Talk:Queer theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is covered by WikiProject LGBT studies, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to LGBT issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class.

Queer theory has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This article is part of WikiProject Critical Theory, an attempt to build a comprehensive, detailed, and accessible guide to critical theory on Wikipedia. We have prepared a list of other articles in the field of critical theory. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.

This article is part of WikiProject Gender Studies

This WikiProject is aimed at improving the quality of articles dealing with gender studies, and at removing systematic gender bias from Wikipedia.

Click here for details

The term "queer theory" was actually coined by Teresa de Lauretis, who used it as the title for a conference she held in February 1990 at the University of California, Santa Cruz. Note that De Lauretis also edited the special issue of Differences, where the vampire-article by Sue-Ellen Case appears.

Contents 1 To Archive 2 Deconstructionist or constructionist? 3 Queer studies or queer theory? 4 Questionable passages 5 Missing Critical Theory WikiProject box! 6 Examples of applied queer theory? 7 Article sucks 8 Too much space given to "criticisms" 9 Dr. Money? 10 Hybrid theories? 11 Lacan 12 Issues 13 Reconstructing history! 14 Delete wrong content? 15 Dr. Money again 16 David Reimer 17 Biology/culture dichotomy addition 18 Queer Theory and Feminism 19 Incompleteness of queer theory 20 Info Box for Queer Theory 21 Silly 22 wrong from the start 23 Citations needed.

[edit] To Archive

Good article. My only suggestion is that in discussing scientific criticisms of Queer theory, you should also mention that at least some scientists (Anne Fausto-Sterling, Ruth Hubbard, Carol Tavris) question the research upon which these criticisms are based.

I haven't read any of their work. Do you think you could update the article to reflect that information? Voyager640 21:41, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Deconstructionist or constructionist?

is this deconstructionist or constructionist?Vera Cruz

[edit] Queer studies or queer theory?

I'm confused. In my readings, few authors seem to differentiate between Queer studies and Queer theory. Just because wikipedia tells me they're wholly different isn't enough to sway me; is there evidence? - I don't mean to be accusatory, btw.

I don't know if you would accept the courses my roommate took in Queer studies, in which the practice of Queer theory was discussed, as evidence, but there you have it. - Montréalais

'Queer theory is a deconstructionist theory in Queer studies. It is constructivist, that is, it proposes the theory that one's sexual identity is partly or wholly socially constructed, and therefore individuals cannot really be described using broad terms like "homosexual" or "woman." '

I think Vera Cruz (see above) was asking what the deep bleep these two sentences are supposed to mean. If something is said to be simultaneously composed and decomposed I think we might understand those propositions -- if anybody bothered to define the terms. The meat decomposed and the stuff in the refrigerator is now composed of a mass of bacteria, dead bacteria, and other decay products.

[edit] Questionable passages

Will the author comment on what ee was trying to convey by these puzzling formulations?

Patrick0Moran 04:20, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)

'In this view, sexuality is innate and exists independently of whatever any given society happens to teach on this subject.'

This statement so seriously distorts "the position" of scientists that it sets up a "straw man," i.e., an easily refuted proposition falsely attributed to one's opponent. On top of that, it is sufficiently vague that it can be interpreted in two different ways, either of which might be correct or incorrect.

• Sexuality is one thing, and sex is another. What is innate, and certainly not to be ignored as John Colapinto's book As Nature Made Him shows, is one's chromosomal sex (which includes the widely known XX, XY differences but also several more possibilities including X, XXY, XYY...) and also the unique (except for identical twins) genetic configuration of each person. What is acquired can include effects of the environment in the womb (primarily hormonal, but maybe even the music the mother listens to can have an effect on brain structure, who knows for sure?), post-natal conditioning (the brain grows new connections and therefore new/changed structure when it learn), and pre- or post-natal physical trauma and things like malnutrition. So one's sex can be innate if by that you mean one's genotype as it relates to the "sex between the legs" and the "sex in the brain." But one's sexuality cannot be innate because that is a matter of one's phenotype. One limit case that ought to make the difference clear occurs when a typical XY male who has been successfully married and has produced children is castrated by enemy fire in a war or by some other such serious trauma to the genitalia. That person's sexuality -- both objectively and, presumably, subjectively -- has been changed forever.

