I can recall a time in my childhood when the word queer and calling someone queer was an insult having more to do with personality and activity than with sexuality. Since that time, I have seen the meaning of the word queer evolve into a political identity, something that questions the very grounds that gender identity stands upon. The word queer has been reinvested with meaning to designate something powerful and assertive for the people who claim it, namely gay and lesbian activists. Queer they rose out of the frustrations of gays and lesbians with the question of sexual definition, and from the cultural assumption of homosexuals as deviant or abnormal. Queer is a refusal of this and of labels, a form of resistance that, as Mary McIntosh describes it, is "in your face" politics. It is the open and active rejection of a strict ideological gender identity; it is what acknowledges lesbian, straight, bi or tran women as butch one day and femme the next. I would like to continue McIntoshÕs argument that through queer theory and activism, binary thinking about gender and biological assumptions about gender.
Binary thinking, or thinking in differences and opposites, is something that has long troubled feminist theory. Binary thinking, with regard to feminist theory and gender relations, conceptualizes gender as if it was two opposite or distinct types of being, only man a woman constitute it, and those are fixed to the individual through biology. As Jane Flax says of the association etween gender and biology," Since man and woman seem to be opposites or two fundamentally distinct types of being, gender cannot be relational" (176). If feminist theory" theorizes inside this binary opposition, then gender becomes a fd and a static quality that is associated with bi"ology. This method or technique ultimately gets in the way of feminismÕs ultimate goalcial political, and ideological equality btween the sexes. However, it seems that repeatedly feminist theoryaws attention to differe a an d inequality. For example, the cultural feminist movement almost exclusively drew attention to women and men s differences. Cultural femce aninism celebrated womens differences without engaging with the political processes that set up those differences (Echols, 1989). Other feminist theories seem to only be concerned with discussing oppressions and inequalities, without theorizing and imagining new ways of destroying those oppressions (see Mackinnon, Weedon, 1997). It seems as if theorists point out and break down inequalities quite effectively, but then leave the reader hanging above an open abyss, seemingly alone with the question of what to do next and how to combat those inequalities. Without forgetting that the first step in fighting inequality is to recognize it and to theorize its origins, we must also recognize that to stop at this point is to hardly begin the fight at all. Queer theory and activism both theorizes about gender and acts upon that theory. For example, the conscious act of cross dressing or dressing and acting in stereotypical masculine ways is a thought out and active attempt to subvert gender identity. Activists have realized and thought about what gender is, and have come up with the idea that it is preformance. They then act on that theory by taking on the role of the opposite gender to the effects of "in your face" and "I can play the game the other way" politics. Queer theory has created a new way of being, both intellectually and actively, by widening and overlapping our concepts of gender.
Queer theory attempts to break through binary thinking and begin the fight against gender stereotypes through its refusal of labels and its demonstration of the social action of gender identity. Queer theory supposes that gender is merely a performance that an individual of either sex can accomplish (Butler, 285). Queer theory and activism breaks down the binary assumption that one is oneÕs gender to the extent that one is not the other gender by demonstrating the fluidity of gender and by showing that gender is not biological but rather something that is preformed (Butler, 284). It is through this fluidity that queer theory is able to open an ideological space between what it means to be a gendered woman or gendered man. Queer theory destabilizes gender, creating an overlap between what was thought of as incompatible. This new space allows for the creation of new political gender identities. An example of this for men is Drag Queens. Drag Queens demonstrate that gender is independent of sex, that men can play the part of "woman", sometimes better than an actual female herself. Why do Drag Queens make some uneasy and proclaim them as disgusting or abnormal? It is the destabilization of gender categories, their Òin your faceÓ resistance to gender prescriptions. It is the complete acceptance that femininity can be actualized with doing and acting "feminine", not just as something that automatically comes along with female biology. The same uneasiness occurs when women look masculine or butch, with short or shaved hair and typical menÕs clothing, which usually means no skirts or dresses. This anxiety happens when women take over traditionally male jobs; the threat of them somehow losing their femininity makes others (usually men) uneasy. As Judith Butler theorizes, "There is no gender identity behind the expressions of gender; that identity is performatively constituted by the very 'expressions' that are said to be it's results" (285). Thus gender is not inherent in biology, with women being feminine and men masculine, but rather is expressed through oneÕs actions, containing a more fluid and transient quality. This has become possible, as Jane Flax posits, with the rise of postmodern culture, which has thrown into doubt beliefs previously thought as stable, such as the existence of a stable, coherent self (172).
These conclusions have important consequences and considerations for future feminist theory. First, once the binary oppositions between 'feminine' and 'masculine' are broken down, there arises a destabilizing of heterosexuality itself. As Judith Butler describes it, "The heterosexualization of desire requires and institutes the prouction of discrete and asymmetrical oppositions between 'feminine' and 'masculine' where these are understood as expressive attributes of 'male' and 'female'" (283). This opens the door for a critique of heterosexist assmptions that some feminist theory may contain. It also raises consciousness about the invisibility of bisexuality and the need for its inclusion. At its most basic level (and perhaps most important) queer theory asks for more theory dealing with what gender is, and how it can be conceptualized and actualized in a changing postmodern culture. By imagining a society where gender is fluid and destabilized, queer theory provides a ground where gender becomes irrelevant to the individuals conception and presentation of self.