Talk:Queer theory/Archive 2

Problems
Overall this article is poorly written and contains a lot of questionable information. This article has no relevance except to maybe a few dozen people in academia who are wasting federal student loan money. Delete the whole thing. 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)


 * The new article contains a "CRITICISMS" section at the bottom of the page which outlines this problem -- i.e., the incommensurability of queer theory and sociology.
 * Well is it just me, or is the definition and first paragraph itself a total mess? I mean, I've read it 3 times and I don't have a clue what "Queer Theory" is about. Shouldn't a definition provide a basic understanding? Please tell me "Queer Theory" isn't complete B.S. Could we at least TRY to make some sense without getting lost in a lot of vocabulary that says absolutely nothing...EyePhoenix (talk) 06:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a common problem with post-structuralist theories, there is a rejection of singular definitions as a constraining factor of discourse. This allows the work to be more uniting than dividing. It also creates a fair amount of confusion because the only people who can understand post-structuralist theories are people who study post-structuralist theories. People like bell hooks and Michael Werner (cited within this article) break with issue to reduce confusion.Svlberg (talk) 00:28, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The "CRITICISMS" section basically the defines the issue of defining queer theory. LouisBaragona (talk) 20:19, 25 January 2016 (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

As long as specific references can be supplied to back up what's being said, I think it's fine. Queer theory is a lot of different things depending on how we look at it (from where we stand, socially), and at what time we are looking at it. It could very well be the case that I know and understand queer theory as X and you understand it as Y, and given our respective backgrounds, even though X and Y are mutually exclusive, no one point of view is more or less incorrect than the other. Mcla0181 (talk) 14:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This is true when it comes down to the details of how the theory has been applied, but at a general level all applications of Queer Theory are based on a very simple perspective that should be outlined in the article. Blankfrackis (talk) 14:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

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).


 * 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)

And was Adrienne Rich really one of the first queer theorists? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.87.194.221 (talk) 22:58, 4 March 2012 (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)

These "disorders" create complications in the social mechanisms involved in gendering an individual. Thus they are of interest to Queer Theorists in that they generate further problems for the sex/gender structure. Eos Pheros (talk) 21:35, 18 October 2011 (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.


 * I think the problem here is, of course, taxonomy. Trying to fit Queer Theory— or really any kind of critical theory— within a disciplinary boundary is tricky. I think Queer Theory is related to philosophy, but philosophy and critical theory are also antagonistic. Primarly because the former is ahistoricist. Personally I think Queer Theory can be situated best in Cultural Studies. Fokion (talk) 10:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

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.


 * Don't forget that queer theory, especially as of late, has become increasingly interested in intersecting gender and sexuality with other forms of identity— race, class, ethnicity, language, culture, etc... Fokion (talk) 10:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

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.


 * I agree. Queer Theory really can't be situated too comfortably within "identity politics" Fokion (talk) 10:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

Confused and Poorly Written
The article is terribly confused and jumbled. The problems here are so great -- both in terms of the quality of writing and the conceptual development -- that it should be rewritten from scratch.
 * I agree entirely. The problem is finding someone knowledgeable with the time and the will to write a proper article on the topic. It is sad that the article as it stands fulfills so many of the negative stereotypes--namely, of imprecise and unclear writing and thinking--associated with queer studies and cultural studies in general. An intelligent rewrite might actually do justice to some of the conceptual and critical richness that many of the scholars working in this area have brought forward in the past 15 years.--Agnaramasi (talk) 07:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, queer theory itself is so terribly confused and jumbled that maybe the article as it stands is perfectly representative of this now nearly defunct discourse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.100.92.140 (talk) 19:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to agree that it should be re-written. I came here to learn what Queer Theory actually was, and after reading the entire article I am just confused. This sounds like a lot of quasi-intellectual silliness. Can somebody tell me what Queer Theory actually is? EyePhoenix (talk) 21:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "This sounds like a lot of quasi-intellectual silliness" is not a bad start to answering your question. :) I joke, but seriously, if over four years of work has only sufficed to bring forth "a lot of quasi-intellectual silliness", then however one may feel about the subject, one must concede the possibility that that is an accurate depiction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.127.149.73 (talk) 19:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Queer theory, like most academic theories, is based on an incredibly simple and easy to understand idea. The problem with articles like these - and about 98% of academic articles for that matter - is that they're not written for a lay reader, they just launch into nonsensical academic terminology from the outset. There is no simple definition of the concept given in this article, just vague pieces of commentary which imply an advanced level of knowledge in the reader. This ridiculously obscure text appears where a definition should:

"Queer theory is derived largely from post-structuralist theory, and deconstruction in particular. Starting in the 1970s, a range of authors brought deconstructionist critical approaches to bear on issues of sexual identity, and especially on the construction of a normative "straight" ideology. Queer theorists challenged the validity and consistency of heteronormative discourse, and focused to a large degree on non-heteronormative sexualities and sexual practices."


