Talk:Queer theory

Problems

Overall this article is poorly written and contains a lot of questionable information. Queer Theory is not a part of sociology. Therefore that needs to be changed.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Burr0108 (talk • contribs) 03:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

wrong from the start

This article begins by confusing one particular queer theory (the idea that sexual orientation is wholely a social construct) with Queer Theory itself. I don't know how to fix this but somebody should. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rentstrike (talk • contribs) 15:34, July 6, 2006

Citations needed.

Will a knowledgeable person kindly indicate just which "critics" are making the statement marked "citation needed" below? And also trhe source of Barbara Rogoff's statement? Plus the names of the "key experts"? Otherwise, this entire paragraph (or much of it) might be removed by some zealous editor, namely me. (The knowledgeable person might also simplify the text if he or she has the time and inclination).

Some critics of queer theory hold that physiological, genetic and sociological evidence show that sexual orientation and sexual classification cannot be considered to be solely social constructs. [citation needed] In this view, various biological characteristics, some of which are inheritable, can play an important role in shaping sexual behavior. Many critics cite the case of David Reimer who underwent ultimately unsuccessful gender reassignment at the age of twenty-two months (Colapinto, 2001). The debates about the role of biology still continue to rage.

Some key experts in the study of culture, such as Barbara Rogoff, believe that the traditional distinction between biology and culture is a false dichotomy since biology and culture are closely related and have a significant influence on each other. [citation needed]

Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 15:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite needed

This article desperately needs to be re-written. As it stands there's a lot of POV pushing and the tone is inappropriate. Knowing very little about queer theory I cannot contribute much except to plead that someone with relevant background in this rewrite the article. It seems to be a cut-and-paste from someone's homework assignment. Inoculatedcities 20:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I've read through the entire page, and, having no prior knowledge of this theory, have learned nothing. I liken the current state of the article to if, say, there was an article about "automobiles" that consisted of nothing but the critical viewpoints of how GM is run and lists of some of the great automotive innovators of the 20th century. It would be similarly long and informative on a great breadth of topics, but, at the end of the day, the person reading it would be as clueless about what an actual "automobile" is as someone reading this article would be as to what "queer theory" is.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.158.190.38 (talk • contribs) 16:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC).

As it stands, it is worse to have the article as it is on Wikipedia than having nothing at all. Just look at the lead -- totally incomprehensible. I think we need to delete this and write a snappy stub, at least in the meantime before something more substantive is done.--Agnaramasi 02:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it needs to be scrapped, but I agree that it needs a lot of clarity and POV help. I will try to help clean it up. Joelle77 03:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I rewrote the first paragraph. I'm happy to do more, but since this can be a somewhat contentious field, I figured I would wait to see if we had a general consensus that this was the definition of queer studies we wanted to proceed with before I attacked the other sections. Joelle77 03:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

---

I'm not sure how to make this suggestion without causing offense to the author. Causing offense is not my purpose.

The substance of this article is not accessible to non-academics. Use of simple language would enhance understanding this article for those of us without formal education. I refer the Author to the essay: Politics and the English Language (1946), by George Orwell for suggestions on how to improve this article. Thank you. Eazylivn 05:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

referencing

I have properly referenced the page using the standard footnote reference system (see WP:REF). There is a change to the numbers after 7 because I have incorporated refs 7 & 8 since they are the same reference I think it was appropriate. I've not checked any of the references yet just put them into the standard template--Cailil ^talk 14:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Please check

I agree, this article need to be rewritten! Here few notes on words/wording that desperately need the attention of an informed contributor.

1. In "Prostitution, Pornography and BDSM" is mentioned "inversion"... does anyone now what is meant? I can't imagine is meant Sexual inversion (sexology)
2. "intersexuality and many other things are seen"... things?!

Can anyone traslate the article from german wiki? the german version seems to me quite good...unfortunately my german is not as good as the article itself... --Dia^ 17:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC) --Dia^ 13:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Is Derrida really a queer theorist? I know his work has been influential to a lot of queer theorists, but I wouldn't consider him one himself. Joelle77 03:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Thirdwave Feminism timeline?