• If by "what society happens to teach" means what society teaches an individual that affects that individual's sexual development, then sexuality does not exist independently of the society. There may be some people who categorize themselves as "scientists" and who deny that human beings learn, but I think most thinking students of the matter would put brackets around their use of the word "scientist" -- or at least use scare quotes as I have done.

• If "by what society happens to teach" means what society asserts regarding the sexuality of individuals, then it would be almost as problematical a statement even with that word change. That is because it implies that society has one voice in this matter (although that is probably not what the author intended to say), and because it becomes a true but trivial statement, something like saying that our planet exists regardless of what anybody says about it. "Sol 3 exists at time T," is either true or false. So what if anybody makes any kind of comment on the statement or on the planet Earth?

In short, the statement quoted invites ridicule to be directed at the straw scientists and looks forward to those [scientists] being ignored from then on. And I suspect that vanishingly few people recognized by society as scientists would assert that sexuality is innate.

Patrick0Moran 14:02, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The meaning of the word "deconstruct" in the last paragraph is unclear, though looking up the page on "deconstructionist" does not help in the least. Perhaps a synonym should be chosen, if one exists ("analyze" might be sufficient), this word should be put it quotes, or this word should like to the "deconstructionist" page which makes clear exactly how unclear this word is.

In response to Patrick Moran's latest post, the phrase "sexuality is innate"

is perhaps used too loosely. Obviously. because sexuality is a social phenomenon, it doesn't really occur in a vacuum. What is meant is that certain innate and genetically heritable characteristics affect a given person's sexual behavior in any given situation.

Why don't I make some improvements to this effect.

--Beland

Deconstruct is not an unclear term, though it is jargon. I'm sorry you find the deconstruction page unclear, though. That said, i don't think changing the word is a good idea - the term really is important to queer theory. Snowspinner 01:26, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Has there ever been anything on deconstruction that is entirely clear? I was wondering, though, about the statements "sexuality is innate" and "genetically heritable characteristics affect a given person's sexual behavior" - are these known to be true statements? Though it is a common enough belief, I had understood that the debate on that subject is far from over and proof was lacking on both sides. -Seth Mahoney 05:11, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Well of course not. If it were entirely clear, it would disprove the whole matter. :) I agree wholeheartedly with your latter point, though. Snowspinner 05:38, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Phew! I was worried there was an unfortunate development I hadn't been informed of, on both the deconstruction and being gay fronts. -Seth Mahoney 05:48, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Deconstruction is supposed to be unclear; if it was entirely clear, then it would be too easily deconstructed itself. Voyager640 18:07, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

I always thought the point was that deconstruction was unclear because it had already been deconstructed. Snowspinner 18:15, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, I think it's always in the process of being deconstructed. Voyager640 14:10, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The assertion "genetically heritable characteristics affect a given person's sexual behavior" has been pretty authoritatively proven with regard to sexual orientation by studies of identical twins and adopted siblings. The biological (possibly genetic) influence is not 100% percent, though; you merely have an increased probability of having the same sexual orientation as you biological siblings vs. adopted siblings. The phrase "sexuality is innate" is vague and seems to imply biological determinism, which is misleading if not wrong. -- Beland 19:03, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

There's definitely a difference between popular understandings of biology, in which people believe that genes absolutely determine things, and more scientifically grounded understandings of biology, in which it is clear that genetics is only a factor in the eventual outcomes of something as complex as human psychology.

[edit] Missing Critical Theory WikiProject box!

I really miss the Critical Theory WikiProject box on this page. Would anyone object to me putting it back on? Voyager640 14:10, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Already done. :) Snowspinner 14:27, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)

Ah, but why on the talk page instead of the actual page? I kind of imagine that in wikipedia everyone is both a reader and an editor, so I guess I'm confused by its placement... Voyager640 21:35, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The standard reason is that the box contains a link to an article in the Wikipedia namespace. Since Wikipedia has a number of mirrors, and not all of these copy the Wikipedia namespace, it's considered poor form to put links to Wikipedia namespace on mainpages. Snowspinner 21:43, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)

What's the point of a wikipedia mirror? Do they link back so people can alter the original article? Voyager640 09:33, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Examples of applied queer theory?

