Queerness
Jun 4, 2017Is queerness something that all lesbian, gay, bi, and trans people have in common? Is it a sexual identity, a political identity, both, or something else entirely? Sometimes “queer” is used as a slur, yet there are many people who proudly self-identify as queer.
Comments(6)
Harold G. Neuman
Thursday, August 29, 2019 -- 7:47 AM
"Queer" is such an archaic"Queer" is such an archaic term for other sexual orientations. I cringe whenever I hear or read it. One (this one, anyway) would think that with all the progress made by other-sexed individuals and groups representing them, that someone would have thought to erase this demeaning reference from the modern lexicon. Or maybe it is believed that it still makes a point, although I cannot fathom just what that 'point' might be. The 'N' word clings ferociously to our language, and, it remains acceptable for black people to use it among themselves. Question from a novitiate: is it ever acceptable for other persons of color (Hispanics; Indians; Asian/Pacific Islanders; etc.) to use the 'N' word? Or are they just as likely to be beaten to death if they were to do so so? I do not know, nor do I know if these sorts of questions are ever asked. With all the so-called political correctness and sensitivity flying around these days, one (this one) really begins to wonder how such contingencies might be overlooked. Trendiness has a way of eventually losing its appeal---and, impact. I don't follow anyone on Twitter; Facebook; Instagram or other venues. As long as my own life remains interesting, I can see no reason(s) for doing so. So, let's use queer in its' original context. Maybe some other-sexed people would also feel better about who they are? I hope this is not too radical for some to consider. If it is, those folks might ask themselves why they think so.
也许我会建立我自己的博客,嗯?不,坏主意……我不是一个追随者(除非你把“哲学谈话”也算在内),所以我不应该指望任何人会中国伊朗亚洲杯比赛直播追随我。
RepoMan05
Friday, October 4, 2019 -- 3:10 AM
Queer, weird, and odd, areQueer, weird, and odd, are all terms for spoild meat. Id say it were the catholics and british who made: anything out of their subjective interpretations of anything: out of the ordinary - a thing of revulsion that were lacking right to exist. British liked it because they liked power. Catholics liked it because they liked the excuse to slave rape imprisoned little boys.
Queer isnt very special of a word really. Betwern these three, which single word would you choose to represent "extra-subjective sexuality" if not "queer?"
RepoMan05
Friday, October 4, 2019 -- 3:12 AM
Also, i dont think it wouldAlso, i dont think it would take you long to be sick of "other-sexed individuals" either. I mean, if you had to write that every time and actualy addressed a topic, you'd hate it intensly after very short order, im sure.
你创造圣言(任何你不允许说的词)所造成的问题是,你最终制造了越来越多的圣言和更深更坚定的怨恨。甚至像“失望”这样的常用词也变成了可怕的常用语。
At some point folks, you have to put down the douche bags.
Arendt
Tuesday, September 17, 2019 -- 2:08 PM
Thank you for exploring thisThank you for exploring this challenging topic; however, I have serious concerns about several aspects of this show:
1) That the show affirmed the gender fluidity movement's premise that sex is non-binary; and, seemed to suggest that the categories of female and male may very well have outlived their usefulness.
As a woman who has experienced eight "memorable" instances of sexual harassment, including 2 instances of violent sexual assault and 2 instances of lengthy, determined and aggressive stalking that may have resulted in rape or worse...all by male human beings, human beings with penises, I found the the show's dismissal of the bathroom issue as "silly"...alarming.
Not only are human males, on average, stronger and more violent than human females, they are also far more likely to commit all types of sexual harassment, including assault, stalking, exhibitionism and voyeurism. And, there is no reliable data that men who self-identify as women (many of whom retain male genitalia and are still sexually attracted to females) are any less violent than males who don't.
As such, women (i.e. human beings born with ovaries, human beings who are often subject to menstruation, pregnancy (sometimes, forced), child birth, lactation, and menopause) deserve sex-segregated spaces that acknowledge their material biological reality...sex-segregated communal toilets, showers, locker rooms, domestic abuse shelters, and prisons...spaces where girls and women are especially vulnerable to male sexual harassment.
2) That in a show on sex and gender, zero of the four voices heard (those of Ken Taylor, Josh Landry, Susan Stryker, and Ian Shoals) were WBW (women born women). How is this even possible? How can a discussion on sex and gender leave out the viewpoint of human beings actually subject to menstruation and pregnancy?
3) That in a show on sex, gender, and queerness ( VERY controversial issues these days), where were the voices critical of the gender fluidity movement?
Philosophy Talk presents itself as a show that questions everything. But, one has to wonder: is it really ready to question the assertions of the new gender fluidity movement?
RepoMan05
Thursday, October 3, 2019 -- 7:54 PM
You note a lot of statisticsYou note a lot of statistics and im not going to refute them, but would you consider that it might be natural that males have a stronger sex drive than females, and that, males are less selective than females?
能不能通过观察表型规范来解决这些问题呢?我们很容易发现自然的问题,但否认我们的自然并不能改变它。客观性不因主观性而改变。说“强奸是坏事”并不能改变这是完全自然的。两性都有这方面的本能。
什么样的解决方案是可能的。我建议你做运动。就像拳击一样,在体育赛事的范围内,牺牲我们的福祉仍然可以被视为是道德的。
Leaving no outlet for natural behaviors has shown itself to be counter productive to "respecting the rule of law." People are doing it everywhere all around you as you read this.
A competitive evolution type impregnation sport. Various selection events finished off with an old fashioned game of chase. Escaping impregnation takes home the big pot of gold. Top male and female athletes to finally have some way to compete in the same sport. World wide betting pools. Instant prenatal fame and fortune for offspring. Born famous. Perhaps nations as a whole could make war like concessions based on such outcomes, avoiding bothersome slaughters and timeless resentment.
What's wrong with nature? Morality should have some natural basis. Morality should not be denying the existance of our nature altogether. Denying someone their nature is itself the hight of immortality.
RepoMan05
Friday, October 4, 2019 -- 6:33 PM
No, rather than bringing moreNo, rather than bringing more freedom, the new gender ideals have put us deeper into a cage. Now not only do we have to respect everyones opinions about straight people, now we have to respect a handful of other subjectivist crap.
性别首先是一种错觉。任何事物怎么可能是异性而不是错觉呢?
Now we have to accept more delusions. This just put more nerves on the floor. Things on the floor get stepped on. Thats what floors are for.
So now, thats what nerves are for.
为什么从来没有人说过“没有人有权利强迫别人接受或接受主体性”,作为对所有这些非人道主义立场的回答?
British loyalists aren't against structural violence. They're only against not being in control of it.