Colorado College defends use of "queer" on application

reply to post by HandyDandy


It doesn't matter what language they use. If I am personally offended I would seek accomadations elsewhere. Life is too short to get hung up on 'sticks and stones".

People need to get a grip.

I'll call a queer a queer with a smile on my face, and they'll likely smile back at me.

Sheesh!

There's polite and there's gross naivety.

Its not like it said no queers or Something along those lines. I'm not following
the issue here?

I think a lot of people are overlooking the fact that the question was about gender, not sexual orientation. "Genderqueer" is a fairly well-established term for non-binary gender identities; see:
Genderqueer at Dictionary.com
Genderqueer - Wikipedia

I agree that it would be better to include "genderqueer" as a gender option instead of just "queer," but I disagree that it's being used as any sort of slur...

I've been warning for a while now that "lgtb studies" will eventually be replaced by "Queer studies" in the academies.

However, one has to remember that the academies are usually far removed from street culture, and the way they use terminology and jargon has a totally different context.

"Queer" draws attention to the social constructed nature of all sexual identity, and it's claims of truths are revealed as simply reiterating a certain gender performance (which changes over time and place).
There may be an essence to various sexualities somewhere, but that is not their real concern.
They would rather see people as products of discourse and various forms of power/knowledge.
Some might argue this means everyone is bisexual (although it's not argued like this exactly), which is astoundingly a discourse also found in religions which claim that being gay is simply a choice.

"Gay" and "lesbian" were terms that were felt to repeat "masculinity", or "femininity", and looking for recognizably gays and lesbians in history (for example literature).
This ultimately lead to a canon of gay works that was considered very closed, and didn't bother to look at sexual moments outside the recognizably gay and lesbian subculture.

Ultimately, I guess it was felt (I'd say mainly by radical feminists at first) this didn't really deconstruct patriarchy or heteronormativity enough, and thus gay and lesbian studies became redundant.
Queer studies is the new hot topic.

In a sense it encompasses the gay and lesbian studies, but it radically goes beyond that - actually it's more a mode of thinking about the world and identities.

There have been major disjunctures between gay and lesbian street activism and Queer studies.
It pays little attention to whether gay people experience their sexuality as life-long and non-chosen, or whether they were happy with some rights as a minority.
In fact, Queer studies would see both gay and straight identities as constructed.
I know of gay and lesbian people who want to hear nothing about "Queer studies" or social constructivism.

Some might say that such studies may focus on gender, but actually originate in Marxism, in which classes and eventually genders should disappear to let everyone fight the class struggle.
That doesn't mean all the work on Queer study is self-consciously Marxist, and a lot of it is quite valuable from a social science perspective, but as a gay man I don't like being put into that ultra-radical box.

But anyway, I guess it's here to stay.
en.wikipedia.org...

This is a story out of Louisiana but it might shed some light...

Neither state nor federal law expressly prohibits an employer from asking an employee or potential employee for race, marital status, gender, or other classifications. But they do forbid an employer from using those classifications to discriminate, or from simply appearing to do so.

That provision makes it easy for rejected applicants to sue if they have been asked these questions, and most employers expressly avoid the questions.

Justine Lisser, an EEOC senior attorney and adviser, said the commission advises companies to avoid asking questions unrelated to a candidate’s qualifications, if at all possible.

“It’s not technically illegal, but…we will look at questions that really don’t seem to go to employment, or to job knowledge,” she said. “We will look upon that as potential evidence of discrimination, if someone were to ever file a charge of discrimination with us.”

thelensnola.org...

The important thing to understand in this context is that we are discussing gender, not sexuality.

I have known several people in my life that identify as Genderqueer.

I really don't see anything wrong with the application, as it gives yet another option for someone to label themselves.

I'm confused.

The application question appeared to be asking about one's GENDER. Male, female, transgender, are GENDERS.

Queer is asking about your SEXUALITY. That is a completely different thing!

Besides, if it's a one choice question, and one option is queer, then every single person who might define their sexuality like that, would have to choose: Hmmn, do I list myself as male because I'm a man (or woman), or queer because I'm gay?

Since when does sexuality fall into the same category as your gender?

And what if someone is bi? Gee, are they straight, queer, or male? Dilemmas, dilemmas...

If they're going to ask questions about sexuality they need a separate question for that, and there is quite a long list of options, most of which are less shocking if we stick to acronyms. ;-) ;-)

Of course, they have no right to ask about sexuality at all.

And since the people making this application are incapable of telling the difference between these things, they are probably not qualified to work for a college we expect to be educating other people, unless we want them to end up equally stupid.

