Mangat 1

Brianna Mangat

WMS 170

Final Exam

June 6th 2019

My understanding of Queer

The term Queer is one that is fraught with mystery, multiple scholars have tried to

elucidate the term but have either missed the mark or have given a definition that has been

problematic. The issue comes from the relatively new field of queer studies and the recent

changes that have occurred culturally. Ellen Samuels in her work “DNA and the readable self”

makes the bold claim that trying to define something as nuanced as the term queer is in itself a

fantasy. She argues that gender and sex are things that can never fully be proven scientifically

since there is no set standard and when a standard does appear there are a plethora of exceptions.

Evan B. Towle and Lynn M. Morgan in their article “Romancing the Transgender Narrative” go

on to agree somewhat with Samuels by diving into the so called “third gender.” However instead

of answering what is queer they instead try to answer what is trans. There ideas lead them into

the same field as Melissa Autumn White in her essay “Archives of Intimacy and Trauma” in that

there is no definition of queer that can set a standard as to how a loving relationship should look.

My understanding of the term Queer has not drastically changed since I read their works

however my old habits of thinking now have a label. For me the term Queer has always meant

something specific but as I have read their works, I now realize that the term is fluid and by

defining it one can actually limit a large group of people. My main concerns with the term are

the scientific evidence, the history of the term and the legality of not having a definition.
 Mangat 2

Scientific evidence has always been a major factor in terms of political debate and my

own opinions on the validity of transgenderism and whether the binary is real of not. The Ellen

Samuels piece really made me think about how gender and sports can intertwine. Her argument

is that there are numerous amounts of genetic variations that can lead to “unfair advantages in

sports; only those associated with gender are used to exclude or disqualify athletes” (Samuels

206). Later on she gives the example of Michael Phelps who many have speculated has a genetic

variation that gives him longer arms however he has never been asked to go through any

vigorous testing or has he been asked to give up sports. Her argument goes further and states that

since sex determination by DNA is a fantasy it is baseless to use in athletics. She then goes on to

highlight the double standards that female athletes face who appear more masculine and the

rigorous and often times intrusive medical examinations they undergo. Her argument is not about

keeping the gender binary or even what queer is, instead it is about how one cannot pick a

specific marker to determine sex. However, I would disagree there, while it is true that there are

thousands of genetic markers that can cause advantages ones associated with sex are tested

because of how pronounced an advantage is. I personally know many brilliant female athletes

who have won scholarships and awards but would lose if they ever had to compete with a man

and that is because of the basic biological differences between men and women. However I

agree with her on that point that variation is not necessarily cheating and it would be absurd to

try to have a level playing field in the world of sports. Queerness in sports is a fairly new

phenomenon that brings about many ethical questions that are difficult to answer when there is

no set definition of what Queer really is.

Towle and Morgan do not attempt to answer this question but instead show the somewhat

problematic history of trying to define queer using the term “Third Gender.” The term has been
 Mangat 3

problematic for a variety of different reasons one being the conglomerate use of every sexual

deviance from the heteronormative narrative being combined into one term. Another is the lack

of understanding the way cultural shapes the ideas of gender and appropriating other cultures

terms and ideas without properly researching it. I have heard the term used quite a lot but have

also been confused because I have heard from the same people who talk about “third gender” tell

me that there are no genders. How can the concept of third gender and no gender exist at the

same time? The article does not make any claims about gender but instead goes on to discuss

why the use of third gender is problematic. I agreed in that it “sweeps a variety of nonnormative

gender identities under the heading of transgender” (Towle and Morgan 474). By trying to define

a group of sexualities under one heading the people that use “third gender” instead set their

movement back by implying that their sexuality is a deviation from the normal. The article uses

Queer in a novel way in that it posits it not in relation to heterosexual relationships but instead

looks at it in a broader sense of the world. Queer is no longer defined as something in opposition

to the norm but instead encompasses all sexuality’s and gender expressions. The article did not

change my understanding of queer or trans but it did help me formulate an opinion about the

“third gender” that I already had. I agree that trying to define what queer is can always cause

problems either by leaving out vulnerable groups and their experiences or lumping sexuality’s

and expressions that are quite different from each other. Another struggle is that when scholars

try to define queer they always do it in relation to the heteronormative narrative which then

presupposes straight and cis gendered as the default. The final question for me when I had to

examine my own preconceived notions of Queer and transgender came from the legality of such

terms especially in terms of legality of marriages and immigration.

 Mangat 4

My understanding of what queer and trans are was radically shifted after I read the White

article about LGBTQ+ immigration rights. The article stung especially hard since my father and

grandparents were refugees and never had to go through the ridiculous tests to “prove that their

gender identity or sexual orientation is genuine” (White 85). The article touches on the effects of

the heteronormative standards that set the basis for every form of government including

immigrations. Refugees are not only struggling with the pains of fleeing their home countries but

must now prove that the relationships they are in is real and can pass for “normal.” I understand

why officials would want to know if a couple is married or serious but I also think that

friendships can be just as intimate albeit not physically and separating close friends trying to flee

a country can have the same psychological effects. When children are involved that is another

story but trying to make two people who care about each other deform their love to make it

comply to a set standard is horrendous. The author uses queer in the sense that it is undefinable

and there can never be a set standard for how a “typical” queer couple can look. She makes the

same points as Towle and Morgan make in that there is no typical way to express gender or

sexuality. White’s article was the one that made me question my understanding of what queer is,

growing up I only saw the heteronormative family narrative and thought that queer was the same

set up but with two people of the same sex and gender. I now understand that Queer by nature is

encompassing and holding on to the heteronormative mode of family as the default can have

detrimental effects on others. I also never realized how pervasive heteronormativity is in

government, especially in branches one would never consider such as immigration. The article

made me realize how prevalent the heteronormative narrative is and how insidious it can be

when it works into higher forms of government.

 Mangat 5

My understanding or what Queerness and transgenderism is has not really changed but I

have learned a lot and my understanding of certain concepts have seen an improvement. I am

still stuck on my original question, if the gender binary is not real than how can people claim to

be transgender when they are using the binary to say they need to transition. For instance, a male

transitioning to female is acknowledging that the binary exists and that genital and physical

appearance factor into sex and gender. However besides that question I have expanded my way

of thinking and have evolved in my way of understanding what Queer is. For example, I use to

be one of those people who lumped queer in with any deviation of sexuality and gender

expression however the readings made me realize how that could be problematic. I also use to

question the idea of transgender athletes in competitions but after reading “DNA and the

readable self” I am still questioning but my mind has expanded on the issue. I have always heard

growing up that transgender is a mental illness because it is not biologically or scientifically

possible to change one's gender. I have also heard that argument used when comparing the

suicide rates of trans individuals to those of any other group of people and I think that it is

interesting that none of the articles ever touched that argument. I liked however that they all to

some extent dove into the history of the transgenderism as well as backed up their works with

scientific studies and analysis. I still have a long way to go in learning about Queerness but I

definitely feel I have a better understanding of the concept after I took this class.