My definition of queer theory: Deconstructing and examining prevailing societal concepts of gender/sexuality and proposing new approaches and terminology, while building off of established schools of thought, to form an understanding of how we as individuals and as a society view, interact with, and identify queerness.
To ecology and evolutionary biology majors: Queer theory can offer interesting and much needed insights into separating human societal constructs from biological mechanisms. For instance, in examining gender and sexuality from a biological perspective, it’s is important not to be influenced by preconceived notions of what it means to be a sexual and gendered individual. Queer theory can allow you to transcend the prevailing social concepts of gender and sexuality so that when studying, say, non-heterosexual relations in organisms other than humans, you are inclined more to think about how these actions relate to fitness, social structures, dominance, etc. rather than imposing how human queerness affects us onto another species.
In the scope of ecology and evolutionary biology, queer theory can be thought of as a thought process to separate human societal constructs from the nature of the evolution of non-heterosexual relations in the natural world and how they ultimately relate to, and impact the evolution of populations and their role in ecosystems. Furthermore, queer theory allows you to study how populations of the same and different organisms interact with each other without imposing anthropocentric concepts and notions onto non-human organisms.
We have come a long way from the times when interracial marriage was legally prohibited, but that does not mean that marriage is no longer a system used to perpetuate white supremacy. As Cathy Cohen wrote in her article, Punks, Bulldaggers, and Welfare Queens: The Radical Potential of Queer Politics, “The stigmatization and demonization of single mothers, teen mothers, and, primarily, poor women of color dependent on state assistance has had a long and suspicious presence in American ‘intellectual’ and political history.” In this example, it is primarily women of color who are poor and single mothers who are demonized. She points to a quote from The ‘Underclass’ as
Myth and Symbol: The Poverty of Discourse About Poverty reading, “Does that stigma attach to all such households – even, say, a divorced executive who is a custodial mother?” This raises the question of whether it’s really only the marital status of the woman of color that is being called into question, and not her race (hint: it’s definitely about race). In this instance, the marital status of a woman of color is being used to perpetuate white supremacy in the demonization of her as a woman of color while using her choices in marital status (as well as financial situation) as justification for the disguised racism. However, as can be seen by the wealthy white single mother, marital status is not the subject or cause of abuse. What makes coalition politics so difficult is the need to take into account power structures, privilege, and prejudices in play, and noting how they alter the experience of marginalized and normalized groups. To recognize all possible factors at play in perception is near impossible, but to recognize as many as possible and discuss their interrelationships is how we move forward with coalition politics .