This page could use some examples of applied queer theory... namely what people have done with queer theory, and why it matters. Anyone have any suggestions? Maybe we could brainstorm some ideas, and then I could give it a go... Voyager640 06:16, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Article sucks

To be blunt: this article sucks as is. It is highly offensive to any decent thinking queer theorist. The overall structure is ok, but I just don't have time in one sitting to correct all the various POV problems, or simple mis-statements. ~ Lantog

Fine, but that doesn't mean removal of large blocks of content without explanation, however. Dysprosia 08:55, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Too much space given to "criticisms"

WHy are we giving 2/3s of the article to "criticisms" -- all of which involve fake science? This article presents nothing on queer theory, outside of (mis-)quoting Pat (and not Patrick) Califia.

You will need to provide a more descriptive argument. What exactly are you calling "fake science"? Intersex/Klinefelter's syndrome conditions? I'd hardly call that pseudoscience.

What do you mean by "Pat (and not Patrick)"? If you believe that the article misquotes him, why not explain the counter argument in the article?

You may find reading Wikipedia:Neutral point of view to be helpful. Dysprosia 09:20, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Patrick C. is trans- and goes by the name of "Pat." "Fake Science" + show me the science that is quoted in the former "criticism" section. None exists. We have yet to actually create a page on queer theory that explains, works through, or engages any of it ... as it stands now, it is nothing but essentialist apologia.

Yes, I am aware of that, however, if you see the Patrick Califia article, it says otherwise.

I think you're misreading the Criticism section. The belief that sexual identity or orientation cannot be social constructs is held by some, and thus by Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, we must include and treat all views neutrally. The article does do so, and discusses the point raised.

If you feel that the article is lacking, you merely have to add material, but removal of points simply because you feel that they are wrong is not appropriate due to the policy I quoted above. Please familiarise yourself with it. Dysprosia 09:32, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You don't find that fact that the article begins a discussion of QT with "prostitution" and then procedes to discuss nothing else actually relevant to QT in the article somewhat troubling? I do. It then, immediately moves into "fake science." Hmmm.... considering that there are perhaps, um ... 40 or so QT works that can be dealt with here, I'm confused about why some gay teen can stumble onto "QT" in wiki, and find utter bullshit about it.

If there's a problem with the layout of the article, then rearrange it. Do not simply remove all the material in the section, or the article itself

You still haven't clarified what you mean by "fake science".

If you know material that would be useful for the article, then add it.

Dysprosia 09:46, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hey Dysprosia ---> I will, and, oh BTW: Fuck You for caring.

Wikipedia:No personal attacks, please. It doesn't really help with people taking you seriously if when you try and hold a rational argument, one party resorts to insults. Dysprosia 09:54, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dr. Money?

Where is "Dr. Money" referenced in a pro or con QT text? Should he/she be here? Lantog 10:10, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hybrid theories?

Good last part of final paragraph involves speculation on part of writer. Hybrid theories do well exist, but it seems the point of a public knowledge source to quote those and to not to offer vanity proposals. Lantog 10:15, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lacan

Strengthened the Lacan section -- at least for QT. If a reader needs to know about the "mirror stage" link them to Lacan -- as he felt it best dealt with straight males anyway. Also sought to begin a new basic structure in terms of possible expansion: lang./psy. queer theories, others, and hybrids. Still need to deal with the oddity of placing "Pros."/BDSM as second subject area of QT -- if it is there should at least be expanded via Rubin, Bersani, Foucault etc. But I think it probably could be best placed elsewhere within a larger QT site.

[edit] Issues

Actually working through those sections shows that the subheading: "Criticisms of Queer Theory" didn't really work at all ... given that most of the written matter in that section was not really a criticism at all, but an attempt to work through one aspect of queer theory itself. Lantog 10:29, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Worked through editing. All alterior mentions of QT within article, outside of opening sentence, have queer theory uncapitalized -- just for consistency sake. Pat Califia, on further reads, just doesn't fit in here. If we want a section on BDSM, it should be secondary - or in its own article. It neither added nor detracted, but rather set up an odd structure, whereby PC served as opening QT voice, vs. "Criticism" section, none of which actually had any criticism.

I definitely think we should have a crit section, but it needs be more than just speculative biology. Lantog 10:41, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Can you stop removing the discussion of certain points? They only serve to highlight the points. If you want to discuss why a point is invalid or not, say why, don't just delete the discussion altogether. Dysprosia 11:26, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Address my criticism (not a "rant") before removing. What you have replaced it with is simply an earlier version of the final product you erased - i.e., a good chunk of the article as "restored" by you is already work I've edited. If you can come up with valid reasons for a discussion of genetic syndromes and unconnected discussion of prostitution to this article post them here.

