Travel Queeries documents radical queers across Europe

By Contributing Writer on Friday, October 2, 2009 - 13:17

If someone asked you how you identified yourself, what would be your answer? Would you stand up straight and say, “I’m gay”, or “I’m a lesbian”? Would you look them defiantly in the eye and say, “I don’t really identify as anything as I’m not really one for labels”. Or what about looking them straight in the eye and tell them “I’m bisexual”? Or would you tell them you identify using the once derogatory term, “I’m queer”?

Personally, I identify as a lesbian, and I am finally comfortable enough within myself to come out to pretty much anyone (other than my parents. That’s just one particular can of worms that is best left closed for the moment!). This has allowed me to feel like I belong somewhere and know that I’m not alone under that “label”.

So I can understand people finding the need to relate to one another by a common term of association. I can equally relate to those who prefer not to use them, so they feel free to express themselves in any way they want. By doing this it means they aren’t expected to act and behave in a certain way because of how they have chosen to identify themselves.

This subject is addressed in Travel Queeries, the travelling documentary by Elliat Graney-Saucke, Margaritte Knezek and Sid Peterson.

Tags: documentary, entertainment, human interest, movements, movies, queer

Queer as what?

Submitted by Erikka (not verified) on October 4, 2009 - 18:29.

I'm interested in this show, but I'm not sure what the goal is. Every time I hear the word "queer" I have a feeling that something is missing. It's like an umbrella term that in fact means nothing to me. I'm not fond of labels but sometimes they're useful. I know what a person means by saying I'm lesbian, gay, bi or trans but by queer I don't know what he/she means.

I understand that it has a political value, saying queer instead of lgbt but I think it's not helping at all. I identify as bisexual and it makes it hard that people confuse it with all kinds of things like "curious", "questioning" etc.. In my opinion the term "queer" just adds to the confusion. What we need is simplicity and not more confusion. Labels aren't everything. Sometimes they prevent us seeing the person behind the label. But that doesn't mean we need to dump every label. We use labels for a reason, and as long as they don't prevent honest communication, there's nothing wrong in using them, but they should be used with care.

http://bernadettelovestoronto.blogspot.com

@BettyVanburen

http://bernadetteerikka.de-france.org

I'm queer

Submitted by Little G on October 4, 2009 - 23:17.

Erikka, I understand your point, and I respect that.
However, there are many people out there who find lesbian, gay, bisexual too restricting. You say it's like an umbrella term (which it once was) and it means nothing to you. It obviously means something to a lot of others. People who use it do so because they think it encompasses more than just one's sexual orientation.

Queer used to be a political and derogatory term, but it's now being used by LGBTs themselves as a positive term. Maybe not by you or others around you, but it is being used. I agree with you that labels aren't everything, but people use it to order everything - it's human nature.
You may not like the term queer, but let others continue using it.

Queer as a label

Submitted by Erikka (not verified) on October 5, 2009 - 01:15.

I don't think we have a disagreement here Lil G. Everyone has the right to identify as they want, the question is whether it's a good idea to use this term on a large scale in lgbt advocacy or not. In my opinion it isn't. It's a term that is too vague. Yes, lesbian, gay, bi, trans may be restricting labels but if we want to make people outside of our circles to understand what we're talking about, we need terms that can be explained in one sentence. This may sound as too simple but as bisexuals we often experince the results of what confusion and misunderstanding can led to. It will be hard to advocate for our rights if people don't understand what we're talking about. The same happens with the label "bisexual". It is being misused in so may ways that now it's hard to advocate for our rights and acceptance, even in the gay community. Labels are used for a reason, and every label for a different one. The term 'queer' has a reason to exist, and everyone has a right to use it and identify as such if they wish. The question is whether we should use it extensively or not.

For example the article asks why we don't have characters identify as queer in media. Surely, it's good if you have a character like that, but it may or may not help lgbt visibility. I don't say we shouldn't have, on the contrary it's good to have lgbtq characters, no matter how they identify, but personally I think it would just add to the confusion as queer is often interpreted as a "vague lifestyle choice" rather than a sexual orientation. That doesn't mean we shouldn't use the term 'Queer' at all. We should just use it with care. And as for a person, anyone can identify as they wish. And not to forget that labels and terms are interpreted in different ways in different parts of the world, and that applies to terms associated with lgbt issues too. We think of these terms as solid ones but they're often not that solid anyways, so we should use them with care. And more so if we would like to use it for positive political purposes.

http://bernadettelovestoronto.blogspot.com

@BettyVanburen

http://bernadetteerikka.de-france.org

Interesting point of view

Submitted by Little G on October 5, 2009 - 20:18.

I see where you're coming from, Erikka, and here's where I disagree with you. You say: "Yes, lesbian, gay, bi, trans may be restricting labels but if we want
to make people outside of our circles to understand what we're talking
about, we need terms that can be explained in one sentence."

