Talk:Queer

overly narrow definition

queer, as discussed in queer theory, is a very broad term. as a cisgender, heterosexual, monogamous man, I identify as queer because I seek the destruction of gender and I actively work to subvert it.

language which was inclusive to me identifying as queer was previously part of this article. it seems as though over the last 5 years this article has shrunk the definition to only include non-cis or non-heterosexual people. if the sources which supported the previous versions have remained authoritative (I think this is true but I could be wrong) then I think we should place that line back into the summary.

People who reject traditional gender identities and seek a broader and deliberately ambiguous alternative to the label LGBT may describe themselves as queer.

commie (talk) 03:21, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Queer, at this point, seems to have multiple, mutually exclusive definitions. There are sources claiming that queer is a slur that refers specifically to LGBT people. There are others that claim the term is not just not a slur, but rather has had it's definition broadened almost to the point of meaninglessness. I think the quality of this article is contingent on confronting the diversity of definitions and interpretations that seem to have arisen around the term, which unfortunately, is no simple task. Tdmurlock (talk) 02:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

The various meanings are, as you say, mutually exclusive. Per WP:Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, "...articles rarely, if ever, contain more than one distinct definition or usage of the article's title." This article is about one meaning, and other meanings are only relevant to the extent they help inform the history and context of that concept.--Trystan (talk) 03:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree queer is too narrowly defined in this article, though it's difficult to give a concise description that fully describes queer precisely due to how general it is. That being said at minimum queer is generally agreed to include individuals who are not heteroromantic - yes it's possible to be heterosexual and not heteromantic. Considering how consistently this group is included in definitions of queer and that non-heteroromantic individuals are actually more common then non-cis people statistically it would seem a demographic worth mentioning. As such, at minimum, I'd recommend changing the description to explicitly include non-heteromantic individuals as being queer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.51.12.225 (talk • contribs)

"Queer is an umbrella term" or "queer is sometimes used an umbrella term"?

@Sideswipe9th

Hey homie, The only mentions of queer as an umbrella term in the body is under the criticism section- "Some LGBT people dislike the use of queer as an umbrella term." The only other mention of the phrase "umbrella term" is in reference to the usage of the term gay as an umbrella term. In accordance with WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY I propose we change "queer is an umbrella term" to "queer is sometimes used as an umbrella term", as the body only disputes the notion that queer is a universally accepted umbrella term.

Note the google scholar search for "queer is sometimes used as an umbrella term" comes up with several pages of results demonstrating academic literature employing that exact phrasing. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C29&q=%22queer+is+sometimes+used+as+an+umbrella%22+&btnG= Tdmurlock (talk) 03:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Huh, I could have sworn we had content about it being an umbrella term in the article body. It's use as an umbrella term is decidedly uncontroversial, see Human Rights Campaign, UK National Archives, University of Florida, a 2019 research paper in Sexuality & Culture, Britannica.

To be honest, I'd maybe take a closer look at what's been written in the criticism section. Generally speaking we avoid criticism sections in articles, because they tend to be a nightmare to keep complaint with WP:NPOV. On the one hand I'd maybe look at more naturally weaving that content into other relevant sections. However, a large part of it, including the content that you're relying on (ie Some LGBT people dislike the use of queer as an umbrella term... is wholly unsourced. It seems that content was added back in May 2019 as part of a series of rewrites to avoid a different type of WP:CSECTION, though even then it wasn't sourced and the content it was re-phrasing was very poorly sourced to a site that we don't consider reliable.

Overall I think a re-write of that section, based on actually reliable sources, along with properly integrating the rest of the negative content into other relevant sections per CSECTION is in order here. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:51, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I've added a neutrality dispute and weasel words to this article. First of all, queer IS NOT A UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED UMBRELLA TERM. The opening paragraph is also seething with judgment for those that do not identify as "queer," referring to them as "assimilationist." A neutral POV does not use a weasel word to describe the intentions of a category of people. Heliostellar (talk) 16:40, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2024

Change "19th century. Beginning in the late 1980s," to "20th century. Beginning in the late 1980s, ". 154.47.98.113 (talk) 07:36, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Mathglot (talk) 08:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

The anti-LGBT pejorative use dates from the late 1800s. The reclamation in the 1980s came about a century later.--Trystan (talk) 13:33, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Introductory paragraph

Queer Nation is a relatively obscure organization whose own Wiki page is flagged for having no citations whatsoever, but is cited in this article's intro. I'm removing it from the intro, since the article talks about it in greater detail below. Since the word itself is so controversial, I've added to the intro the current state of things from prominent, respected, objective sources that acknowledge the controversy: AP styleguide, GLAAD's position, PFLAG's position.

I also removed "assimilationist" language. That's a loaded weasel word that ascribes certain motivations and/or opinions to an entire category of people simply because of a word choice. Heliostellar (talk) 20:51, 27 June 2024 (UTC)