people have been debating the political efficacy and ethical concerns of using the word “queer” as a self-identifier, unifying term to describe populations, and/or theoretical framework for decades. these debates are not about two sides, where one side thinks it’s great and the other thinks it’s terrible and everybody in either camp agrees with everybody else in their camp. larry kramer’s argument against the use of “queer” is not at all the same as cathy j. cohen’s critique of queer theory and queer activism and their deployment of “queer”. similarly, the way that michael warner imagines the applications of “queer” is not the same as how karen barad uses “queer” to describe natural phenomena. the way that queer as folk invokes “queer” in its title is different than how the office invokes “queer” as an insult. “smear the queer” uses the word differently than “we’re here, we’re queer”. it’s a difficult word, largely by design when it comes to contemporary applications/reclamations.
any simplistic single history of the word “queer” or of feelings about the word “queer” is already a failure, not only in terms of accuracy, but also just in understanding of how people have come to conceive of “queer” as a thing that cannot be pinned down, easily defined or made stable. whether or not you agree what that understanding, to not include that aspect of the word in your attempt to theorize around it is an unforgivable blind spot. “queer” is complicated, it has multiple histories and meanings, and not accounting for that, especially when talking as if you’re an expert on the issue, is an enormous failure. lgbtq people have rich and complex histories and cultures. if you’re not willing to account for that, then get out of the business of trying to tell our stories.
