Re: "Queer Positive"

[Craig Heath <craig%sware.com@mathcs.emory.edu>]

Judi McKernan writes (to Ron Buckman, but publicly):

>    "Queer Positive?" Somehow, I find that to be an extreme contradiction in
> terms. How can it be "positive" when you use such an outdated and degrading
> term such as QUEER?  Maybe you can explain this to me.....

Oh dear - I think a discussion such as this really ought to be conducted
via email, but since this was posted, I think it's fair to respond here.

I have no wish to provoke a flamefest, but when I read the posting in
question, it struck me as quite reasonable.  Sure, it's using a negative
word, but the key is that it's using it in a positive context.  The way
I see it, it's not the word that's a bad thing, it's the associations.
There is a school of thought which believes you can change these
associations simply by your own use of the word, and thus, in a sense,
"cleanse" it.  For a fine example of this, see the book "Gridlock" by
Ben Elton - I won't tell you the word he uses, as that would spoil the
effect, but it's well worth reading.  To go back to the original point,
consider how your perceptions might be different had Tom Robinson's
famous song been entitled "Glad to be Queer".

There is a tenuous Kate connection to this - didn't Ben Elton get a
"thanks" on one of Kate's albums?  Hounds of Love? (Oh my fading memory!)

	- Craig (usually @sco.com, temporarily @sware.com)