Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Transsexual… it is safe to say that new ideas of gender and sexuality have broken into mainstream consciousness within the past few decades. What underlies each of these identities, however, is the notion of Queerness. But what defines what it means to be queer? Is it as much a political identity as it is a sexual or gender identity? How does ‘queerness’ subvert or challenge our notions of gender and sexuality? John and Ken welcome Susan Stryker from the University of Arizona, author of Transgender History: The Roots of Today's Revolution.
What does it mean to be queer? Is it a sexual identity? Political identity? Or something else? Has it turned into simply an empty umbrella term? John and Ken introduce these questions as the episode begins. Ken suggests that the queer identity remains both contested and in flux. John questions the usefulness of a term that has such a hard to define meaning. By examining the original definition of the word, however, they both can see why it this former slur has been reclaimed by people of varying genders and sexualities.
Our hosts are joined by Susan Stryker, Professor of Gender and Women's Studies at the University of Arizona and former Director of the Institute for LGBT Studies. Susan delves into the history of the word queer and the reasons for its reclamation. Ken remains puzzled about the particular choice of queer as the umbrella term for non-normative identities, to which Susan explains the historical beginnings of queer's modern usage and the benefits that it offers. An audience question via Instagram sparks discussion over the questions of what role pronouns play in one's life and identity.
An email question from an audience member brings up the issue of gendered bathrooms. Susan suggests that public bathrooms will inevitably require redesigning, and explains the need for education about the price of gendering bathrooms. Ken wonders how much accommodation the queer identity can make for accordance to the normalized structures and ideas that it seems to be in principle working against. John brings up the importance of television and the media in representing queer identities to society on a grand scale. These ideas and more and discussed with Susan as the episode comes to a close.
Roving Philosophical Reporter (seek to 6:43): Shuka Kalantari speaks with a trans woman who was forced to spend years in a male prison, and the choreographer of a queer-centric, dance theatre piece.
60-Second Philosopher (Seek to 46:03): Ian Shoales speaks about the complexities of being gay or lesbian in the past and the fall of Milo Yiannopoulos.
Comments (6)
Harold G. Neuman
Thursday, August 29, 2019 -- 7:47 AM
"Queer" is such an archaic"Queer" is such an archaic term for other sexual orientations. I cringe whenever I hear or read it. One (this one, anyway) would think that with all the progress made by other-sexed individuals and groups representing them, that someone would have thought to erase this demeaning reference from the modern lexicon. Or maybe it is believed that it still makes a point, although I cannot fathom just what that 'point' might be. The 'N' word clings ferociously to our language, and, it remains acceptable for black people to use it among themselves. Question from a novitiate: is it ever acceptable for other persons of color (Hispanics; Indians; Asian/Pacific Islanders; etc.) to use the 'N' word? Or are they just as likely to be beaten to death if they were to do so so? I do not know, nor do I know if these sorts of questions are ever asked. With all the so-called political correctness and sensitivity flying around these days, one (this one) really begins to wonder how such contingencies might be overlooked. Trendiness has a way of eventually losing its appeal---and, impact. I don't follow anyone on Twitter; Facebook; Instagram or other venues. As long as my own life remains interesting, I can see no reason(s) for doing so. So, let's use queer in its' original context. Maybe some other-sexed people would also feel better about who they are? I hope this is not too radical for some to consider. If it is, those folks might ask themselves why they think so.
Maybe I'll set up my own blog, hmmmmmm? No, bad idea...I am not a follower(unless you count Philosophy Talk), so I ought not expect anyone to follow me.
RepoMan05
Friday, October 4, 2019 -- 3:10 AM
Queer, weird, and odd, areQueer, weird, and odd, are all terms for spoild meat. Id say it were the catholics and british who made: anything out of their subjective interpretations of anything: out of the ordinary - a thing of revulsion that were lacking right to exist. British liked it because they liked power. Catholics liked it because they liked the excuse to slave rape imprisoned little boys.
Queer isnt very special of a word really. Betwern these three, which single word would you choose to represent "extra-subjective sexuality" if not "queer?"
RepoMan05
Friday, October 4, 2019 -- 3:12 AM
Also, i dont think it wouldAlso, i dont think it would take you long to be sick of "other-sexed individuals" either. I mean, if you had to write that every time and actualy addressed a topic, you'd hate it intensly after very short order, im sure.
