gender and language

[Erez Levon]

A few responses:

First, in response to Suzanne's comment about the problematic nature of
queer self-identification in that it is not always reliable. The issue for
me is really - who are we to say what identification is reliable. I feel
like much of our theorizing is confined (for obvious pragmatic reasons) to
certain defined categorial labels, which then enables us to judge varying
levels of authenticity. Though this practice seems unavoidable at this
time, it still warrants critical examination. Which brings me back to my
original point of what assumptions are we bringing to our research. If
we've moved beyond heterosexist gender dichotomy, what assumptions are we
now making about the queer community, and the roles of queer people within
that community. This question then brings me to a response vis a vis Uri's
(et al) comments about the use of the term "queer". I would contend that
this term is actually used very differently in academic (i.e., theoretical)
versus popular/activist contexts. While in the popular discourse, queer is
considered an all-exclusive and political term, in the academic setting,
queer theory and "queer readings" carry a much larger epistemological
meaning. For me, at least, queer theory is the manifestation of the
problematization of categories that I seem to be arguing: it is a
theoretical frame through which to view contemporary social theorizing that
does away with the heterosexist economy, and attempts to model new, dynamic
models of identity performance (but that might just be my own personal
reading). Finally, I'd like to put my two cents in about Larry's latest
comment regaring the need to further problematize the so-called "dominant
majority", or as Larry puts it "the norm." I am in resounding agreement.

Erez