PS I didn't see the post above mine until I had posted this. Slang references that not only literally change the meaning of a word but actually invade the privacy of applicants are inappropriate for anything made by adults. Perhaps they gave it to a young and not very mature student to create.

reply to post by HardCorps


I understand why some people don't like the word queer. The roots of why gay people were labelled such is negative.

However, today the word is used to describe all things gay. Queer studies for instance, may encompass all sexuality.

Here's what we studied in a queer studies course I took:

Heterosexual identity
Homosexual Identity
Pansexual identity
Transgender identity
Lesbian identity

Etc...etc.

Personally I like the word queer a lot more than I liked all of those identities because at least it doesn't trap one in an identity. I don't like labels personally but people expect them. I always just label myself lesbian because I have always been attracted to women.

I am a part of those people that believe in the Kinsey scale idea. I think that labels just trap people and make them feel ashamed of liking others of the same or opposite sex. In that regard, the homosexual and heterosexual communities are very similar. Both dislike as a rule, bisexual identity people because it doesn't fit into their binary boxes.

Like I can't imagine being a bisexual male. Those get rejected by both the hetero and homosexual communities as a rule. Maybe that's why you see so often bisexual people labeling themselves as gay or straight. It's all so silly. People are silly. Words are silly. Everyone is so queer.

reply to post by signalfire


Too bad it's a free country where we have freedom of speech (for the time being) right?
Some people only like freedom of speech when it works in their favor.

I don't need to justify what I say if I haven't broke any laws, nor do you need to agree with it.

On that same note, I don't have to condone someone saying something that is "offensive" to some people to be able to support their right to freedom of speech, especially when it comes to things that aren't meant to be offensive in the first place, it's just PCBS.

reply to post by RedCairo


Queer actually can encompass gender, sexuality, and biology. It's general which really means any of that and all of the above. For instance, intersex studies fall under queer studies even though it's a biology subject. It's also a gender identity subject as well because people who are intersex don't fit the binary expectations of either the homosexual or heterosexual communities.

OrphanApology
It's all so silly. People are silly. Words are silly. Everyone is so queer.

LOL!

Yeah but I'm still confused about why something that relates to a sexuality would be mixed up with something that relates to a gender. Like:

1. Is it anyone's business if one were not male or female but trangender? Is anything more personal?? Actually I'm not against having this on forms as a form of recognition if people choose to have that recognized -- I think our culture is WAY behind recognizing that there are more than two polar genders -- as long as people have the right to say whatever they like without future repercussion. (e.g. if they choose to tell you they are female because they look female when clothed, they shouldn't need to tell you they are transgendered, as it is nobody's bloody business; there should be no possible consequences for them not saying so, even if they were.)

2. What way does anyone have of saying that the very known bias against homosexuality is not going to affect someone who fills out a form and labels themselves queer? What precautions are they taking to keep those applications private for example? Who has access to them at any point? Is there any way that this information, which is private unless someone chooses to volunteer it publicly, could ever affect the scholastic, athletic, military or professional career of that individual? Or even the personal life?

I have seen plenty of bias in my time against people who were not straight. The subtle stuff is the worst. People who are open about it have a lot of vulnerability, although I suppose we could say that other things people commonly are biased against for (being black, fat, foreign, whatever) are pretty out-front without any possibility of hiding it.

I just feel like sources such as a college has no right to ask about that information. I feel like it creates a sense of 'obligation to be honest' on the part of many people filling out a form, or a possibly erroneous sense of the information being private, and that this could have very damaging and long-term effects for an individual.

reply to post by RedCairo


Well gender IS sexual identity, albeit one that's normally binary for most people and is taught by society. Do you mean genitalia?

I always use the example of Mickey and Minnie mouse to show the male/female gender programming. there's no difference between the two of them save the way they dress and move. Genitalia on the other hand is of course obvious. It also has the label of "male" and "female", either you have testicles or you don't. But a person with female genitalia may identify with the male gender programming role of society. Does that make any sense?

OrphanApology
Queer actually can encompass gender, sexuality, and biology. It's general which really means any of that and all of the above. For instance, intersex studies fall under queer studies even though it's a biology subject. It's also a gender identity subject as well because people who are intersex don't fit the binary expectations of either the homosexual or heterosexual communities.

Thanks. I guess that makes sense, for the fraction of people who already know all that.

Anybody I ever met who sees or hears that someone responded with "queer" on an application is going to assume that person is a) homosexual and b) probably pretty in-your-face about it. Now I'm thinking that in coastal/metro areas where sexuality is a lot more open and a lot less an issue than it is in the midwest where I live, maybe that isn't the assumption at all. Peace, love and rock & roll, probably nobody cares back home where I'm from anymore.

