Dead Wild Roses

What Does “Queer” Mean? Part 3 — From Theory to Activism: When Rebellion Becomes Disorder

October 22, 2025 in Education, Queer Bullshit | Tags: Advancement of Society, Queer?, What Does “Queer” Mean? Part 3 — From Theory to Activism: When Rebellion Becomes Disorder | by The Arbourist | Leave a comment

How did queer move from academic theory to a political movement that challenges the foundations of society itself? This piece traces the rise of queer politics—its rejection of norms, its destabilizing effects on social cohesion, and how we might restore balance between personal liberation and shared moral order.

In earlier parts of this series, we explored how David Halperin, Judith Butler, and Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick defined queer as resistance to norms, a deconstruction of identity, and a fluid space of meaning. What began as a radical academic critique of social conformity has since evolved into a cultural and political movement with far-reaching effects.

Today, queer no longer resides in seminar rooms—it animates public policy, education, and identity politics. But in leaving theory for activism, the term’s oppositional nature has escaped its intellectual bounds, producing not only liberation but also a kind of cultural entropy: a systematic unmooring of shared social meaning.

From Theory to Politics: Queer as Permanent Revolution

Queer theory’s original intent was analytical—to question how society constructs categories like man, woman, normal, and deviant. In politics, however, queer became a mandate to dismantle norms altogether.

What Halperin called an “identity without an essence” turned into an activism without limits—one that views all boundaries, including biological sex or family structure, as oppressive fictions. This logic fuels a form of cultural revolutionism, in which dismantling social stability is seen as a moral good in itself.

In queer politics, there are no stable endpoints—only endless opposition. Marriage, gender, education, and even language are treated as battlegrounds for deconstruction. But where theory sought critique, politics now demands compliance with rebellion—a paradox in which resistance becomes dogma and moral relativism becomes orthodoxy.

The Unraveling Effect: When Everything Becomes “Queer”

The activist expansion of queer has dissolved its boundaries. Once a critique of exclusion, it now risks becoming a totalizing lens through which all social order appears suspect.

Institutions that once grounded shared life—family, religion, law, science—are increasingly framed as “heteronormative” or “cisnormative” systems of oppression. The result is not freedom but fragmentation, as the concept of “normativity” itself is recast as injustice.

This produces an untenable social paradox: a society that cannot define normality cannot define harm, health, or truth. When every structure is suspect, moral and civic coherence erode. A politics that celebrates perpetual queering thus becomes a politics of disintegration, unable to build or sustain the very freedoms it claims to advance.

Restoring Balance: Queer Aspirations and Reasonable Critique

Despite this, not all is lost. The queer impulse—to challenge hypocrisy, to broaden empathy, to question power—is valuable. The problem lies not in critique but in absolutizing critique—turning deconstruction into dogma.

Restoring balance requires three things:

Reaffirming the material basis of human life.
A humane society must recognize biological reality, family structure, and civic order as real—not oppressive myths. Identity is socially shaped, but it is not infinitely malleable.
Distinguishing moral reform from moral anarchy.
Social change is just when it improves justice, not when it destroys coherence. Liberation without moral boundaries breeds confusion, not freedom.
Reviving liberal pluralism.
A society that allows dissent, but also values shared truth, can accommodate queer critique without succumbing to nihilism. We can defend individual freedom while preserving the cultural scaffolding that makes freedom meaningful.

The task is not to “abolish” queer politics but to discipline its insights—to channel its challenge to conformity into dialogue rather than destruction. As with all revolutions of thought, the test of queer theory is whether it can evolve from rebellion into renewal.

Key Takeaways

1. Queer politics began as critique but now rejects all norms, turning opposition itself into ideology.
2. The loss of shared meaning leads to social fragmentation, as institutions become targets rather than foundations.
3. Balance can be restored by grounding freedom in material reality, moral boundaries, and pluralist debate.

References

Butler, Judith. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. Routledge, 1990.
Halperin, David M. Saint Foucault: Towards a Gay Hagiography. Oxford University Press, 1995.
Sedgwick, Eve Kosofsky. Epistemology of the Closet. University of California Press, 1990.
Paglia, Camille. Sexual Personae: Art and Decadence from Nefertiti to Emily Dickinson. Yale University Press, 1990.
Pluckrose, Helen, and Lindsay, James. Cynical Theories: How Activist Scholarship Made Everything About Race, Gender, and Identity—and Why This Harms Everybody. Pitchstone Publishing, 2020.

What Does “Queer” Mean? Part 2: Insights from Judith Butler and Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick

October 21, 2025 in Education, Queer Bullshit | Tags: Definitional Clarity, Judith Butler and Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick, Queer? | by The Arbourist | 1 comment

Building on David Halperin’s view of queer as opposition to societal norms, Judith Butler and Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick expanded queer theory into a deeper critique of how culture constructs identity. Both scholars dismantled binary thinking—male/female, heterosexual/homosexual—and recast queer as a method of disruption rather than a label of identity. Their work helps explain why queer today functions as both a tool of liberation and a source of confusion in activism.

