At twenty-five years, most marriages are dying a slow death, if they have made it that long. Luckily for us (and you, Dear Reader), gay marriage was not legal when this journal was founded: indeed, GLQ began promiscuously and without fidelity to any discipline. In doing so, it charted perverse intellectual paths, marrying no one. GLQ was created in a heady moment fostered through the queer love and friendship of our fierce founding editors, Carolyn Dinshaw and David Halperin. In their first editorial, Carolyn and David proclaimed it was “time for a new journal” (Dinshaw and Halperin 1993: iv). Even then, they voiced concerns about lesbian and gay studies “losing its edge and narrowing its desires” with the institutionalization that founding a journal signifies (ibid.). Certainly, formalization has meant that queer studies has not necessarily kept up with the pace of queer desire, queer media, and cultural production, or the changing dynamics of queer and trans lifeworlds. We know that there is no purely queer space, yet we seek survival in queer forms. In the pages of this special issue we see artful critical research inspired by these aesthetics, unbound by the intervening interests of multiple spheres. Even now, at twenty-five, GLQ is just getting started. Although we have faced marginalization as a field and institutionalization in the “academic-industrial complex,” things here are not settled: we seem always to be vacillating between possibility and precarity. What we call queer theory, or “lesbian and gay studies” (to quote our increasingly problematic subtitle), has changed over time as a result of the radical essays produced in our pages. We have transformed from an emergent field defining its contours through the exposition of lesbian and gay subjects into an interdisciplinary area of critique that seeks to produce epistemological and ontological interventions. The constitutive “outside” — once signified by trans studies, disability studies, and queer of color critique — has

中文翻译：

---

介绍

到了 25 岁，大多数婚姻都会慢慢死去，如果他们能坚持那么久的话。幸运的是，我们（还有你，亲爱的读者），在这本杂志成立时，同性婚姻是不合法的：事实上，GLQ 开始的时候是乱七八糟的，并且不忠于任何纪律。在这样做的过程中，它描绘了不正当的智力道路，不与任何人结婚。GLQ 是在我们凶猛的创始编辑 Carolyn Dinshaw 和 David Halperin 古怪的爱和友谊培养的一个激动人心的时刻创建的。在他们的第一篇社论中，Carolyn 和 David 宣称现在是“写新期刊的时候了”（Dinshaw 和 Halperin 1993：iv）。即便如此，他们表达了对女同性恋研究“失去优势并缩小其欲望”的担忧，因为创办期刊意味着制度化（同上）。当然，形式化意味着酷儿研究不一定跟上酷儿欲望、酷儿媒体和文化生产的步伐，也不一定跟上酷儿和跨性别生活世界的动态变化。我们知道没有纯粹的酷儿空间，但我们以酷儿的形式寻求生存。在本期特刊的页面中，我们看到了受这些美学启发的巧妙的批判性研究，不受多个领域的干预利益的束缚。即使是现在，25 岁​​的 GLQ 才刚刚起步。尽管我们在“产学复合体”中面临着作为一个领域的边缘化和制度化，但这里的事情并没有解决：我们似乎总是在可能性和不确定性之间摇摆不定。我们所说的酷儿理论，或“男女同性恋研究”（引用我们越来越成问题的副标题），由于我们页面中产生的激进文章，随着时间的推移而发生了变化。我们已经从一个通过对男女同性恋主题的阐述来定义其轮廓的新兴领域转变为一个跨学科的批评领域，旨在产生认识论和本体论的干预。构成性的“外部”——曾经被跨性别研究、残疾研究和酷儿色彩批判所象征——已经