But it would pretty much ruin people utterly in many of the areas I have lived. They would not only face bias in every possible area with every possible person who might ever see it or hear about it being on their application, but they'd face very real danger of getting their ass kicked if they were a man. I'm not saying I don't live in a culturally recursive situation here in the midwest (and I have both gay and lesbian and whatever-else-we-don't-know-and-don't-mention in my family, so obviously it isn't too rare), I am merely saying that the consequences of being open about this can sometimes be dire, and I think it's important that even the possibility of these consequences not be levied upon people, unless they very intentionally choose to make that information public.

I think they should be protected, especially people who are quite young which college is. I don't believe any seeming source-of-authority should be asking them highly personal questions like that on a form which may have its information seen by others who could, even via gossip, make that information public.

reply to post by HardCorps

Sounds kinda queer to me!
Sorry for the one liner but just had to.

reply to post by OrphanApology


Thanks for your input it did shed light however...
From a biological standpoint humans come in three genders, male, female and hermaphrodites.
Those are genders biologically speaking of course...

All other labels refer to persons sexual orientation straight gay etc.
they didn't ask for orientation they asked for gender and in this instance they were wrong to add more than the three choices I listed above...

True Gender can and is an important issue in many work environments and job placements... Ones sexual orientation is not and an employer has no business asking that question.
And that is not just my opinion but federal labor law!

As for my 'Opinion' words are funny things... one word can mean many things to many diverse people... Myself, I find the use of the word "Queer" to be debasing, every bit as the "C' word as hinted at here in this thread, is to women.

Again I reiterate... A place that promotes higher education should have been less PC and found a better term to use...surely somewhere in their school there has to be a thesaurus lying around, right?

HardCorps
reply to post by OrphanApology

 

Thanks for your input it did shed light however...
From a biological standpoint humans come in three genders, male, female and hermaphrodites.
Those are genders biologically speaking of course...

All other labels refer to persons sexual orientation straight gay etc.
they didn't ask for orientation they asked for gender and in this instance they were wrong to add more than the three choices I listed above...

True Gender can and is an important issue in many work environments and job placements... Ones sexual orientation is not and an employer has no business asking that question.
And that is not just my opinion but federal labor law!

As for my 'Opinion' words are funny things... one word can mean many things to many diverse people... Myself, I find the use of the word "Queer" to be debasing, every bit as the "C' word as hinted at here in this thread, is to women.

Again I reiterate... A place that promotes higher education should have been less PC and found a better term to use...surely somewhere in their school there has to be a thesaurus lying around, right?

By "hermaphrodite" I assume you're thinking of someone who is "both male and female"? If so, please know that "true hermaphroditism" is very rare in humans, but there are a variety of different "intersex" conditions (where a person has ambiguous genitalia and/or a chromosomal genotype and phenotype other than XX or XY) that are much more common. Some people with intersex conditions self-identify as entirely male or female, and you might never know from looking at someone that there was anything "different" about them. There isn't one single, definitive "third gender" and calling someone a "hermaphrodite" is widely considered offensive. The more you know!

In addition, self-identifying as "[gender]queer" is vastly different from being called "queer" as a slur. Genderqueer and trans* are gender identities, not sexual orientations.

I do think that most of this confusion could have been avoided if the form had listed "genderqueer" as an option instead of just "queer," and that answering this question should certainly not be mandatory on a job application.

reply to post by signalfire


I can't help but think if the mere wording included in an application to a Catholic Hospital is offensive? What would you have ever done, trying to work in one?

You'd be regularly working around and required to show due respect and even deference at times to Priests and Nuns working with patient support. The entire building from the literal top to bottom, inside and out will be adorned with religious symbolism and leaving no doubt as it it's being Blessed ground, as the other workers and management of the Hospital see it.

I just wonder sometimes if folks don't go hunting trouble where it can be most expected to be found. I suppose if I wanted to become offended, I'd apply at a very clearly themed gay bar. I'm not sure how they'd take my being straight ...but I'm sure I would't be terribly comfortable in what is perfectly legal, acceptable and normal in that setting, despite it simply not being my thing.

reply to post by opopanax


Great post.

I think in this case whoever made the application was probably trying to do the right thing and in general wasn't trying to write a slur but who knows?

I agree with the genderqueer label but at the same time there are so many different labels these days and it is consistently changing. Perhaps who wrote it was just trying to have an all encompassing one for that would work for all gender identities. In general if they want to know the genitalia of people they should just be more specific. Like...."do you have a penis?" answer "Yes or No"...."Do you have both a penis and vagina".... yada yada...

OR

Maybe the best idea is not to ask people what their genitalia is on job applications altogether...

That however, is an entirely different subject.

reply to post by OrphanApology

Yeah, I'm thinking maybe asking for "preferred pronouns" is as far as an application like this should go if they want to ascertain how applicants identify. In most lines of work, the exact nature of your genitalia and chromosomal makeup are irrelevant.