Why being queer is a political statement, says Doncaster writer Lisa Fouweather

Queer (adjective): 'Having or relating to a gender identity or a sexuality that does not fit society's traditional ideas about gender or sexuality.'

As perfectly described in the Queer Nation Manifesto: 'Being queer means leading a different sort of life. It's not about the mainstream, profit-margins, patriotism, patriarchy or being assimilated. It's not about executive directors, privilege and elitism. It's about being on the margins, defining ourselves; it's about gender-f*** and secrets, what's beneath the belt and deep inside the heart; it's about the night.

Being queer is "grass roots" because we know that everyone of us, every body, is a world of pleasure waiting to be explored. Everyone of us is a world of infinite possibility.'

It is the concept of queerness, the 'not fitting into society's traditional ideas', which scares people and defines homophobia itself - an irrational fear that has seen our very existence be politicised for decades.

In a society which is structured on forced compliance, people fear (/are 'assholes' about) a diversion away from the systems which are designed to uphold the 'ideal' heteronormative lifestyle. Where to be queer by definition is to rebel from the system, this is what triggers homophobia, this is what has made our right to love an act of rebellion, our right to live a political act.

Whereas love is purposed to be 'the purest act', the concept of 'finding your other half'/the person who makes you complete, when love is between two people of the same gender, it's not considered 'pure', but a sin, an act of rebellion.

So much so has same-sex love been considered sinful/immoral, that it wasn't until 2005 that same-sex couples could adopt children, for it was always assumed, and again, still is in many cases, that the only 'healthy' family type is that of the traditional nuclear family consisting of a mum and a dad, with the concept of a family headed by two mums or two dads seemingly too far-fetched for people to comprehend, let alone allow.

And, it still blows my mind that same-sex marriage wasn't legalised until 2014.

We've only had that right for ten years which is crazy to me. When heterosexual couples have been marrying since 1837, why did it take over a lifetime, two lifetimes, in fact- 177 years, for homosexual couples to be afforded the same right as heterosexual couples?

For it to have to go through parliament, 'the personal is political' n' all that...a debate taking place regarding whether we should or should not be afforded equal rights?

It all boils down to religion, that's why religion, and the stories which we are told in order to keep us in our place/to uphold the system/to keep us trapped in the system.

When sexuality is associated with morality- 'no sex before marriage', the purpose of sex being for procreation only/an aversion for having sex solely for pleasure, the idea of people having sex in a context for which it does not support the heteronormative system/uphold the patriarchy, is a threat to their ideological image/their close-minded ideologies, of how society 'should' be.

And it is this, close-mindedness, which underpins all of this, all of the (wholly irrational) fear that is associated with going against the norm when it comes to sexuality and gender.

The people in power fearing the overhauling of their power, this is ultimately what all bigotry boils down to.

Racism, misogyny, homophobia, what do all of the people within these marginalised groups have in common? Their historical lack of power, as enforced by those in power to keep the system of oppression in place.

But, it's 2024, and I think we're all ready for an overhaul of the system now, don't you?

I think we're all ready for the chains of oppression to finally be broken, for them to stop telling us that we are 'broken.'

For them to stop making us fight for our right to exist.

For change- real change, change that constitutes more than just a 'box ticking' exercise to take place.

For us to be able to hold hands and kiss in public without being lauded as 'sick.'

To not have to pretend that we don't notice the diversion of eyes when we do go out in public, as though it's 'catching', as though, as queer people, we are single-handedly responsible for societies demise.

Although, on the latter point- to be responsible for societies 'demise', would that be such a bad thing?

To be responsible for, not so much a demise but a revolution when, to turn it on it's head, let us be the ones to dish out the insults instead, it is our society that is sick in the head.

Sick in the head for making love, something that, if we're queer, we have to keep close to our chests, out of fear, STILL, in some places, of ending up dead. Too much of a 'threat' to the system, for which unconditional love is a concept they just cannot comprehend.

Now that?

That is what is sick in the head. When our right to love, our right to exist, is something which they, STILL, cannot comprehend.