![]() |
![]() |
#11 | |
Member
How Do You Identify?:
Special Snowflake Preferred Pronoun?:
she/her Relationship Status:
Married Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Wine Country, Oregon
Posts: 470
Thanks: 22
Thanked 792 Times in 238 Posts
Rep Power: 1006288 ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() Quote:
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". |
|
![]() |
![]() |
|
|