Third Wave started in the 70s? Off by a couple decades, me thinks. Not sure if the intended idea was that the term stems from feminism of the 70s (first, second as I've learned) or of the 90s (the third wave movement). Left it alone for now. (check overview section) August B. 03:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the 3rd wave started in the '80s with the rest of so-called "postmodernism"...--Agnaramasi 23:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not really fair to say that postmodernism started in the 80s. Postmodern architecture began in the 50s. Poststructuralism began in the 60s. Fokion (talk) 10:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

? what is the point of this analogy

"Queer theorists focus on problems in classifying every individual as either male or female, even on a strictly biological basis. For example, the sex chromosomes (X and Y) may exist in atypical combinations (as in Klinefelter's syndrome [XXY]). This complicates the use of genotype as a means to define exactly two distinct genders. Intersexed individuals may for many different biological reasons have ambiguous sexual characteristics"

The above are disorders in physical manifestation of gender, purely biological. Sexual orientation, and identifying one's self as 'male' or 'female' (regardless of the physical gender) is totally within the persona / identity/ ego/psychie , or however one might term it, of the individual. Hxseek 11:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

That is a biological determinist theory. This article is about queer theory. Queer theorists do not agree with the classification of sex/gender as biological categories. For instance, see Judith Butler Bodies That Matter or Anne Fausto-Sterling Sexing The Body. Fokion 18:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Ideas for improvement

I think this a well-intentioned start to the issue of QT. Below I've taken up what I view to be the four most important issues surrounding this entry. I'll do what I can to contribute in the coming weeks.

1) Move this article to the Philosophy portal. At a minimum, it should be removed from the limiting rubric of "Queer Studies." This serious limitation needs to be reexamined by the wiki-gods. Queer Theory belongs to the domains of philosophy (much of QT is influenced by philosophers including Lacan, Derrida, Foucault, Levinas, Laplanche, Hegel, Irigaray, Levi-Strauss, and Kristeva) and literary/critical theory. This leads me to correct an inaccuracy in the opening; Foucault and Derrida are poststructuralist philosophers, not deconstructionists. Neither Foucault nor Derrida took up the mantle of poststructuralism or deconstruction, even though their philosophic thought brought to fruition these traditions. While the Foucauldian notion of the "analytics of power" heavily influences certain conceptualizations of identity/subject formation (especially Butler's), QT (specifically gender performativity) finds its roots in linguistics - namely poststructuralism.

2) Emphasis on identity (and post-identity). QT as a theoretical movement concerns itself with constructions of identity which find their loci in sex/gender/sexuality/sexual practice. QT, perforce, posits its own brand of ontological first philosophy. As a reframing of ontology, this would be a logical starting point for an introduction - that is, the reframing (and appropriation) of first philosophy in terms of sex/gender/sexuality/sexual practice normativity.

3) References. Referring to an entry for "essentialism" in the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy is not adequate to substantiate claims such as, "'Queer theory' was originally associated with radical gay politics of ACT UP, Outrage! and other groups which embraced "queer" as an identity label that pointed to a separatist, non-assimilationist politics[6]." This sentence resides under "indentity politics." A better title for this section would be "reclamation." This would allow us to draw out several parallels with the well-developed entry on Feminism as well as move beyond "identity politics" to a more sustained treatment of some major tenets of QT.

4) Organization. The organization of the article needs to be rethought in friendlier terms. Without a clear development of general tenets, the existing sections seem disparate and only loosly connected.

All best, Asras55 07:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Still Problems?

I think the article is pretty well written, as it stands right now. I noticed that nobody seems to have said anything on the talk page since September. Do we still need to have the warning tag on the article? I'm going to take it down. If anyone still feels strongly that this article needs a warning thingy on it, feel free to put it back up.Fokion 18:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

You have vandalized the page by deleting half of the text. Please stop doing that. --Law Lord 18:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, that was an accident. Don't know how I managed to do that. Sorry. Fokion 03:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)