|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
"Queer Heterosexual" is a real term
There are 1,080,000 returns for Queer heterosexual, 1240 returns for the term "Queer Heterosexual" and 416 for "Queer heterosexuality".
Surely, its an emerging term that needs to be accomodated in Wikipedia.
If the content of my article is not held to be as per Wikipedia standards, then it can be accordingly changed by someone who can get a better description, but why delete the article itself.Masculinity (talk) 14:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- I have edited the page to include other types of queer heterosexuals. It does need a lot more work, and it is not an area I specialize in. It needs more substance, and better sources for the three categories, including BDSM. I have had a quick look at GLQ, but there is little in there. Whittle & Stryker's Transgender Reader may have something. I'd suggest having a look at the main articles linked to from within the sections added to see if that gives leads to sources that can be legitimately used here as well. I'll pop back and have a look next week to see how it is looking, and if I have come across anything more in the meantime I will add it. Queer heterosexuals are a neglected subject within both queer theory and LGBT studies (as are bisexuals). I think this is the beginning of an important article. I have added the LGBT project tag to this talk page. Mish (talk) 12:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- This article though, specifically discusses transgendered people, the "T" in "LGBT". LadyofShalott 21:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I can see how "Feminine heterosexual men" (no masculine heterosexual women, though?) and transexuals might bear some see-also relation to this subject, but I don't see how they are actually included under the subject of this article. Do any of the sources link them? Шизомби (talk) 23:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- I put some bits in to hold the article open so the creator could take the opportunity to improve what was essentially a stub - but having not taken the opportunity to do this, I am happy for things to be removed - and if it is not added to, and if what is left does not warrant it being an article, then it should be put forward for deletion again. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 00:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why you removed Celia Katzinger ref which discusses queer hereosexuality - she has written a book on Intersex as well, does that mean we should not use here because she does that in the context of queer theory? The quote was critical of the concept of queer heterosexuality, from a radical feminist perspective. I'm not clear that we have to exclude authors who write on Queer theory - because that would entail losing much material that relates LGBT. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 09:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- I have restructured the content to reflect the location within Queer theory, and removed the LGBT template from the article page. Realistically, this should now be renamed to 'queer heterosexuality', because it is unclear from the sources that queer heterosexual is used as an identity, but as a concept applied to some heterosexual practices. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 12:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- By who? At the moment, the sources for this article consist of a) a strange conference paper from some guy who did a PhD once, where he adopts the label to basically describe his being a male fag hag, b) a single opinion column from the Village Voice which takes an altogether different (and rather more vague) definition, and c) an apparent criticism of the concept, which neither explains specifically what she's referring to, or why exactly she's critical of it. I'm not sure really why the effort is being spent to save this one. It's a plain dud, and you've shot down foggier examples of WP:SYN elsewhere. Rebecca (talk) 12:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- I don't have access to the whole article by Katzinger - but I haven't tried going through Athens yet. When I can find more, then I will update it. I agree that this should not be part of LGBT, I can see why it shouldn't be in. The idea that heterosexuals can be queer is one that seems problematic to radical feminists - and the concept is criticised. If it is criticised, then there has to be something that is being criticised, or else it was a straw man back over a decade ago, in which case it is a straw man that has managed to persist. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 13:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Okay, so we now at least have two coherent academic sources covering a concept somewhere along these lines. I'm still not sure if there's actually a unifiable topic here; the article still gives the impression that a few people over the years have discussed heterosexuals-as-queer in some form, but that this has never really been picked up as a focused topic. It still feels like something that's going to wind up being a case of WP:SYN. At the very least, it'd be nice to see the sources already used translated into layperson-speak - I basically have a degree in this stuff and still had to read it a couple times to work out what the heck she meant. Rebecca (talk) 14:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I have expanded the references, and updated the templates. Hopefully this is a bit clearer now. It will take time, as getting access to papers I don't have subscriptions to involves looking to see if they have been rebublished as chapters in books. Copyright and shifts in author's views also mean that there can be discrepancies between what is said in one paper, and a book chapter based on that. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 15:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, let's give it a few days and see what happens. I am still concerned that what Schlichter, Kitzinger and Wilkinson are talking about, what Taormino and Davidson are talking about, and what Smith is talking about are essentially three different things. The first one starts to look like actual notability; I am dubious about the second; and the third seems to be right fringe.