 * I think it's obvious that whoever is primarily responsible for this article simply wanted to showcase an ability to write a quasi-academic article rather than communicate the ideas in a lucid and easy to understand manner. Blankfrackis (talk) 14:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Derrida, Queer Theory, Michel Foucault
Derrida never writes on Queer Theory or homosexuality. Derrida discusses feminism at times and what one might sum up as the feminine or the masculine, but never does Derrida discuss Queer Theory. Likewise, Foucault IS NOT a deconstructionist AT ALL. Derrida first discusses deconstruction in a differant context and then this philosophy is launched, but Foucault is not associated with deconstruction. Deconstruction requires a writer to use a style of writing to criticize the limits of that style of writing. Foucault is a historian who does not understand his very language's ambiguity dans le mot <> Please do not throw this term "deconstruction" so quickly into an article on Queer theory. Deconstruction might sound pretentious and therefore reinforce an idea that homophobia is wrong, but the whole concept of deconstruction acts to debunk any pretense within the text while demonstrating the inadequacies of logic-based reasoning. Thank you-- --Crass_conversationalist (talk) 19:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As with so many terms, there are multiple usages. Foucault and the genealogical method he develops is commonly considered "deconstructionist" because it works to decompose and fragment what are otherwise considered to be unified histories and knowledges.  You may not like Foucault and you may find his historical analysis lacking, but this is a different issue.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.84.38 (talk) 05:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

criticisms
The area under critique needs to be streamlined. Take the years out of the text, add the first names of the people you are talking about (duh!). Further, make individual footnotes for each one, rather than lumping them altogether. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.160.191.253 (talk) 17:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If you have such a clear idea of what needs to be done, why don't you do it yourself?--Agnaramasi (talk) 18:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The paragraph in the criticisms section regarding the problems of Foucault's history of the development of homosexual identified people is irrelevant in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.87.109 (talk) 06:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

"After Queer"
This paragraph is just plain silly. No one, including Butler, claims that normalization has disappeared or that normalizing regimes don't still exert terrible effects on queers. Believe it or not, one cannot take the women's studies department at your local state univeristy as a barometer for the social and political climate in which non-heterosexuals are received. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.87.109 (talk) 05:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that section did not belong. I don't know how it managed to stay for so long. Thanks for pointing that out. -- Irn (talk) 15:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Additional material
I came across the following, and thought perhaps it and/or the citation might be useful in this article:


 * A set of ideas known as "queer theory" developed, using post-structuralist ideas about literature and philosophy to raise questions about our "socially constructed" categories of sexual identity. Rather than accept unquestioningly the idea of "homosexual" and "heterosexual" identities, queer theory seeks to demonstrate that much of what we think constitutes gender and sexual identity is actually a kind of performance -- one's true sexual identity is fluid and changes with circumstances.

Thanks.&mdash; TAnthonyTalk 04:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Original Research?
The "Criticism" section lacks citations in Wikipedia form, and as such... gives me a whiff that there may be some original research going on.

One of the greatest potentials for Wiki is also a liability - Open Publishing. The inclusion of "Criticism" sections in Wiki articles is a wonderful thing.

However - even the most "miniority" of "minority opinions" can be supported correctly.

So please find support for these ideas in some sort of academic-ish /consensus-based / peer-reviewed / published type of situation.

(And I don't mean posting a link to your blog).