Judith Butler: Gender as Performance

In Gender Trouble (1990), Butler argues that gender is performative, not an inner truth but a social act repeated until it feels natural. She writes:

“Gender is an identity tenuously constituted in time, instituted in an exterior space through a stylized repetition of acts.”

In simple terms, gender isn’t something we are; it’s something we do—a performance shaped by cultural expectations. Butler points to drag as the clearest example:

“In imitating gender, drag implicitly reveals the imitative structure of gender itself—as well as its contingency.”

By showing how gender can be exaggerated and parodied, drag exposes its artificial construction. The idea that “drag is life and life is drag” captures Butler’s insight: our daily behaviors—clothing, speech, posture—continually recreate gender norms.

To “queer” gender, then, means to expose and subvert these routines. This view empowered movements challenging rigid gender roles, though it has also been misapplied in activism to deny the material reality of biological sex, leading to conceptual confusion between gender and sex.

Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick: The Open Mesh of Meaning

In Epistemology of the Closet (1990), Sedgwick broadened queer into a conceptual space where meanings overlap and resist closure. She writes:

“That’s one of the things that ‘queer’ can refer to: the open mesh of possibilities, gaps, overlaps, dissonances and resonances, lapses and excesses of meaning when the constituent elements of anyone’s gender, of anyone’s sexuality aren’t made (or can’t be made) to signify monolithically.”

For Sedgwick, queer describes a fluid network of meanings—a refusal to let identity solidify into fixed categories. This “open mesh” fosters inclusivity and complexity, inviting individuals to exist beyond rigid classifications. Yet, when applied too broadly, it risks erasing distinctions among groups and experiences, turning inclusivity into abstraction.

Queer as Liberation—and Its Limits

Butler and Sedgwick turned queer from a noun into a verb—something one does to challenge norms. Their theories helped dismantle oppressive binaries and opened new space for expression. But when translated into activism, queer sometimes loses its analytical precision. By denying all boundaries, it can undermine the very identities and realities it once sought to liberate.

In essence, queer remains a double-edged concept:

It liberates by revealing the instability of identity.
It destabilizes by dissolving the shared meanings that make political organization possible.

Understanding both sides of that tension is key to engaging queer theory honestly—and to applying it responsibly in public discourse.

Key Takeaways

1. Butler’s “performative gender” means gender is produced through repeated social acts, not innate essence.
2. Sedgwick’s “open mesh” describes queer as fluid meaning that defies fixed categories.
3. Both see queer as a method of critique—liberating but unstable when detached from material or social realities.

References

Butler, Judith. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. Routledge, 1990.
Sedgwick, Eve Kosofsky. Epistemology of the Closet. University of California Press, 1990

What Does “Queer” Really Mean?

October 20, 2025 in Education, Queer Bullshit | Tags: David Halperin, Definitional Clarity, Queer? | by The Arbourist | 1 comment

What does “queer” actually mean? Far from a simple label for sexual minorities, queer theory defines itself in opposition to normality. Drawing on David Halperin’s Saint Foucault, this piece explains how queer became a philosophical stance of resistance—an “identity without an essence.”

The word queer has traveled a long road—from an insult meaning “strange” or “abnormal” to a proud rallying cry and the foundation of an entire intellectual movement: queer theory. At its core, the term doesn’t just describe sexual minorities; it represents a philosophical rebellion against everything considered “normal.”

One of the most influential queer theorists, David M. Halperin, explains this in his 1995 book Saint Foucault: Towards a Gay Hagiography. For Halperin, queer is not a stable identity but a position of resistance.

“Queer identity need not be grounded in any positive truth or in any stable reality. As the very word implies, ‘queer’ does not name some natural kind or refer to some determinate object; it acquires its meaning from its oppositional relation to the norm. Queer is by definition whatever is at odds with the normal, the legitimate, the dominant… It is an identity without an essence.”
(Halperin, 1995, p. 62)

In plain language, queer is not like gay or lesbian, which refer to specific sexual orientations. Queer means whatever challenges or defies the normal order. It’s an umbrella term for standing against social expectations—whether those expectations involve heterosexual marriage, gender roles, family structure, or even conventional ideas of decency or success.

Halperin calls it “an identity without an essence.” That means being queer isn’t about belonging to a group with shared traits; it’s about rejecting the very idea of fixed identity. If society defines what’s “normal,” queer theory defines itself by refusing that definition. It is a form of perpetual opposition.

He even jokes that queer could include “some married couples without children, or even (who knows?) some married couples with children—with, perhaps, very naughty children.” His point is that queer has no natural limits. Anything that unsettles the norms of family, sexuality, or respectability can count as queer.

