Talk:Queer theory/Archive 1

message: Good article.  My only suggestion is that in discussing scientific criticisms of Queer theory, you should also mention that at least some scientists (Anne Fausto-Sterling, Ruth Hubbard, Carol Tavris) question the research upon which these criticisms are based. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.65.134.51 (talk) 01:14, May 12, 2004 (UTC) 
:I haven't read any of their work.  Do you think you could update the article to reflect that information? Voyager640 21:41, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  To Archive 

message: This page could use some examples of applied queer theory... namely what people have done with queer theory, and why it matters.  Anyone have any suggestions?  Maybe we could brainstorm some ideas, and then I could give it a go... Voyager640 06:16, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Examples of applied queer theory?

message: To be blunt: this article sucks as is.  It is highly offensive to any decent thinking queer theorist.  The overall structure is ok, but I just don't have time in one sitting to correct all the various POV problems, or simple mis-statements. ~ Lantog — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.250.249.103 (talk) 08:49, April 15, 2005 (UTC)
: Fine, but that doesn't mean removal of large blocks of content without explanation, however. Dysprosia 08:55, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Article sucks

message: Where is "Dr. Money" referenced in a pro or con QT text?  Should he/she be here?  Lantog 10:10, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Dr. Money?

message: Good last part of final paragraph involves speculation on part of writer.  Hybrid theories do well exist, but it seems the point of a public knowledge source to quote those and to not to offer vanity proposals.  Lantog 10:15, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Hybrid theories?

message: I'm going to begin re-constructing the history section today; adding issues of appropriation of terms, influences of lesbian and gay historiographical approaches, proximity of AIDS crisis and response through ACT-UP/Queer Nation, rise of academic Lesbian and Gay Studiesn largely within the Liberal Arts -- and finally rise of "Queer Theory."  Any suggestions? User:24.250.249.103
:None, if you want to add content. Do however not delete content; even if you don't like it, others do, and usualy for a reason. 
:And get yourself a username, because IPs edits are generally suspect, especially on controversial subjects. Besides, talk pages become quite useless when contributions are not signed, which is done with  -- ~~~~ , and which works a lot better if you have a username. -- AlexR 16:34, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Reconstructing history!

message: Do I delete content if it is wrong? --Lantog 16:44, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That depends - if it is flatout, undeniablly and uncontestedly wrong, it usually can be deleted. If however the "wrong" content is considered "right" by others, NPOV demands that both POVs are represented, not one deleted. And yes, probably anybody on WP can point to some content they'd personally rather see deleted. Still we have to live with it. -- AlexR 18:02, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Delete wrong content?

message: I prefer to take the sentence about him back out.  It's just just a hot-button distraction that really doens't do add anything of encyclopedic value. I guess it's supposed to mean that the field of queer theory is "inherently flawed" or something.  But you can't even discern that supposed "critique" by reading this article, but only by following the links, and trying to guess the intended connection.  Or at most, put it in a "see also" subsection. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:58, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[David Reimer]] 

message: Moved this addition here:
:Some key experts believe that the biology/culture dichotomy is in fact a false dichotomy since the two are in fact closely related.
1.  Tell me who, don't just say "some key experts".
2.  That culture and biology are closely related isn't (as stated) a fact.  The wording needs to be more careful.
-Seth Mahoney 01:57, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the feedback.  I appreciate it.  Can you take a look at my new wording? Voyager640 02:05, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me.  Thanks for taking the time to deal with my nitpicking!  -Seth Mahoney 02:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biology/culture dichotomy addition 

message: The late Jacques Derrida seems to have spent most of his time and effort "deconstructing" more or less standard philosophy. I once picked up one of his works in a bookstore and browsed in it as long as I could bear to; seemed he had no point or purpose other than to set himself up as some kind of über-philosopher, offering verbose and almost content-free critiques. Maybe he belongs here. Carrionluggage 17:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Derrida

message: I wouldn't want to add this myself, as I am not qualified, but the article doesn't offer any of Queer theory's explanations for how the language and social/cultural biases that allowed people to identify themselves as a "he" or a "she" or the like came about to begin with. Surely there are such explanations available. 71.76.136.149 18:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incompleteness of queer theory