except that sometimes trans people seek identification as a traditional gender.)

2) In the criticism section, you did not include probably the most salient and scathing criticism posed of Queer Theory, which would be the scholars within the radical feminists. This article mentions one criticism of the queer identity being "TOO RADICAL." I think it would be more inclusive of the whole range of criticism to include those who believe that the "Queer" identity is the opposite of radical, because turning gender into nothing more than a performance ignores the basis of power which forces the narrow range of behavior packaged as 'gender roles' to begin with.

3) Maybe the essentialism/anti-essentialism debate needs to be included to give a fare shake at whats at stake with the notion of a 'queer' identity. There are gender traditionalists who believe that the stereotypical behavior of each sex is fixed in biology and that there's a fundamental unalterable kernal to 'manliness' and 'womanliness'

The radical feminists, the transgender activists, the Queers ALL oppose the limited and externally policed nature of gender identities, but you step on a lot of toes when you aren't careful about their crucial differences — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.225.41.82 (talk) 19:21, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Likely origin of the word is Old Norse.

The likely origin of the word is Old Norse. Queer, ( < Old Norse: kuerk, quirk, bent). Queer is behavior deviating from the ordinary; a strange or peculiar person; a slang word for homosexual. Research888 (talk) 22:28, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

@Research888: And your source? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

etymology: [1]. Paul B (talk) 16:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Edits to lead

A lot of interesting material has been added to the article recently. However, many very specific points have been added directly to the lead, rather than added to the body of the article and the summarized, where appropriate, in the lead. The lead needs some structural work (e.g., it repeats that queer is the name of academic disciplines), but it is difficult to ensure the lead reflects the weight of the body of the article when the lead contains material not found elsewhere.

Some of the very specific points added to the lead are far too specific for the general introduction, which should reflect the structure of the entire article it is summarizing. This isn't the queer studies or queer theory article, it is a broad concept article about the umbrella term and its many applications.

Some additions also state people's positions in Wikipedia's voice. I don't think we should state as a fact that the mainstream gay movement embraces liberal conservatism, and definitely should not say that it is imperialistic or neoliberal.--Trystan (talk) 13:31, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2015

On the page for Queer, it said that the word is used for anyone not both heterosexual and cisgender. As a straight (heterosexual) trans woman doing this erases my identity. Historically having grown up in the 70s, 80s, and 90s, queer was a sexuality slur. Tranny or shemale was a slur against me. I've been called queer, a fag, and a tranny many times in my life. Queer and fag were sexuality slurs.

There is a large section of straight trans men and women who distance themselves from the LGBT movement because of the queer washing of all gender minorities. It always feels like I'm outnumbered when I point these things out to queer cis and trans people because I feel like a minority as a straight trans woman, but is there a way to reflect in the article that straight, binary identified trans people are pushed away from the LGBT by using a reclaimed sexuality slur for straight gender minorities?

SkilletCookies (talk) 16:08, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Not done: We'd need reliable sources that say that "straight, binary identified trans people are pushed away from the LGBT by using a reclaimed sexuality slur for straight gender minorities". There is already a section that discusses reactions to the term itself. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:15, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Italicisation of 'queer'

Why is the term italicised throughout the article? Just wondering. – Jordan Hooper ^(talk) 19:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

For the same reason that some other terms in the article are italicized: WP:WORDSASWORDS. This article is about the term queer, and, per WP:WORDSASWORDS, when using a term as a term, the term should be italicized (or put into quotation marks in other cases). It is use–mention distinction. Flyer22 (talk) 03:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for the clarification! – Jordan Hooper ^(talk) 17:04, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

The Obento Musubi, see what is stated in this section. You should stop de-italicizing the word queer when it is used as a word. Italics are also preferred to quotation marks in this case. And, as you may have seen, I reverted you here. Flyer22 (talk) 00:21, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for bringing this to my attention. However, I do not appreciate the rollback that you just did, since you not only reverted my de-italicizing, but a slew of content edits. I will restore my edits with italics included around queer. Thanks, The Obento Musubi (talk) 00:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