Thanks!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.90.56.14 (talk) 17:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I have located the in-line sources for most of this section, and inserted them in the correct format; most of them look OK, although one looks like it might be a bit dubious and the text associated with it synthetic. I am not able to locate a source for the text marked in need of citation - however, I have not gone through all the sources in detail yet, and it may be that it relates to the sentence that follows it. When I have managed to find time to go through the sources I have inserted, I will ensure that the text follows from the source (and is not WP:synthesis, delete, or re-write as appropriate. Mish (talk) 22:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Roger Kimball is noted for his staunch attacks of proponents of queer theory, I was surprised to find his criticism was not included. --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 16:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

FYI
If people who watch this page are also interested in how Wikipedia is governed, be sure to check out this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Advisory_Council_on_Project_Development. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 16:32, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Minor changes, question
I made some minor copyediting fixes to the article. I wonder why there are no sources? It may be better to get the points across in a quicker way; the current text is rather wordy. Gaining and maintaining reader interest is key, but the ideas expressed in the current version may be hard to for people to easily grasp, given the structure, wordiness, and other issues. I would like to make some changes in an attempt to address those issues. I suppose after a few edits it will be clear who the Most Interested Persons are. --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 16:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Request
I'd appreciate it if some people who work on this page could check out this discussion and see if you can add some clarity? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 01:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Parking source
Forgetting Foucault: Acts, Identities, and the History of Sexuality David M. Halperin Representations, No. 63 (Summer, 1998), pp. 93-120 Published by: University of California Press

I'm parking this here, because it doesn't seem to relate to the quote and I'm not clear what else it might relate to. Mish (talk) 15:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Basic Concepts Section
Most of this section following the top blurb on social constructionism is lifted, almost verbatim, from Adam Isaiah Green's work, 2002, and 2007. Even the three subheadings of this section are taken, word for word, right out of the subheadings of Green's 2007 Sociological Theory article's. There should be proper citations here, including page numbers where these are to be found. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.77.58.178 (talk) 04:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

"Sissyphobia"
Please have a look at Talk:Homosexuality, and perhaps comment if the topic is suitable for this article (instead of the homosexuality one). Thanks, Tijfo098 (talk) 07:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Lede?? WTF
The current introduction is as follows: "Queer theory is a field of critical theory that emerged in the early 1990s out of the fields of LGBT studies and feminist studies. It is a kind of interpretation devoted to queer readings of texts. Heavily influenced by the work of Michel Foucault, queer theory builds both upon feminist challenges to the idea that gender is part of the essential self and upon gay/lesbian studies' close examination of the socially constructed nature of sexual acts and identities. Whereas gay/lesbian studies focused its inquiries into 'natural' and 'unnatural' behavior with respect to homosexual behavior, queer theory expands its focus to encompass any kind of sexual activity or identity that falls into normative and deviant categories." As someone is not at all well read on the subject, what does that actually mean?

It's written in pseudo-babble and makes any understanding of the subject immediately indecipherable. It does not even make clear if the title Queer Theory is a hypothesis or a form of academic practice sic interpretation? This material is a complete bamboozle, as I am an average reader, and it makes no sense to me. The bluff academic style has no place in this kind of open encylcopedia. It needs to be rewritten in simple terms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.155.76.85 (talk) 13:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If you wish to read articles using only terminology appearing in "plain English", you might want to try the Simple English Wikipedia. This article is poorly written in several places, but trying to find a middle ground between brevity-and-clarity and properly expressing ideas without bastardising them with ersatz words is difficult. Would you expect the article on tachyon to be clearly understood without having done some background research first? Most peoplae would be lost by "field excitation" and "imaginary mass term", but simpler language simply cannot convey those ideas as effectively. ~  Swi tch  ( ✉ ✍  ☺  ☒ )  07:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree w/ the IP, the lead is grossly convoluted, and, like the IP, I'm not even sure there's meaning there if someone were to go thru it and straighten it out. To refer the IP to the "Simple English Wikipedia" comes off as patronizing. In fact the lead is contrary to Guideline WP:LEAD: "The lead should [...] be written in a clear, accessible style." To suggest the complexity of subject is comparable to quantum mechanics just has to be absurd. You wrote "properly expressing ideas [...] is difficult", but good writing is always difficult, this is just a matter of good writing versus poor writing. Also the point of the lead isn't really to "express ideas" but rather to define the article subject and give it sufficient context. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:44, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Critique of queer theory section
With exception to the first sentence, this entire paragraph is lifted nearly word-for-word from Adam Isaiah Green's 2007 paper in Sociological Theory.