Dr. Money - in which queer theory work is he referenced? Also: the overall convention in most accepted academic writing, is that Queer Theory, outside of titles, is non capitalized.

First of all, sign your entries, because IPs who post unsigned entries are not quite taken as seriously as people who are logged in and sign their entries. Use -- ~~~~ to do that.

Second, your "edits" consited mostly of removal, and what was removed was not discussed in what was left. So it is up to you to explain (as you have been asked before repeatedly) your removal of content.

Third, if you think that genetic syndromes, prostitution and DrMoney are not reverenced in any literature of queer theory, sorry, but then you are not exactly well versed in it. Meaning you should stop vandalising those articles. BTW, I noticed on your talk page that several people told you to stop doing that, so maybe you ought to listen to them, because, you know, people who keep removing content find themselfes banned more often than not. -- AlexR 19:35, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What serious work of Queer Theory has used Dr. Money as a support? Perhaps his research is compelling for sexology -- but that field is not the same as Queer Theory, and Queer Theory has spent a decade and a half contesting sexology's claims. Those are two concrete reasons for removing Money from the article. Again: 1.) not used as in any serious QT; 2.) largely b/c, Money as a sexologist, works within a field completely under critique by QT. 24.250.249.103 16:05, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your quote: "if you think that genetic syndromes, prostitution and DrMoney are not reverenced in any literature of queer theory"

a.) genetic research is used all the time in discussion of queer theory -- usually with an eye towards complicating any final assertion that such a discourse could claim to make. See esp., "Axiomatic" by Sedgwick; any of Donna Haraway (whose works then seep into those working within queer thery); anything by Katz (but esp., "Invention of Heterosexuality"). The list continues. As a overall academic inquiriy, it would be considered incredibly bad form, not to mention easily dismissed, to introduce statements from another discipline such as sexology ... esp., given QT's history with that particular discipline.

b.) prostitution is a valuable subject within QT -- as is most non-normative sexual practices. My objection would come from (and this was more noticable in an eariler version of this article) the primacy given to prostitution without first accomplishing a basic outline of queer theory itself. In this article do we have any but the slightest smattering of any key concepts, terminology, working foundations, or even names of key works? No. When this article does tackle issues such as prostitution, shouldn't it further be using at least some of those works which have used it within the discipline: Rubin, "Dangerous Bedfellows," any of the myriad historical surveys undertaken by queer theorists on sex work?

c.) D. Money does not appear as a compelling source (pro or con) in any queer theory work. Any appearence he does have -- while minor -- does not unquestionably warrent his work here. There are, I assume, articles on sexology? There are articles on Dr. Money. As of yet, there is only the beginning of an article on Queer Theory. Why don't we finish this one first before we add things that are at best supplementary? Yes, we need a discussion of sexology, but more so, we need one of psychoanalysis (both Freudian and Lacanian); these discourses have been highly more influential and pivotal to the conversation within and development of QT.

As for personal qualifications ... these are beside the point. I'm assuming we are both positioned somewhere in higher education. Your area(s) have obviously intersected at one point or another with queer theory; my area (for the past eight years of higher education) has been queer theory. 24.250.249.103 16:27, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reconstructing history!

I'm going to begin re-constructing the history section today; adding issues of appropriation of terms, influences of lesbian and gay historiographical approaches, proximity of AIDS crisis and response through ACT-UP/Queer Nation, rise of academic Lesbian and Gay Studiesn largely within the Liberal Arts -- and finally rise of "Queer Theory." Any suggestions? User:24.250.249.103

None, if you want to add content. Do however not delete content; even if you don't like it, others do, and usualy for a reason.

And get yourself a username, because IPs edits are generally suspect, especially on controversial subjects. Besides, talk pages become quite useless when contributions are not signed, which is done with -- ~~~~ , and which works a lot better if you have a username. -- AlexR 16:34, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Delete wrong content?

