I think that what author was saying was that the word Queer can be defined, but that definition will soon become dated. The fluid nature of Queer-ness and queering is such that it moves. It is a movement that will not stay pinned up for examination for too long before it has shed its former skin and become something different, new and outside of our definition. While this may be frustrating, since it is our nature to capture and reduce for our own understanding, it retains one constant; it is alive and active. This activity is what makes the Queer state of mind such a disciplined one. There is no tradition for tradition's sake, and most certainly no ignorance of new information once it has been seen.

This leads me to wonder what one really means when they say that they are Queer. I suggest that it means that they are dedicated to the queer attitude of subversion in the face of oppression and aggression. This is an admirable trait, but also one that will constantly be meeting new road bumps and problems. It is not an easy state of mind to retain for long periods of time, for it does not lend itself to the comfort of the familiar. The rejection of the familiar is the most polarizing and interesting facet of the Queer notion for me. Let me clarify what I mean by "rejection of the familiar." By familiar, I mean the state of things as one has, thus far, come to know them. With this comfort of the familiar, we take on a petrified state. We become less apt to diverge from our ways when we have practiced them for too long and, before we know it, we are blind to things we ought to take notice of.