Quote:
Originally Posted by Nat
Hi Waldo 
In an attempt to other heteros, there is also a line being drawn about who qualifies as lesbian/gay and who does not. Within our community, for the term "breeder" to be used to refer to straight people in an ugly way, it is not only ugly to straight people, but it is rejecting and erasing of the people within our community who have had kids.
If you have hetero friends who refer to themselves as breeders, they are doing so from a place of hetero privilege. Also, self-referencing using an offensive term is not the same as othering somebody by calling them an ugly term, no? |
I think you're mixing here. Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding.
If I were to call someone a breeder that does not exclude anyone. (EDIT: it addresses an individual or identified group. I cannot exclude someone without specificity. Someone can exclude themselves because they do not identify with a term. I hope that makes sense) I was referencing my understanding of the ORIGIN of the derisive usage. There was a time when relatively few queers had children (originating of their queer union) so to say it was rejecting or erasing seems odd.
Today, perhaps more so, but even then it seems to want it both ways. "Wait, I don't like that term applied to me!" and then to be upset because it excludes you? Theoretically I understand, but um... it's weird.
And I don't think it's a matter of hetero privilege. It's a description of their act of having children. But let's say that it is... is it not their right to "take back" or "own" a derogatory term in the same way I've taken back "Dyke"?
But I do agree on the point of "self-referencing" and "othering".