Do I delete content if it is wrong? --Lantog 16:44, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That depends - if it is flatout, undeniablly and uncontestedly wrong, it usually can be deleted. If however the "wrong" content is considered "right" by others, NPOV demands that both POVs are represented, not one deleted. And yes, probably anybody on WP can point to some content they'd personally rather see deleted. Still we have to live with it. -- AlexR 18:02, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dr. Money again

Still waiting for any reference in which Dr. Money is used prominently in any sense within Queer Theory -- other than as an example of what queer theory works against. It remains an offense (if you don't believe me, ask anyone at your affliated center of learning with any background in QT) to have one of the only people quoted in this article be Dr. Money. His casework is taught in Queer Theory courses -- as an example of the tragic over-reach of sexology into the life of a Canadian family.--Lantog 12:46, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Exactly - and as such, it is well-known in QT. Not to mention the influence the idea of total malleability of gender had it's influences on the predecessors of QT, too. Also, I can't quite see why you consider his placement so "prominent". Anyway, as usual, I will revert your vandalism - and if you can't stop deleting content without consens - which clearsly does not exist - then you might find that there are other ways of dealing with people doing that; because, you know, I am getting tired of this. -- AlexR 16:21, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you go through the content of my so-called delete -- you will find perhaps 3-4 sentences delted. The headings have been deleted as they currently make no sense in connection to the content of the article. Read through that content -- the majority of which has been re-phrased and re-positioned by myself over a week ago. It reads as a clearer article in the version posted last night.

If you insist on Dr. Money -- perhaps you can produce a quote to help justify his placement in this article. As I maintain, while you may enjoy Dr. Money's work, that does not require his continued presence on a page in which he has no place. He already has his own page. Post your knowledge there.

Once again, produce a work in QT that he is pivotal -- IN ANY WAY -- name that work, provide a quote -- that appears at least to be the critea set-up by the only other properly named critic in this piece. I will revert to the previous version. It does not delete significant content, but rather results in a more readable article -- and one whose transitions work smoothly enough to help foster a better, more expanded future article. It does delete vanity (i.e., Dr. Money references). Those actions are not vandalism.

If you can address these complaints, issues and points as ideas -- then perhaps we can go somewhere. You seem to be in a position of "bullying" people around however -- at least as is apparent from your own talk pages. --Lantog 16:31, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Also, in response to your accusation of "vandalism": of which variety are you speaking? Simple (graffitti) vandalism, spam vandalism, sneaky vandalism, repeat-pattern vandalism? None of these fit an edit of content (that yes, does involve minor deletion) with more content. If Wiki. is to provide a useful and accurate service, it will have to rely on those whose expertise allows them to offer qualitity, error-free, non-ideological articles. That is precisely what I have done here ... and would like to continue doing as I further expand this article.--Lantog 16:51, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, so far you have not been expanding the article, but deleting parts of it. And pray, what makes you an expert? If you keep this up, you are heading for an RfC. -- AlexR 17:02, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would say about nine-years of higher education specifically situated within queer theory proably makes me able to judge. I cannot begin expanding, until it is settled -- if not by "consensus" than by fact ... that certain areas of this article ... namely the Dr. Money section do not belong here. Have you found a quote, a text with which to offer? I have deleted perhaps three to four sentences (outside of headings which no longer apply ... read the article, they do not clarify, they muddle). None of these sentences were adding anything ... and were, on the other hand, making the article worse. Queer theory is my profession. --Lantog 17:07, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Please provide proof on this talk page to support your removal of the information. Burgundavia 17:12, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

I removed references to Dr. Money from this article, as his work does not address directly any of queer theory, its texts, or authors. What Dr. Money is known for is his work in sexology -- a practice entirely different from Queer Theory. I have requested quotes and texts that utlizie Dr. Money, or might shed light on his relation (critical or otherwise) to queer theory and none have been offered. Money was involved in a great deal of controversy throughout his career ... the highlight being his defense of removing a young male's genitals and forcing him throughout his/her teenage years to take hormones. The "John/Joan" erupted when this child, upon finding out about the experiment, quit taking the hormones and assumed life as a male. He most recently committed suicide ... largely due, as "John" himself claimed, to the results of Dr. Money. In the previous version of this article Dr. Money is refered to as a "serious researcher." That, while up to debate, nonetheless does not merit his troubling appearence (and a largely approving appearence at that) within an article on Queer Theory. --Lantog 17:22, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Lantog: You have violated Wikipedia's three revert rule and can thereby be blocked from editing Wikipedia for 24-hours by any admin. I've chosen not to because you seem to be discussing the issue on this talk page, but you are open to being blocked by any other admin just for the actions you've already taken. Please do not unilaterally revert the article any further, but rather, try to come to a consensus with other editors on the Talk:Queer theory page. - Seth Ilys 17:37, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Ok, I don't mind if we have a discussion here. I am the first to admit that I know nothing about this topic. The reason I reverted was due to the nature of the edit as a whole. Why did you unlink a great deal of things? This topic obviously needs work, but not in such huge edits and with no discussion. Burgundavia 17:39, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