There are many shades of grey. By defining aforementioned labels (terms) in one sentence will undoubtedly leave out those distinctions neither L, G, B or T. I understand your need to keep things simple, but when it comes to people simplicity isn't necessarily the best policy.

Singer-songwriter, and one half of the Indigo Girls, Amy Ray has referred to herself as queer in the media. (The first name that popped into my head.) I'm not sure her musical partner Emilie Saliers does the same, but Amy has been very upfront and outspoken about it for quite some time now.

Let me put it this way: I am an Indonesian. Depending on where you live, you may or may not be familiar with Indonesians. But, to use an "umbrella term" and to keep it simple, I tell people I'm an Asian. Everybody know where that is. The thing is when it comes to "Asian matters" chances are it doesn't apply to me as Asia is made up of numerous countries.

Oh, and I said before: queer encompasses more than just sexual orientation. And I agree with this: "And not to forget that labels and terms are interpreted in different
ways in different parts of the world, and that applies to terms
associated with lgbt issues too."

However, what you mean by "solid"?

Two sides of the same question..

Submitted by Erikka (not verified) on October 7, 2009 - 21:01.

Our disegreement derives from the fact that we're looking at the subject from two different sides. You, Lil G, look at it from the person's point of view. I'm, on the other hand looking at it from a more generalized, sociopolitical point of view.

Anyone can identify according to his/her preferences. There's no debate on that one. But, as a term to use just out of "political correctedness" is, in my opinion, not helping LGBT advocacy. Let me explain why I think that: The term itself is a controversial one. Whether one likes to use it or not, and identify as such, the term itself holds and embedded controversy that makes it hard to use as an umbrella term, even if some uses it in this way. The term LGBT tries to encompass the community, and while it feels restricting to many, it still has a fairly safe value without additional connotations that the word 'Queer' has. There's no judging on whether it's right or wrong what people who identify as 'Queer' try to convey, that's just a fact we should consider if we successfully try to advance LGBT rights. I know some might not agree with me but we already see the results. The labels are confusing, and only people in our circles know what we're talking about. Even a term as simple as bisexual is misunderstood and used differently in many ways, not to mention gay, lesbian and trans. Don't forget that these are English words. Or better put, used extensively in English and they're what most foreign people understand as simple terms. Bisexual, Pansexual, Queer, Genderqueer, Intersex and all the other words are not undestood in may parts of the world as in the English speaking countries. Either they're nonexistent, or people just simply have no idea what they mean (or have wrong ideas about them..)If we want to advance LGBT issues successfully we cannot turn a blind eye on it no matter how much we would like to include these identities into the general speaking. Again, there's no value attached to it. It's just a fact.

It's also not the same as let's saying, "European" instead of saying that I'm German-Dutch-French-Italian-Jewish-Hungarian.... European is not a nationality, or a country or anything like that. It has a different value both cultural and political. Just as "Queer" cannot stand for LGBT. Again I need to stress that I'm talking about advocacy here and not about anyone's personal choice on how to identify herself/himself.

http://bernadettelovestoronto.blogspot.com

@BettyVanburen

http://bernadetteerikka.de-france.org

Looks like we have to respectfully agree to disagree

Submitted by Little G on October 10, 2009 - 02:44.

First off: I I know "European" isn't a country, but it's an identity. Maybe not to you, but I've read it is to a lot of Europeans. I don't think when JFK said those famous words ("Ich bin ein Berliner") that he meant he's actually from German descent. Secondly, I did not state "queer" should substitute LGBT. And if you think I'm being PC, I hereby assure you I am not. I have been using "queer" for the past decade or so, and being PC isn't my strongest suit, so I'd rather be blunt and tell it like it is. (In my experience I've heard some PC people say the most offensive things.)

Like I said in my previous reply: I'm aware of the fact "queer" used to be a very offensive word/label, but LGBT folks have reclaimed it, so it's not as offensive as it once was.

While I see the point your trying to make, I firmly disagree with you on simplifying labels (or as you put it: explain them in one sentence). As you yourself state: " ... labels are confusing, and only people in our circles know what we're
talking about. Even a term as simple as bisexual is misunderstood and
used differently in many ways, not to mention gay, lesbian and trans.
Don't forget that these are English words. Or better put, used
extensively in English and they're what most foreign people understand
as simple terms. Bisexual, Pansexual, Queer, Genderqueer, Intersex and
all the other words are not understood in many parts of the world as in
the English speaking countries. Either they're nonexistent, or people
just simply have no idea what they mean (or have wrong ideas about
them..)"

With cultural differences AND language barriers I don't see how you can explain any of those labels in just one sentence. Even sufficient education of people won't cut it.

Oh, and I am very aware of those labels being (predominantly) English words; there are still many countries in which homosexuality is denied or not talked about.