I want to give an explanation for why I’m calling us queer.
Here’s what good ol’ Wikipedia has to offer: The word queer has traditionally meant “strange” or “unusual,” but its use in reference to LGBT (gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, intersex,asexual, etc.) communities as well as those perceived to be members of those communities has replaced the traditional definition and application. Its usage is considered controversial and underwent substantial changes over the course of the 20th Century with some LGBT re-claiming the term as a means of self-empowerment. The term is still considered by some to be offensive and derisive, and by others as a re-appropriated term used to describe a sexual orientation and/or gender identity or gender expression that does not conform to heteronormative society.
The most important part of this is that queer generally defines people who do not conform to heteronormative society. This heteronormativity is in terms of sexuality (sexual acts, orientation), gender, race, ethnicity, creed, ability, class, etc. Queer is an inclusive term that includes lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, two-spirit, gender-non-conforming people. Queer is also a political term. It has been reclaimed with such power to define an ideology and it used to push forward the movement.
To be queer is different than to push for a queer agenda. Conscious allies may agree with queer politics, but one must understand that they may never fully comprehend what it means to be queer if one isn’t themselves queer. (The same goes for race, or gender, class, ability, etc.) I would argue that even people who practice/perform heterosexuality consistently may be apart of the queer movement if they are open to the idea of queerness. Thus queer signals a kind of openness that heteronormativity inherently devalues.
I also found this:
by pluralizing, dispersing, interrogating, opposing, and fragmenting a politics that is organized solely around sexuality as identity. Because queerness is so slippery to define, often connotes a politicization of identity, and does not depend on a binary opposite for its signifying power (the other of “queer”–the “nonqueer”?–whatever it may be, is no more easily contained than “queer” is), it can problematize the kind of single issue activism that has caused further undelineated lesbian and gay articulations to imbue the categories “lesbian” and “gay” with a default whiteness, middle-crassness, and USness.
The “queer” in queer theory, queer politics, and queer identity, also has the potential to undermine what Foucault referred to as the monarchy of sex (see “End”
(Found at http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2278/is_n1_v22/ai_19654386/pg_2 )