Probably that section needs some re-write, but it is about the discussion of the innateness (or not) of gender - which is most certainly a subject of queer theory. It does not claim at all that Money worked in queer theory, it explicitly states that he is a sexologist. Besides, there is no need whatever to repeat David Reimer's story - it already is on WP. And claiming that you are an "expert" - well, on WP that is a good way of not being trusted too much, because, essentially, everybody can claim that. So that is something you have to prove, not just to claim. -- AlexR 17:44, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There has been discussion. Most of this page is filled by my comments ... many on a point by point basis. I do know about this subject and care about it and would like to at least have a basic foundation that is not over-the-top offensive or overly sided to any one POV before I start expanding it. I've been accused of vandalism, ranting etc. But actually, my points all still stand. One version of mine might have unlinked things...but two minutes later I had them re-inserted (as History shoud show). Objectively, which version reads better? If you look through the recent history of the past two weeks or so, you will see most edits have been my own, and most have been kept. I'm simply trying to produce a better, more readable, and more objective article.--Lantog 17:45, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The David Reimer ("John/Joan") REQUIRES repeating when Money is being used as an expert or "serious researcher." That is the point. As for "expert" and your continuing desire to speak only in a discourse of bullies ... I simply claim to be someone who works on Queer Theory for a living. I've run a reading group for the past five years, I've set-up conferences at my academic base involving Michael Warner, Michael Moon, Rosemary Hennessey. I've traveled to do archival research at Duke's History of Sexuality collection, Katz's (and Larry Clark's) effort in the Northeast at establishing a queer archive, have met with George Chauncey to discuss the future of the ONE Institute, have presented my own work in relation to Queer Theory at conferences, am currently completely a dis. on Queer Theory, working with published scholars of Queer Theory. Does that extend far enough past claim for you? In any case, all of that would be for naught, if I was wrong about any of my edits. But so far you have provided no point at which I have. I sought to "rephrase" the Miney section, but frankly, it has no place (at least not yet in an article of this size) here. Perhaps later, when it has been expanded, but even then, only in connection to the "John/Joan" episode with a further background on Money. But even that seems redundant, Money has his own article already. I've already found that this basic article has been cut and pasted around the internet, our decisions to allow -- what I maintain, and ask anyone else in working in the discipline -- bad writing and bad scholarship effects more than an edit war on Wiki.--Lantog 17:54, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It seems unnecessary to me to require that any reference to John Money be followed by a reference to the David Reimer case. While I agree that Money should be cited with caution (there are many reasons to question the validity of some of his work; Reimer is not the only one), the obvious thing to do is to cite to Money when relevant and not when not. Regardless of the scientific quality of his research, however, Money continues to be an influential sexologist (for good or for bad), and I find it hard to believe that a discussion of queer theory could fail to mention him. Kelly Martin 19:22, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] David Reimer

I prefer to take the sentence about him back out. It's just just a hot-button distraction that really doens't do add anything of encyclopedic value. I guess it's supposed to mean that the field of queer theory is "inherently flawed" or something. But you can't even discern that supposed "critique" by reading this article, but only by following the links, and trying to guess the intended connection. Or at most, put it in a "see also" subsection. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:58, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Biology/culture dichotomy addition

Moved this addition here:

Some key experts believe that the biology/culture dichotomy is in fact a false dichotomy since the two are in fact closely related.

1. Tell me who, don't just say "some key experts". 2. That culture and biology are closely related isn't (as stated) a fact. The wording needs to be more careful.

-Seth Mahoney 01:57, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I appreciate it. Can you take a look at my new wording? Voyager640 02:05, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Thanks for taking the time to deal with my nitpicking! -Seth Mahoney 02:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Queer Theory and Feminism

I really don't think that section belongs here. At the very least, it should be heavily edited and present more than just one guy's view. It doesn't flow very well, and to me seems like part of someone's effort to get Yashar Keramati's name out there. The person who originally wrote that section also wrote the short-lived section on feminism in the Transsexuality article (which I did not delete) and wrote a blurb about Yashar Keramati in systemic racism which again, didn't make much sense and didn't say anything that wasn't already in the institutional racism article. All of this person's contributions read like they came out of a poorly written essay on Yashar Keramati.