The Obento Musubi, I already explained why I reverted your other edits; what I stated in this edit summary should be clear if you click on the links. You are calling LGBT people non-normative, which the vast majority of them would not appreciate. Your "non-normative" addition is also a WP:EGG violation, since you are WP:Pipelinking it with non-heterosexual. And, per MOS:HEAD, we should not repeat the article title in headings unless necessary. If your other edits are fine, you can restore those. Flyer22 (talk) 00:42, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay, now you are WP:Edit warring on the matter, as seen here, because of your personal preferences. And, no, we should not be talking about this on your "personal page." It is an article talk page matter. I can see that you are a WP:Newbie in many ways. I have no desire to teach you on how to appropriately edit Wikipedia, so I won't be re-reverting you on this matter or pursuing that you edit correctly. Instead, I will take this article off my WP:Watchlist for now (weeks, months, maybe a year or two). Flyer22 (talk) 00:47, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I didn't start the edit war, Flyer22. Please remember that. I also gave you the opportunity to have a constructive discussion on your talk page, but you blatantly rejected that opportunity. If you have no interest in being collaborative, perhaps Wikipedia is not the place for you at the moment. Anyone else who would like to work together to make this article better should feel free to do so, but I should remind folks that reverting entire series of edits by other users violates "revert only when necessary". I'm a strong believer in assuming good faith, especially when those you're talking to are just trying to input their own expertise and experiences with the topic at hand. All of us come with our own subjectivities, and all of those subjectivities deserve respect without being entirely reverted by another user. The Obento Musubi (talk) 01:29, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

The Obento Musubi, I don't feel that reverting you was necessarily starting the WP:Edit war. See again what Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (WP:BRD) states. And that, like Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary, is an essay; not a Wikipedia policy or a guideline. I excused myself from collaboration with you because you did not seem too interested in following Wikipedia's rules, and also are not as familiar with them as I am. It's more challenging to work with an editor that knows less about Wikipedia rules than I do, especially when they do not seem particularly interested in following those rules, and I sometimes am not up for that challenge. That doesn't mean that Wikipedia is not for me.

For others, this is the discussion that The Obento Musubi is talking about. Flyer22 (talk) 01:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

This is a pretty non-standard usage of italicization. The normal way to refer to terms used in English is with quotes while italicization is mostly used for emphasis. This is especially true for etymology and the likes. It doesn't really make sense to use italics as is done here, so I've changed it to quotes for the most part.

Peter ^Isotalo 15:29, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's non-standard; italics are recommended for for words-as-words by the Chicago Manual of Style, AMA, Cambridge (p. 138), and our own Wikipedia Manual of Style.--Trystan (talk) 16:55, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

It's pretty non-standard on Wikipedia. More importantly, italics are also used for titles of works (books, films, albums) and non-English words. There's completely obvious ambiguity there. Using quotation marks is completely unambiguous.

And italics are not used to explain definitions of words. I reverted back to my own version since that's at least consistent. If you want to insist that italics be used for words-as-words, it needs to be done properly. The article currently confuses words-as-words with simple definitions like "strange" or "eccentric". It's very confusing.

Peter ^Isotalo 13:47, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Trystan. I reverted per WP:WORDSASWORDS; italics in this regard are quite standard on Wikipedia. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:55, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

That stated, I don't object to quotation marks being used where they should be used or are better suited than italics; WP:WORDSASWORDS is also clear that quotation marks are better in some cases. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

It's a very weak standard then. In my experience it varies from article to article. Just take a look at the article linked from list of ethnic slurs. You got all kinds of variants there.

Peter ^Isotalo 14:01, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I also agree that quotation marks for definitions is an improvement. I've reworded a couple of sentences in the lead to make it a clear use of the word, rather than a mention. Since, for our purposes, queer will always be an adjective, I think any time it appears as a noun should either be italicized as a mention (where we mean "the label queer"), or rewritten to something like "queer identities".