- It might make quite a bit more sense if the Smith cite was dropped - it isn't really backing up anything important, and its notability is pretty dubious at best. I also wonder about the notability of the Taormino article - unless there's something not cited here, it seems to be just one of many opinion columns by in the paper this lady, and the weight assigned to it here as any sort of key document on the matter seems to be questionable. Rebecca (talk) 15:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- I disagree, because the Smith conference paper was published as a chapter in Thomas' book, but it is not accessible online in that form, and some authors refer to the article, as they do the piece in Village Voice as well as Kitzinger as the spring-board which gives them entry into the discussion in terms of Queer theory. These three seem quite significant in relation of the emergence of this discussion within Queer Theory, and the coinage (as the two you highlight both use the term in the titles). I am not convinced that it works as an identity reference, which I suspect the creator of this article had in mind, so the identification of the article's subject to a particular individual is inappropriate, which is why I think that calling the article 'Queer heterosexuality' would be closer to what is discussed in Queer Theory. Had I not found a stream of writing on this in Queer Theory (which I had expected woul be there somewhere) I would have agreed, but however small it exists, and given the dominance of heterosexuality in our society is not going to be an insignificant topic in itself. , , , ,  are all references I have ignored, although they appear to take the concept either for granted or question its validity, and this is not exhaustive. Just because the reasons it was created may be questioned, that does not mean the article itself has no merit when reconstituted in the way it now has been. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 16:33, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- If the Village Voice article and/or the Smith paper are indeed actually some sort of catalyst for the discussion, it would be nice to see their citations in the article framed in this way. Scattered as over the place, it's hard to see how they're related, and makes it look like synthesis.
- I agree that a move to Queer heterosexuality would be a good idea; that it purports to be an identity is one of the big problems here. The other front-and-centre problem is the lead sentence; stating that the subject is a heterosexual who engages in "queer practice" is going to make a lot of people go "wait, what?" or assume that it's meant to be a synonym of men who have sex with men. As a start, merging it with the "examples" section would make less random. Rebecca (talk) 18:04, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I think this article should be deleted. You can't be heterosexual or straight and have a queer sexuality. Queer sexuality is being about not attracted to the opposite sex/gender only and about not being heterosexual or straight.
With the exception of very a small number of academics who claim that they are heterosexual and queer I have never ever seen anyone else that is heterosexual/straight use the term or claim that they were queer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 06:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello. I'm in a heterosexual and monogamous marriage. But I'm not heterosexual. Do you have a better label for me? My hair is longer than my wife's, and the running joke is that she'll kill it and I'll cook it. She is all woman, and I am quite male. "Queer" may be a time-limited word. Eventually it may be a silly adjective. Right now, however, it's a stanchion for those still growing into their identities. That's not a "neutral" point of view, I admit. It is instead a view towards a possible future. Jason Riedy (talk) 04:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- Your prefered categories do not necessarily describe every possible permutation of human sexuality. And you don't get to police other people's sexual and gender identities. Which is exactly why this article is neither pointless nor oxymoronic. It also meets notability requirements. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 07:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
What if their identity requires denouncing you as a pervert? Do you get to police that? The article assumes there is nothing wrong with any of this. Maybe there isn't. But no other way of looking at it seems to be allowed, which is a structural POV. Let's at least put Sigmund Freud's interpetation of all this into the article (even though he does not call it that). Unless there is a consensus among those camping out here that Freud is not qualified to have an opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 13:49, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Does this expand to orientation as well as gender expression?
The article mentions that it refers to a couple that subverts gender roles. But, does this term also apply to someone who despite being cisgender, has a preference for genderqueer of the opposite sex. For example, I am a cisgender male and I recently (as in three months ago or so) realized that I have a preference for genderqueers of female birth, both in romantic attraction to their personality and physixal/sexual attraction to their gender expression/androgyny. It could possibly be said that I'm heterosexual and heteroqueer romantic. MVillani1985 (talk) 06:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)