In my post, I've created my dinner part in the corner, with the information each major topic has in the 'table' and some authors who have similar rhetoric in their pieces. One major key thing I will point out before I get too into what I want to write about is my authors. Some of them I've excluded here because they don't have similar topics involved and I was viewing other avenues before I ultimately decided I wanted to write about queer rhetoric. The major thing that has stood out to me has been narratives. Passing (straight passing, white passing, etc) vs. dominant narratives, and how the idea of a working closet came into play not only in someones personal life, but their professional life.
Other topics that stood our were ideas that fell into these narratives. Dominant narratives can be controlled by people who are not POC or queer; these narratives then play into how people on the outside looking in, so to speak, view queer rhetoric and queer people in the workplace. Passing narratives can be controlled by communication, or the lack thereof in the professional workplace. Authors like Holmes, Edenfield, and Cox actively try to fight against this by interviewing bipoc people in the workplace and creating these ideas of technical tactics/narratives that help address the idea of just 'passing'. They also play into dominant narratives to because of their goals with their concepts of rhetoric- the push for these same tactics and interviews to be used in technical communication- the prime examples being cases such as the Jerry Sandusky case, or a DIY HRT case.
Some quotes I pulled out from pieces are as follows:
1. Edenfield: Although the term queer – as a noun or adjective – was historically used to denigrate LGBTQ+ individuals, queer theorists reclaimed the term positively to disrupt dominant gender narratives (cisgendered and/or heterosexual) and celebrate practices of queering.
2. Cox: Working closet- a complicated layered, and unorthodox space comprising a set of networked relations and interactions (including rhetorical practices and strategies) between the LGBT individual and all life contacts… OR The interrelations of race, class, gender, sexuality, and other identifiers—how they are all complicated and formed by one another and held in check by a dominant society that attempts to simplify or erase them over time—must not be forgotten in a straightforward discussion of LGBT workplace discourse.
3. McKinley: Focusing on how individuals resist emerging technologies – rather than solely on how individuals comply with design infrastructures – opens space to critique digital landscapes that marginalize and render illegible the experiences of those subject to significant structural inequalities, in the case of this article, those living with HIV, queer folks, and Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC).
4. Ramler: Queer usability, with its emphasis on use by anticipated marginalized users, can provide a smoother user experience, a more persuasive version of experience.
5. Barnard: Denunciation of the [theory] is not equivalent to demonization of the former. But many cultural forces work against the careful calibration of these distinctions. The culture of sex panic, and the foreclosure of debate around it (as Edelman points out, there seems to be only one side/answer when it comes to the Child (No Future 2)), means that any effort to intervene into what’s given makes one suspect.
I love the way you organized this, I feel it will be very helpful to you in the future. I wonder if maybe now it would be helpful if you confronted organizing the articles you have found now by beginning-of-essay introduction information and deeper information? And maybe looking to see what overlaps among them all? That is what I did, however, I may take how you organized your dinner party in order to get deeper meaning from my articles!