There are a couple of sentences that seem inconsistent to me. The last sentence of the first paragraph refers to the label LGBT, which I would put in italics as a mention rather than quotes as a definition. Also, in the first sentence under Queer Academia, both queer and queening are being mentioned in the same way, and should be formatted the same way.--Trystan (talk) 15:05, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Define Intersex at or prior to first use

″Intersex″ is used repeatedly, but never explicitly defined. I can't add the definition, because I was looking and could not find it (in terms specific to this Wikipedia article). Thanks. HalFonts (talk) 05:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

@HalFonts: I wikilinked to intersex at its first occurrence. No need to fully define here. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Queer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140202221819/https://www.qlife.org.au/ to https://www.qlife.org.au

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Queer as pejorative in the UK

I can see that 'queer' is widely used in the US but in the UK it has for a long time been a very pejorative word for a gay man, and is a word used to attack gay men by homophobes. Its use to describe gay men is therefore, to me certainly, and I would suggest most gay men in the UK, offensive. Could that be mentioned in the article as I have noticed that use of queer instead of gay is creeping into London based UK articles and I suspect that is due to Americanisation of British English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.184.128.195 (talk) 14:29, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Please can I second this. I am British, and queer is a word that I associate only with homophobia and absolutely do not accept as a label to describe me as a gay man. Neither does my partner or our gay friends. It is all of a sudden being used in the Guardian and by the BBC and I find that very offensive. More emphasis of the fact that in the UK at least queer is far from widely accepted would be good please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.23.218 (talk) 21:12, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth, reappropriation of the word has not been without controversy on the west side of the Atlantic, and positive or neutral usage may not be as widely accepted as you suggest. In any event, what's needed in order to change the article is reliable sources. At Wikipedia, we try not to provide "more emphasis" (or less) on the basis of personal anecdote. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 23:34, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Here are some references of people objecting to the use of queer if that helps? http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/anna-tippett/im-gay-not-queer_b_10263278.html http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/bj-epstein/queer-definition_b_3615513.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-peron/not-queer-just-gay-no-thanks_b_9145566.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.194.125 (talk) 21:19, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

My main issue is that this article frequently uses the term "queer" to refer to LGBT people instead of just using the term to refer to the term & I find that disgusting. An article about the word "nigger" wouldn't be expected to frequently use that word to refer to black people. It would only be expected to use that word when referring to the word. God, I hate typing slurs & I wish people would stop being fucking ignorant enough to give me a reason to type them.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.92.63.198 (talk)

I don't know about "frequently". I just scanned the article and found two, possibly three, instances of what you describe. It might be helpful if you'd list each occurrence here. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 16:48, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Are you kidding me?

It's vitriolically homophobic to act like homosexual people (many of whom heard the word "queer" for the first time as we were being harassed or violently assaulted) are simply not progressive or radical enough to embrace the word as an "umbrella term". I am NOT a queer and gee whiz did I not appreciate reading an article telling me that if I don't like being called slurs I should just, I don't know, get an undercut and take a gender studies class and maybe then I'll stop being such a hysterical oversensitive gay. If one person wants to individually identify as queer, fine, whatever, I don't care but it is simply inaccurate to act like this is a widely accepted and appropriate word to use in reference to all same sex attracted individuals when it's not. Not all of us are 22 year old bisexuals from NYC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heavensgate80proof (talk • contribs) 03:41, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Have you posted about this here before, Heavensgate80proof? I ask because your comments are very similar to those of an IP editor in a previous section on this page. If so, would you mind if I merged the sections? Having one discussion split across different sections makes the talk page disjointed and hard to follow. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 04:36, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

The dreaded "and/or"

This edit changed the wording from concerns have been raised among intersex activists that LGBT or queer groups including them could give the wrong impression that all or most intersex people are lesbian, gay, bisexual, and/ or transgender to concerns have been raised among intersex activists that LGBT or queer groups including them could give the wrong impression that all or most intersex people are lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender per MOS:ANDOR. I think this may be a rare instance where the construction is justified. The revised wording serves to equate transgender status with the three sexual orientations, and this is potentially misleading to readers because sexual orientation is unrelated to gender identity; one can be lesbian or gay or bisexual regardless of trans or cis status. I am unable to think of an elegant way of acknowledging this without making the sentence "too lengthy or awkward" (MOS wording). It occurs to me that we could replace "lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender" with "LGBT", but I'm unsure whether this would be a good idea in the context. Thoughts would be appreciated. Pinging User:Dwo, who made the edit in question. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 21:05, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I think the clarity of meaning is helpful, but I don't think the and/or conveys it. How about concerns have been raised among intersex activists that LGBT or queer groups including them could give the wrong impression that all or most intersex people are transgender, or are lesbian, gay, or bisexual. I'd also suggest removing the italics on queer in the sentence, since it is just being used, rather than mentioned.--Trystan (talk) 22:44, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

