|
i'm talking about using the term queen. it can have serious potential for causing anger. with in queer communities and trusted allies, there are situations in which it can be used affectionatly. but in scientific research conducted by an "outsider" it has no role. it simply doesn't fit.
you don't expect to hear a social scientest say fag or n****r or queen as a means of categorizing subjects. they aren't the nomenclature of serious research. they are both insults and re-appropriated terms, used only by opponents or in group members in very different ways.
the categories of analysis, beyond the use of queen are rather odd as well. gilda explains this much better than i can, but basically he is introducing a frame of analysis that doesn't fit lived experience of the community he claims to be studying. this is the core issue i had with the study that started this thread. whatever data he may come up with to claim male bi orientation doesn't exist, i happen to know that while it may be more rare than it is self-reported, it cannot be non-existant. And i'm pretty sure it's not *just* me, either. and when a person creating a framework of analysis around queer issues comes up with something wrong in that fashion, my immediate guess is that they did not actually bother to spend enough time to really study what happens in queer communities. there is so much misunderstanding, and a tradition and history of bad analysis....it's not surprising to see such work. it still is dissapointing.
__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.
-John 3:16
|