The problem you make by creating holy words(any word you're not allowed to say) is that you end up making more and more holy words and deeper and more committed resentment. Even common words like "disapointment" are changed into horrific displays of commoner language.
At some point folks, you have to put down the douche bags.
Arendt
Tuesday, September 17, 2019 -- 2:08 PM
Thank you for exploring thisThank you for exploring this challenging topic; however, I have serious concerns about several aspects of this show:
1) That the show affirmed the gender fluidity movement's premise that sex is non-binary; and, seemed to suggest that the categories of female and male may very well have outlived their usefulness.
As a woman who has experienced eight "memorable" instances of sexual harassment, including 2 instances of violent sexual assault and 2 instances of lengthy, determined and aggressive stalking that may have resulted in rape or worse...all by male human beings, human beings with penises, I found the the show's dismissal of the bathroom issue as "silly"...alarming.
Not only are human males, on average, stronger and more violent than human females, they are also far more likely to commit all types of sexual harassment, including assault, stalking, exhibitionism and voyeurism. And, there is no reliable data that men who self-identify as women (many of whom retain male genitalia and are still sexually attracted to females) are any less violent than males who don't.
As such, women (i.e. human beings born with ovaries, human beings who are often subject to menstruation, pregnancy (sometimes, forced), child birth, lactation, and menopause) deserve sex-segregated spaces that acknowledge their material biological reality...sex-segregated communal toilets, showers, locker rooms, domestic abuse shelters, and prisons...spaces where girls and women are especially vulnerable to male sexual harassment.
2) That in a show on sex and gender, zero of the four voices heard (those of Ken Taylor, Josh Landry, Susan Stryker, and Ian Shoals) were WBW (women born women). How is this even possible? How can a discussion on sex and gender leave out the viewpoint of human beings actually subject to menstruation and pregnancy?
3) That in a show on sex, gender, and queerness ( VERY controversial issues these days), where were the voices critical of the gender fluidity movement?
Philosophy Talk presents itself as a show that questions everything. But, one has to wonder: is it really ready to question the assertions of the new gender fluidity movement?
RepoMan05
Thursday, October 3, 2019 -- 7:54 PM
You note a lot of statisticsYou note a lot of statistics and im not going to refute them, but would you consider that it might be natural that males have a stronger sex drive than females, and that, males are less selective than females?
Could a lot of these problems go away by being able to take a look at phenotypical norms? Its easy to find problems with nature but denying our nature does nothing to change it. Objectivity is not altered by subjectivity. Saying "rape is bad" does nothing to change that it's perfectly natural. Both sexes have instincts for it.
What kind of solutions are possible. I'd suggest a sport. Like boxing, compromising our well being can still be seen as moral within the confines of sporting events.
Leaving no outlet for natural behaviors has shown itself to be counter productive to "respecting the rule of law." People are doing it everywhere all around you as you read this.
A competitive evolution type impregnation sport. Various selection events finished off with an old fashioned game of chase. Escaping impregnation takes home the big pot of gold. Top male and female athletes to finally have some way to compete in the same sport. World wide betting pools. Instant prenatal fame and fortune for offspring. Born famous. Perhaps nations as a whole could make war like concessions based on such outcomes, avoiding bothersome slaughters and timeless resentment.
What's wrong with nature? Morality should have some natural basis. Morality should not be denying the existance of our nature altogether. Denying someone their nature is itself the hight of immortality.
RepoMan05
Friday, October 4, 2019 -- 6:33 PM
No, rather than bringing moreNo, rather than bringing more freedom, the new gender ideals have put us deeper into a cage. Now not only do we have to respect everyones opinions about straight people, now we have to respect a handful of other subjectivist crap.
Gender is a delusion in the first place. How can anything be the opposite gender and not be a delusion also.
Now we have to accept more delusions. This just put more nerves on the floor. Things on the floor get stepped on. Thats what floors are for.
So now, thats what nerves are for.
Why doesn't anyone ever say that "no one has the right to force others to accept or entertain subjectivity," as an answer to all this inhumanist positioning?
British loyalists aren't against structural violence. They're only against not being in control of it.