The use of and/or is never justified. It's bad English. It used to be that, when the MoS is stating to avoid it's use, it meant to limit such use to instances where it must be included such as quotations or proper titles (e.g., Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear). I would never advise actually using and/or in prose writing; there's always a better way to word such. If and/or truly is justified here… well, I'd sleep well at night believing that this is the rarest of occasions that justify its use. Let's talk about rewording it perhaps? — D. Wo. 01:40, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

That's what we're doing. What do you think of Trystan's proposed wording? I think it's a definite improvement, although I'm starting to think the whole sentence is cumbersome. For instance, the "including them" bit trips me up when I read it; it seems to introduce potential ambiguity (not likely, mind you, but potential). Incidentally, I dislike "and/or", but I'm glad it's in the arsenal for those rare(est) occasions. "Bad English" is usually a judgment call, and "never" is a very strong word best applied to things like "avoid it's use" (see above). Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 04:49, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Dwo, see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 192#RfC: Should the WP:ANDOR guideline be softened to begin with "Avoid unless" wording or similar?. As that discussion shows, a number of editors do feel that "and/or" is sometimes justified. This is why the guideline was recently softened. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:01, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

As for sexual orientation being unrelated to gender identity, I wouldn't state that they are completely unrelated; this is per studies noted at the Childhood gender nonconformity and Gender dysphoria in children articles, but it is certainly true that "one can be lesbian or gay or bisexual regardless of trans or cis status." Not all trans women are sexually attracted to men, for example. So we need to be mindful of the wording per what Rivertorch stated. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:08, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Queer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402092728/http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/deaf_culture.html to http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/deaf_culture.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:45, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Queer movement versus gay movement

In the course of compiling sources for a new article about Washington, D.C. writer and queer activist Malcom Gregory Scott [2], I discovered sources suggesting that during the reclamation of the word "queer", not everyone agreed that the important difference between the "queer movement" and the "gay movement" was the queer movement's rejection of assimilationist goals such as military inclusion and marriage rights as currently stated in the article. Scott, a frequently cited activist of the time, saw the important difference in terms of visibility, and the queer movement's insistence on public acknowledgment instead of the right to privacy for which the gay movement had fought. Perhaps the article could be edited to reflect this alternative defense of the reclamation of "queer": "Some interpreted the queer movement as a rejection of causes viewed as assimilationist...while others understood it as a rejection of the closet and the gay movement's earlier emphasis on privacy rights rather than public and legal acknowledgement of queer lives. Rasquiella (talk) 09:19, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

References

Other Definitions

Queer is or was colloquially used in some variants of British English to mean sick or ill, as in 'I do feel queer'.

It was also and may still be used in Isle of Wight (England) dialect (and possibly other southern dialects) to mean angry. Typically said of a child throwing a tantrum: 'Didn't he get queer?'

There may be others.

In the 'strange' category, I'd cite, 'As queer as Dick's hatband' which allegedly went three times round his hat.

These are minor definitions but I think they should be included for completeness, not to mention entertainment value. I can't give citations, but a lot of uncited material reaches Wikipedia anyway. Chrismorey (talk) 05:45, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

So it does, but I'm not so sure that's an especially good reason to add more. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 06:33, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

This Article is Bias and Offensive

This article repeatedly uses the term "gay identity" and "homosexual identity" but being lesbian or gay isn't an identity it's a sexuality. You're born homosexual or bisexual or heterosexual. It's not something you can identify as.

There is enough science and studies behind the subject to prove this so to call homosexuality a "sexual identity" is offensive and incorrect. It's basically saying homosexuality is a choice which really sets the community back a few decades. Homophobic nontheless.

I would also like to like to address that this article throws in a "ps. Some people associate this with the slur" at the bottom of the article but doesn't go into it's history. As a person who has had "queer" screamed at them and used against them and a way to put them in a box as 'other' and deserving death and punishment, I'd personally feel a lot better if it mentioned at the /top/ of the article the controversy of the word being a slur. I also wouldn't mind if it went more in depth about it's history because I feel that that is what Wikipedia is for. But mostly I would just like to see something along the lines of mentioning it is an offensive term to some while others reclaim the word as an umbrella term.