--Alyssa3467 09:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

There certainly are conflicts between queer theory and certain feminisms, so I don't know about deleting the section, but maybe it could use some editing... -Seth Mahoney 17:44, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I suppose I should've done a search first, which would've led me to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Yashar Keramati and various other snippets referencing this guy which were deleted, and deleted the offending section myself.

--Alyssa3467 22:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Heh, I probably should have actually read the section before I commented. Once I did, I deleted the section myself. Though maybe it should be replaced by something more useful. -Seth Mahoney 04:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Incompleteness of queer theory

I wouldn't want to add this myself, as I am not qualified, but the article doesn't offer any of Queer theory's explanations for how the language and social/cultural biases that allowed people to identify themselves as a "he" or a "she" or the like came about to begin with. Surely there are such explanations available. 71.76.136.149 18:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Info Box for Queer Theory

Does anyone else think there should be an infobox for queer theorists?

[edit] Silly

There's no exact definition of Queer. Its non-specificity guarantees it against criticisms made of the exclusionist tendencies of 'lesbian' and 'gay' as identity categories. Queer is a product of specific cultural and theoretical pressures whixh increasingly structured debates (both within and outside academia) about questions of identity. This Wiki article discusses none of these issues, and it attempts to create a solid definition without taking care to explain the continual shifting of the definition itself.

1. You're not likely to get a positive response in a criticism titled, "silly". Keep in mind, however much you may disagree with the results, that many people put quite a bit of effort into the article, and that there is a difference between offering a perfectly valid criticism (which you did) and just being rude (which you also did).

2. You're perfectly welcome to edit the article yourself. Keep in mind as you do so that edits with references, especially on contentious subjects (like this one) are more likely to stick.

3. Please sign your contributions to talk pages by adding -~~~~ at the end.

-Smahoney 04:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Please sign contributions to talk pages by adding -~~~~ at the end.

1. To name a few references: Epistemology of the Closet by Eve Sedgwick; Gender Trouble by Judith Butler; or Queer Theory: An Introduction by Annamarie Jagose. There are any number of pivitol books in queer theory that would strongly disagree with Wikipedia's rendering of it.

Please sign contributions to talk pages by adding -~~~~ at the end.

I'm not debating here - you're probably right. Honestly, I haven't read the article in a long time and I'm sure all kinds of stuff has slipped in. I'm just saying that you might want to tone it down a bit if you're going to contribute here, because you're dealing with other people and it doesn't really help you out to bust out all stepping on people's toes. I'm also saying that you're welcome to contribute to the article yourself, if you think it can be improved.

2 I don't expect a resonse at all, but I hardly think "silly" constitutes rudeness. I meant it only to conjure something like "goofy" - not a pungent adjective of disesteem. However, the article is also foolish, no matter how rude one interprets that word, because it contradicts its own theoretical positioning. Queer would never have survived at all if it actually does some of what the article claims.

Please sign contributions to talk pages by adding -~~~~ at the end.

All I'm saying is that's likely how it will be read, not trying to ruffle feathers.

3 Also, the article doesn't really say anything about the history of Queer, which is necessary for understanding it. It simply lists a bunch of influential people. Queer was not full-blown out of a single mind or individual theoretical movement. It was the accumulation of a multitude of influences: from AIDS activism, to pre-stonewall homophile groups; from lesbian feminism, to post-stonewall gay liberationists; from race relations and the civil rights movement, to Foucault's assertion that after 1870 same-sex acts came to be read as evidence of a particular type of person about whom explanatory narratives began to form; from Alan Brey's assertion that the mollyhouses of the late seventeenth century provide a cultural context for homosexual identity and community that constituted a homosexual subculture distinguishable from surrounding culture to D'Emilio's Marxist assertion that homosexual identity is the historical development of capitalism or part of the restructuring of the no-longer self-contained economic system, family and sexual relations.

Please sign contributions to talk pages by adding -~~~~ at the end.

I agree, a lot is lacking, which is why you should get in there and do some writing! Keep in mind Wikipedia:Cite your sources as you do, and you should be in good shape.

-Smahoney 16:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)