Quote:
Originally Posted by KSig RC
Part of me wants to go along with the term "breeder" as an actual descriptor (as in, currently we don't have the physical capability for a same-sex couple to conceive together without scientific assistance, whereas the overwhelming majority of opposite-sex couples have that potential, at least to the extent that we can recognize it as a substantive difference) . . . but doesn't that sort of play into the homophobic or anti-homosexual rights movement's (illogical) arguments regarding not applying identical rights for those couples because they don't have identical familial capabilities?
I'm all for "taking back" the word "queer" and I think any group has the general right to self-identify any way they want - trust me, we've had to run research to find out whether a certain area preferred the term "black" or "African-American" from an old, white attorney - but this seems like an awkward way to fight that battle.
This is very stream-of-consciousness, and I'm not sure why, but there it is. Am I completely off base or overthinking this?
|
Your stream of conscious is highlighting that there are things embedded in our language (and actions) that are taken for granted if we aren't critical.
It's like when I get annoyed when men call me a "girl" or refer to a group of women as "guys." A lot of women don't care about this but I look at what's embedded in it and how it can be used for different agendas. This doesn't mean that I correct people everysingletime that I want to, but I raise my eyebrow everytime.