The definition of queer is, by the way, a slur to describe a homosexual man. Lesbiannotqueer (talk) 05:14, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

The lead paragraph appears to say precisely what you say you would like to see: "mentioning it is an offensive term to some while others reclaim the word as an umbrella term". What you say about identity really isn't quite as simple as you suggest, but please feel free to bring reliable sources to the table to support your assertions. Many of us feel strongly about terminology, but it's never quite as black and white as you're seeming to imply, so we try to go with what reliable sources say, giving due weight to the various significant points of view. As for your last sentence, well, there is no one definition of queer; like innumerable words in the English language, it has various definitions, and context matters. If the article doesn't reflect that, please help make it better! Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 18:29, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

This article has become unreadable.

In adapting to all sorts of arcane adjustments, this article is now extremely dense, and somewhat useless for the average person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirktierney (talk • contribs) 01:52, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Are there any sections that stick out as needing especial attention? What specific changes would you recommend? TechBear | Talk | Contributions 03:33, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Kirktierney, pinging you even though that was your only edit at the encyclopedia, so not sure if you'll ever see this. TechBear's question was a good one. If you have some thoughts about what parts you found difficult, please point them out. Even better, would be some ideas of how to improve the article. Regards, Mathglot (talk) 07:18, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Senses of the word

According to the Oxford Dictionary of English, the first sense of the word is 'strange or odd', while the second sense of the word is 'homosexual' and is listed as 'informal'. Also this article largely focuses the second sense. Should we add something to the lede to clarify that the first sense of the word is still in use today and not obsolete? JACKINTHEBOX • ^TALK 09:27, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

As an encyclopedia and not a dictionary, articles focus on topics, not words. The topic of this article is queer as a an identity, and the article’s scope does not include all meanings of the word queer. More emphasis than usual is already given to etymology, but only so as far as it is relevant to the evolution of the identity.--Trystan (talk) 14:13, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Queer Flag

I guess I'm very new to this so forgive me if I'm not doing everything quite right. I joined simply for this reason - I think I'll stay anyway because it's cool - but has there been any thought to add the queer flag as a picture here?

The Queer identity is growing more and more in numbers and a pride flag has been created for it over a year ago. It's also commonly known as "the queer Chevron" BeffyNicole (talk) 06:19, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Description of term needs to be rephrased

Right now the lead states

"Queer is an umbrella term for sexual and gender minorities who are not heterosexual or cisgender."

However, "queer" is currently being used to describe anything that isn't strictly heterosexual. Films, for example, with lesbian (homosexual female) and gay (homosexual male) stories and characters are being called "queer" by many reviewers. Cisgender is not a factor. In a nutshell: if it's not straight — it's queer. The description in the lead needs to represent modern usage. Pyxis Solitary yak 10:40, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

So you feel that extending the meaning of queer to those who are not cisgender is not modern usage? And you therefore want us to remove "or cisgender" from the lead? But like the lead currently states, "queer became increasingly used to describe a broad spectrum of non-normative." In this sense, "non-normative" means non-heteronormative, which also covers the cisgender topic. Although the term cisgender was used in the 1900s 1990s, it's only recently that its use has gained traction. And use of queer as a broad term to refer to sexual and gender minorities who are not heterosexual or cisgender is modern. Yes, queer is still used to mean "gay" or "not heterosexual," but the term is broader than that now. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:13, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Christ on a shingle! Saying and suggesting anything related to LGBTXYZ subjects is a friggin' rabbit hole.
"And you therefore want us to remove "or cisgender" from the lead?" Where in my comment did I say cisgender should be removed from the total description? However, the reality is that in contemporary usage it doesn't matter if a human being is cisgender or not, because many applications of the term "queer" today have nothing to do with cisgender. A film is a lesbian story about homosexual females? It's now referred to as a "queer film" by many critics, instead of a "lesbian film". A television show has non-heterosexual characters in the mix? Critics hail it as a "queer" series. Lesbian is queer. Gay is queer. Bisexual is queer. Transgender is queer. Transexual is queer. Non-binary is queer. Pansexual is queer. Tits on top and dick on bottom: cisgender? who cares. It's queer.
The lead needs to reflect how the term "queer" is used today. There's more to it than "not heterosexual or cisgender". "Non-normative" is a 20-dollar term that makes people's eyes glaze over. How the use of the word "queer" has evolved should be brought to the front and appear in the first paragraph of the lead because (and this is only from my personal experience) most members of the public turn to Wikipedia as a quick-reference and don't have the time, or wish to spend the time, to read articles from top to bottom and get into its nooks and crannies. Pyxis Solitary yak 03:55, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

