Talk:Queer

There has been no discussion or objections to the additional details I added a month ago around the uses of queer as both a political umbrella term and as a unique self-identity term, so I am now advocating for updating the lead’s first paragraph to address all three distinct meanings/uses of queer.

It is true that queer is used an umbrella term for people who are non-heterosexual or non-cisgender, but it is equally true that queer is used as an umbrella term for people who reject sexual and gender norms and share a radical political orientation, and that it is used as a unique self-identity term parallel to gay, lesbian, and bisexual. All three related but distinct meanings/uses have been in consistent (if sometimes contradictory) use for decades; none of these are new and none of them supplant the others, as shown by the cited sources.

The political and self-identity meanings/uses of queer were already discussed in the lead, but the page’s first sentence confusingly presented a single definition of queer that precludes the other uses discussed later. I hope the edits I’m making will help readers understand the nuances of how this word is used, since it’s very clear that there isn’t a single universally agreed-upon definition.

Thoughtful, good-faith discussion of the edits I’ve made are very welcome! RadicalCopyeditor (talk) 17:26, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on the article. One thing I would clarify is that Wikipedia articles are about concepts, rather than words (WP:NOTDICT), so the article isn't going to cover all possible meanings of queer. I do agree the three meanings now covered in the lead, (general umbrella for all sexual and gender minorities; sexual and gender minorities united by a radical political outlook, and as an individual sexuality/gender identity) are closely enough related that they should all be covered within this article. However, there are other meanings that are outside the scope:

• There have previously been proposals to include the pejorative use of queer in the core topic of this article, but there has never been consensus to do so. The pejorative use is discussed as part of the etymology of modern queer identities, but is not itself part of the core topic of the article.
• Queer heterosexuality, ie., extending queer to cover people who are not LGBTQI+, is covered at its own article. It is covered in summary style here as a topic related to, but distinct from, the topic of this article.--Trystan (talk) 16:37, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your good work on the article too, @Trystan, particularly your reordering of some of the content. And thanks for this comment. I agree that the goal of this article should not be to cover all possible meanings of queer. My intention was to ensure that the definition(s) of the word presented at the outset of the article fully reflected the content within the article and the multilayered concept of queer itself.

As it happens, I have been on-and-off working on a merge proposal for queer heterosexuality, because that article is a bit of a mess and doesn't make a lot of sense on its own. So please stay tuned for that!

The only edit you made that feels off-base to me was your change of "It is alternately used to refer to all people who reject sexual and gender norms and..." to "It is alternately used to refer to sexual and gender minority individuals who reject sexual and gender norms and...". You said "all people" isn't supported by the cited sources, but it is in fact supported by Brontsema and Kornak. Brontsema wrote: "queerness is not based, in stark contrast to gay and lesbian, on sexual object choice, and as such, is not limited to or by same-sex desire. Its inherent inclusiveness allows among its ranks not only queer gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgendered, but also queer straights, sadomasochists, fetishists, etc." (p. 12). The organizing principle of the political umbrella use of queer isn't about being non-hetero/non-cis, it's about rejecting sexual/gender norms, etc. Most (if not all) such people are non-hetero/non-cis, but it's a vital distinction in terms of the concept/use of queer.

"Sexual and gender minority individuals" also doesn't really work grammatically, so I'm going to change it to "people" for now. But if "people" feels too much of a stretch, perhaps "people with non-conforming sexualities and genders" would work? RadicalCopyeditor (talk) 21:38, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Last week @ALeafInAutumn changed the first sentence of this page to read "Queer is often used as an umbrella term for people who are non-heterosexual, non-cisgender, non-allosexual or alloromantic, or intersex." I have edited the sentence to ready "Queer is often used as an umbrella term for sexual and gender minorities" and want to explain my reasoning here.

Since 2010 this page has started with some variation of “Queer is an umbrella term for sexual and gender minorities who are not heterosexual or are not cisgender.” In November 2021 an editor shortened this first sentence to “Queer is an umbrella term for sexual and gender minorities” due to redundancy and awkwardness and a different editor counter-edited it to “Queer is an umbrella term for people who are not heterosexual or are not cisgender,” which is roughly how it has read for the last 5 years.

