There are a variety of other possibilities that could be included in the above list, with further reflection and consideration, but this is a good start. This is a set of ideals, and one that I've failed at on certain points as often as I've succeeded—but, that's a good thing, because no queer theology should become entirely self-satisfied, self-congratulatory, or triumphalist either. It should always challenge one to do more and to do better.
To define queer theology in a way that emphasizes "is" might end up making it narrow, essentialist, and just as oppressive as many mainstream theologies to which queer theology has become adversarial. Thus, to define what queer theology "isn't" might be a more useful way to make it as inclusive as possible, without likewise making it so amorphous and relativistic as to be useless, and so non-specific as to be impracticable.