@Pyxis Solitary: I'm having trouble understanding what your issue is. "If it's not straight, it's queer"... yes, that's right. And if it's not cisgender, it's also queer. What's the problem then? EvergreenFir (talk) 04:36, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Pyxis Solitary, when you quote the lead sentence and state "however, 'queer' is currently being used to describe anything that isn't strictly heterosexual" and "the description in the lead needs to represent modern usage," and the modern usage of "anything that isn't strictly heterosexual" is already in the lead, how am I to not think you want the cisgender aspect removed from the lead sentence? Your initial post seems to essentially be calling the cisgender aspect outdated and the "queer means 'non-heterosexual'" aspect modern. Your second post seems to be stating the same thing. The "queer means 'non-heterosexual'" aspect is older than the cisgender aspect. And both are modern. You stated, "Transgender is queer. Transexual is queer. Non-binary is queer." That is what the term cisgender covers. Transsexual people are transgender people (although some prefer not to be called transgender). The term transgender, when used broadly, is an umbrella term that covers non-binary people as well. And like the Cisgender article states, "Cisgender is a term for people whose gender identity matches the sex that they were assigned at birth. [..] It is the opposite of the term transgender." If you mean that you want it stressed that queer especially refers to gay, lesbian and bisexual/pansexual people, we need WP:Reliable sources for that. The lead already notes that "queer came to be used pejoratively against those with same-sex desires or relationships in the late 19th century." To suggest that this is still the primary usage, or that the primary usage is for those with same-sex desires or who are in same-sex relationships in the non-pejorative sense, needs reliable sourcing. I know how you feel about the term cisgender and that you are likely annoyed by queer being used in place of lesbian in some sources and by some of the newer generation, but there are still a lot of sources and critics that call lesbian films what they are -- lesbian films. Whether one wants to call Carol an LGBT film or a queer film, it is still a lesbian film. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:11, 7 January 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:08, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I am also unclear on what the issue is here. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 00:52, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Making an attempt anyway: If you dislike the use of cisgender, well... our job as Wikipedians is to document usage, and that is part of the current, sourced and documented usage. There is a critques/criticism section at the Cisgender article; maybe what you're looking for would be better-served by working with well-sourced content there? - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 00:59, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Repetition of "queer" in section headings...

MOS:NOBACKREF says headings should Not redundantly refer back to the subject of the article. Should these instances of the word be deleted, or do we think terms like "queer bodies" or "queer art" are inseparable? WanderingWanda (talk) 04:39, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

If no loss of clarity, then definitely they should be deleted. Sometimes, you need to add a preposition or other helping word, to clarify what is meant; and sometimes, if you have a pat phrase where removing one part of it would render the title nonsensical ("Bodies" ??) you need to keep the redundant term. In the latter case, if you need the term in the sectoin title, I would quote the whole term: == "Queer bodies" ==. But really, it's not about the term, which is only incidental to the section; it actually should be == Intersex == imho. Mathglot (talk) 11:04, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

The designation of the term

By queers we mean not only non-heterosexual and non-cisender people, but also, for example, intersex, asexuals, polyamores, fetishists, etc. "Sexual minorities" here is the broadest designation of all those who are called queers — it includes gender minorities.

"Queer is an umbrella term for sexual minoritie". Валя Беляев (talk) 16:32, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Notes section

This does not appear to have any use, while the References section has taken care of that. Any reason to not remove? Thanks.--Surv1v4l1st ^{▌Talk|Contribs▌} 21:30, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

@Surv1v4l1st: I've removed it. GreenComputer (talk) 11:40, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks.--Surv1v4l1st ^{▌Talk|Contribs▌} 14:52, 13 October 2020 (UTC)