Particularly since there is now a Wikipedia page for sexual and gender minorities, it feels like the clearest choice is to go back to “Queer is an umbrella term for sexual and gender minorities,” because ALeafinAutumn’s addition of “non-allosexual or alloromantic, or intersex” while accurate, makes for a sentence that is difficult to understand if you aren’t already well-versed in detailed LGBTQ terminology. RadicalCopyeditor (talk) 18:35, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree that this is the best course of action. Thank you for recognizing (as I should have) that reducing is better than adding (just as "queer" is a much better term than "LGBTQIA+"). ALeafInAutumn (talk) 01:22, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Queer heterosexuality has been flagged for deletion multiple times and the talk page is full of people arguing it shouldn’t exist. I propose that the notable content be moved to the existing subsection of Queer and then Queer heterosexuality be deleted, for reasons of both Notability and Context:

• The page conflates two different things, neither of which is deserving of a standalone article
• The page requires the broader context of the Queer article in order to be fully intelligible

I just edited Queer#Queer heterosexuality to reflect the merge I’m proposing. I pared the topic down to four paragraphs, maintaining the notable content from Queer heterosexuality and adding additional notable content. Here’s my rationale:

Queer heterosexuality opens with “Queer heterosexuality is the heterosexual practice or identity that is also controversially called queer.” But this isn’t supported by the cited sources. As pointed out by other editors, the article conflates two different things from the cited sources: the queer theory concept of queering heterosexuality (i.e., subverting heterosexual norms) and the question of whether people who are straight can call themselves queer. Both topics are best addressed in a subsection of Queer so they can be understood in context.

The “feminist criticism and queer theory” section disjointedly summarizes a handful of sources without discussing the original queer theory publications that launched the criticism that has central billing in that section. The “examination of masculinity” section doesn’t seem notable. The “controversy” section is dominated by a single Vice op-ed (that fails to cite any straight person who identifies as queer, despite its premise) and a single instance of a celebrity who was criticized for writing a poem that included the line “I’m gay in my art and straight in my life.”

There are cis straight people who have been criticized for appropriating queer cultural elements for personal gain, and it is reasonable to address this in the Queer article. Far more often, there are people who are perceived as cis and straight but aren’t (because they are actually bi, ace, trans, nonbinary, Two Spirit, etc.) and there are also straight trans people. The existence (and muddled content) of Queer heterosexuality, independent from the larger context of Queer, confuses these issues. I hope others will agree that merging and paring down is the right call. RadicalCopyeditor (talk) 18:06, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Fair. I would weakly support this for now. Lewisguile (talk) 11:34, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

I see the problems you describe with the current state of Queer heterosexuality, but I'm not sure if what you are proposing really solves all of the fundamental issues. The section within this article still preserves the conflation of queering heterosexuality and straights "queerbaiting"/being "culturally queer". As for the first, the context issue still persists since the section currently comes before Queer#Academia, where queering as a knowledge-practice is first defined in this article.

What might be better would be to take all the queerbaiting/culturally queer stuff out of Queer heterosexuality – maybe moving it to something like Queering heterosexuality to make the focus clear – and reworking it to fix the issues you mention, but without necessarily amputating quite as much as you propose. Then in this article, culturally queer could be covered under "Usage and scope" as now, with due weight, and Queering heterosexuality could be referred to under "Academia". -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 11:51, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Really great points @Maddy from Celeste. Thank you. I was also struggling a bit with the fact that queering heterosexuality (as opposed to queerbaiting etc.) is best understood within the context of Queer theory / Queer#Academia. Based on your suggestions I still think Queer heterosexuality should be merged, but I'm going to counter-propose that the topic of whether straight people can ever be considered part of the queer umbrella be included as part of Queer#Usage and scope and that queering heterosexuality become a section of the Queer theory article. RadicalCopyeditor (talk) 15:00, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Yep, then our only difference would essentially be a WP:NOPAGE issue. I am not really familiar enough with the relecant sources to have much of an opinion on that right now, so I won't object if the article is redirected or turned into a disambiguation page. I found a couple of books I'd have to go read at the library, so if those seem useful I might rewrite it later. But in its current state it's not a big loss anyways. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 15:59, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Right. Having spent a lot of time with the relevant sources on-and-off over the last few months, I feel very confident that the subject of queering heterosexuality is best understood within the context of queer theory and isn't notable enough to justify a standalone article. (Furthermore, the existing Queer heterosexuality article was clearly initially created by someone who was primarily interested in arguing that straight people shouldn't call themselves queer.) I'm going to work up new suggested text as proposed above, for consideration. RadicalCopyeditor (talk) 17:27, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Alright, I have new proposed text for consideration: I've edited the relevant section of this article and renamed it Cisgender heterosexuality and queer identities for consistency with the previous section (Intersex and queer identities), and I've narrowed the focus to the topic of cis straight people identifying as queer. And then over at the Queer theory article I've added the new section Queering heterosexuality with the notable content from the Queer heterosexuality article along with some additional context on what queering heterosexuality means within queer theory. I'd love your thoughts @Maddy from Celeste! -- and anyone else who feels like taking a look. I think this is a great solution and will allow readers to understand these disparate issues much better in context, without the need for a standalone article. RadicalCopyeditor (talk) 23:06, 6 March 2026 (UTC)