Queer theory's commitment to deconstruction makes it nearly impossible to speak of a "lesbian" or "gay" subject, since all social categories are denaturalized and reduced to discourse.[30] Thus, queer theory cannot be a framework for examining selves or subjectivities—including those that accrue by race and class—but rather, must restrict its analytic focus to discourse.[31] Hence, sociology and queer theory are regarded as methodologically and epistemologically incommensurable frameworks [31] by critics such as Adam Green. In a introductory section,[32] Michael Warner (1990s) draws out the possibility of queer theory as a kind of critical intervention in social theory (radical deconstructionism); despite this, he weaves back and forth between the reification and deconstruction of sexual identity. Warner begins the volume by invoking an ethnic identity politics, solidified around a specific social cleavage and a discussion of the importance of deconstructing notions of lesbian and gay identities; but, despite its radical deconstructionist, it does the notion of queer subject or self in largely conventional terms: as lesbian and gay people bound by homophobic institutions and practices. So, one of the leading volumes of queer theory engages the subject via conventional sociological epistemologies that conceive of subject positions constituted through systems of stratification and organized around shared experience and identity. In other way, for Barnard,[33] any consideration of sexuality must include inextricability with racialized subjectivities. Barnard rejects queer theoretical conceptions of sexuality on the grounds that such work fails to account for particularity of racialized sexualities. He reasons that the failure arises because queer theorists are themselves white, and therefore operate from the particularity of a white racial standpoint. Barnard aspires to recuperate an analysis of race in queer theory, proposing that the deconstructionist epistemology of queer theory can be used to decompose a white queerness (first) in order to recover a racialized queerness (second). Barnard’s attempt to bring social contingency into queer theory violates the core epistemological premise of queer theory; in fact, by proposing that queer theory capture racialized subject positions, Barnard reinstates what it means to be a person of colour. His critique of the white subject position of queer theorists is itself a testimony to the stability of the social order and the power of social categories to mark a particular kind of experience, of subjectivity and, in turn, of queer author. He backs down the road of a decidedly sociological analysis of subject position and the self. Finally, Jagose[34] aims toward an analysis of social cleavages, including those accruing by race and ethnicity. Thus, on the one, underscores the strong deconstructionist epistemological premise of the term queer and queer theory more generally. Yet, she goes on to analyses of identities and sexualities “inflected by heterosexuality, race, gender and ethnicity”. Advocating the incorporation of social contingency in this way, Jagose offers neither the critical edge of queer theory nor the clarity of standpoint theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.139.5.2 (talk) 05:41, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

deleted last entry regarding phem as it has 0 - nothing to do with Queer Theory and appeared to be some sort of self promotion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.204.169.55 (talk) 01:18, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

well it seems to be some sort of postmodern dadaism for people who have given up that anything can ever make sense. The question is, why does Wikipedia even have an article about this? There is nothing of substance here, and by all appearances, there never can be. Begin by merging into queer studies, then ask the question what that article is about, if anything. --dab (𒁳) 19:29, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Postmodern dadaism? Dada is sometimes considered the beginning of postmodernism - it was not just some separate entity of artistic nihiism, you know. ;)
 * Wikipedia has an article on this topic because it has achieved notability. It is a field of academic research increasing in influence on today's philosophers and social theorists, and holds relevance to anthropology (the key ideas of queer theory have been examined by some sexologists). Merging this with queer studies would make no sense - what you actually propose is deletion. Your interjection comes across as mere heteronormativity. ~  Swi tch  ( ✉ ✍  ☺  ☒ )  06:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

biology section problem
Just wanted to point out that this sentence has a few problems:

"Some key experts in the study of culture, such as Barbara Rogoff, argue that the traditional distinction between biology and culture as independent entities is overly simplistic, pointing to the ways in which biology and culture interact with one another."

What is the traditional distinction between biology and culture as independent entities? Who makes the distinction and in what way? I feel that the sentence at best leaves the readers to read between the lines, and at worst, that the "traditional distinction" is a generic strawman for "everything I don't like".

The problem gets worse as many established disciplines assume culture and biology interact. Evolutionary psychology and biological anthropology to name but two. Phrased as it is, the sentence implies that everybody is oblivious to interaction between culture and biology except Rogoff and "some key experts". I would think that, at the very least, it should be explained in an additional sentence what is the contribution of Rogoff and the key experts.

I can understand that a source is provided, but does the reader of wikipedia really have to read a whole book in order to avoid such confusions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.136.179.171 (talk) 09:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

long-term unaddressed problems with this article

 * Original research tag from July 2011
 * Section with no references or sources from November 2011
 * Section with no references or sources from February 2012
 * Section with no references or souces from November 2011 #2
 * Section with excessive See alsos (including red links which shouldn't be there March 2013

There are many, many more problems that have not been tagged. I only added one. Please cleanup this article if you want wikipedia to have a quality article on this subject. Thanks, Star767 (talk) 12:41, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Horrible
A phrase coined during a speech during the 1990s, I wouldn't think warrants and entire Wikipedia page to house it's convoluted ignorance... No scholar would use the term Queer to describe homosexual relationships of any kind for it relates to an entire community and the word "queer" is offensive just as the words "nigger", "wetback", "cracker", and "pig" would be deemed offensive. And if "Queer" it is the terminology to be used for this pseudo-study it needs to be clarified to be exclusive of a particular group, and be separated from it's definition as something odd or unnatural because evolutionary biologist and all of anthropology have time and time again shown through existent tangible research that homosexuality or "queerdom" by no means odd or unnatural(1). Actually there are psychological theories along side evolutionary biologist that say that the prevalence of homosexuality in all biological existence points to the contrary of it being unnatural ... The terminology of the entire article obfuscates the general purpose of the article (which is what again?) There is not a scholarly discipline of Queer Studies, nor is the phrase laced into any evolutionary psychological or sociological work, nor in any anthropology journal I've read.... The relevance of Homosexuality in the modern-day  society is it's origin and how homosexuality comes to be expressed in both humans and animals and it's likeness as another world wide civil liberties issue...I suppose those things could be lumped into a rather offensive category of "Queer Studies".

The article should correctly be termed Study of Sexuality due to LGBT being used multiple times and referring to multiple sexual orientations Homo- meaning one, Bi- meaning two, -Trans- meaning across... This article shows a negative bias, and uses offensive terminology to address a wide range of sexual choices that deviate from heterosexuality. The ambiguity in the sources shows a lack of knowledge on the subject that shouldn't have been approached, and was not properly explained. Unlike the article I have references that support my rating of horrible: (1)R. C. Kirkpatrick, The Evolution of Human Homosexual Behavior;Current Anthropology Volume 41, Number 3, June 2000 http://www.fed.cuhk.edu.hk/~lchang/material/Evolutionary/evo%20homosexual%20review.pdf 06:42, 18 April 2013 (UTC)2602:306:CDE3:5A80:E9B0:BDF7:219B:49C (talk) 06:42, 18 April 2013 (UTC)V.Valentour06:42, 18 April 2013 (UTC)06:42, 18 April 2013 (UTC)~

Of course it's incomprehensible!
If, as the article states, Queer Theory is a field of post-structuralist critical theory, perhaps the problem is that the wikipedia article is written in the style of post-structuralist critical theory. If that is the case, how could the article be anything but incomprehensible? John Link (talk) 13:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Social Media
This section is a disaster. It has some egregious errors in syntax and reads like an advocacy piece. I did find it quite informative but it's just not fitting for the character of a Wikipedia article. 166.170.14.46 (talk) 20:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Social Media
I really don't think that this section is fitting for this WP article at all about Queer Theory -- just claiming that there are advantages specifically to queered people, yet listing advantages that are realised in every person (Obama, a non-queer, can create a community about him ...), I find to be not of great use or information to the article or to the readers. Any thoughts? I feel that removal would be of benefit. DoomLexus (talk) 17:13, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I have removed the section per WP:BOLD. I do not feel as though this adds significantly to QT, and its absolutely non-unique to it. It may be better added as a merge to LGBT as a whole, not QT, because it is not even talking about QT specfically. DoomLexus (talk) 15:13, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Introduction Fails
I read and reread the introduction. I was unable to define 'queer theory' nor even to place it in some relationship to other theories. MartinRinehart (talk) 10:42, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Clarity, please!
This article needs a shorter introduction that crisply and clearly defines queer theory. Remove the nonsense sentence telling us that queer theory includes "the theorisation of 'queerness' itself" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:52DA:3100:F4E8:145B:B8EB:E400 (talk) 20:25, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

The rest of the article needs a lot of editing too. Many sentences too long and convoluted. To me, it reads in places like it is advocating queer theory rather than objectively discussing its strengths and weaknesses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:52DA:3100:D8DB:6A8:2C6F:391 (talk) 11:48, 31 March 2018 (UTC)