Queer as Permanent Rebellion

In this sense, queer is not just a sexual category—it’s a political and philosophical stance. It seeks to expose and subvert the power structures that make certain ways of living “normal” and others “deviant.”

To be queer, in Halperin’s sense, is to stand in intentional opposition to society’s standards of legitimacy, authority, and order. That’s why queer theorists often speak of “queering” institutions—education, law, art, religion—meaning to challenge or destabilize their traditional foundations.

This also means that queer can never be fully accepted into normal society without losing its essence. The moment it becomes “normal,” it ceases to be queer. Its identity depends on remaining at odds with whatever is considered conventional, natural, or moral.

What This Reveals

For ordinary readers trying to make sense of today’s cultural debates, this definition clarifies something crucial: “queer” doesn’t simply describe non-heterosexual people. It’s a theoretical commitment to resisting normativity itself.

Where older gay rights movements sought inclusion—the right to marry, raise families, and participate equally in civic life—queer theory often seeks subversion: to question whether those norms should exist at all. It replaces the pursuit of equality with the pursuit of deconstruction.

In short, queer stands in opposition to what most people call normal life—not necessarily out of hatred for it, but out of a conviction that “normality” itself is a social construct that limits freedom. Understanding that distinction helps explain why many ordinary people feel confused or alienated by “queer” politics today: it is not asking to join society, but to transform or even overturn its organizing principles.

Key Takeaways: What “Queer” Actually Means

1. Queer is not an identity, it’s opposition.
“Queer” doesn’t describe who someone is but how they stand—against whatever society considers normal, moral, or legitimate.
2. Queer has no fixed boundaries.
Anything that defies traditional norms—about sex, family, gender, or behavior—can be called queer. It’s a fluid, open-ended stance of resistance.
3. Queer exists only in contrast to the normal.
The concept depends on rejecting normality itself. The moment “queer” becomes accepted or mainstream, it loses its defining feature—its rebellion.

Reference

Halperin, David M. Saint Foucault: Towards a Gay Hagiography. Oxford University Press, 1995, p.

The DWR Sunday Religious Disservice – Hitchens on Religion

October 19, 2025 in Housekeeping | Tags: The DWR Sunday Religious Disservice - Hitchens on Religion | by The Arbourist | 2 comments

Christopher Hitchens, ever the unflinching provocateur, levels a stark charge against religion: it imperils morality, breeding selfishness and stupidity under the guise of piety. In his words, the evidence mounts on every side that faith not only fails as a moral arbiter but actively corrodes human potential, turning inward gazes toward dogma rather than outward toward shared humanity. This critique resonates when one pores over sacred texts or historical annals, where contradictions abound and ethical lapses reveal the frail scaffolding of divine claims. Yet such scrutiny, while indispensable, risks eclipsing a broader vista, where religion’s flaws yield to its functional virtues in the grand theater of human society.

For the vast middle stratum of humanity, those ensnared by daily exigencies and spared the luxury of philosophical rumination, religion serves as an unpolished but efficacious bulwark. It furnishes hope amid despair, direction in disarray, and a rudimentary moral compass to steer the uninitiated through existential tempests. Empirical patterns affirm this role: religious priming fosters prosocial behaviors, from amplified generosity to bolstered communal ties, while global surveys depict faith as a stabilizing force across diverse polities. Here, the institution transcends its doctrinal frailties, operating less as metaphysical truth than as sociological salve, channeling primal impulses toward cohesion rather than chaos. To dismiss it outright ignores how it equips the multitude for endurance, sparing them the abyss of unexamined voids.

This duality underscores a profound tension: religion thrives inversely to the intensity of its interrogation. Up close, it falters, inviting Hitchens’s scorn; at scale, it endures, a pragmatic hedge against nihilism’s chill. As secular currents erode its grip, one must ponder whether its communal scaffold will atrophy into irrelevance or harden into reactionary fervor. The verifiable record tilts toward adaptation, not extinction, reminding us that truth in such matters demands not polemic but proportion—a measured reckoning that honors critique without forsaking utility. In threading this needle, we glimpse religion not as eternal verity or infernal deceit, but as a human artifact, imperfect yet indispensable in its hour.

Refutation of the Poster Quoting Resmaa Menakem

October 18, 2025 in Culture, History | Tags: 'White Supremacy', Bullshit, Cultural Acid, Refutation | by The Arbourist | 1 comment

The poster’s quotation from Resmaa Menakem’s My Grandmother’s Hands—a work on “somatic abolitionism”—masquerades as profound insight while peddling a corrosive myth: that white supremacy originated as a deliberate “virus” engineered in 1691 by the Virginia Assembly and now lives in every human body like an inescapable plague. This is not scholarship; it is narrative alchemy, transmuting concrete historical injustices into a metaphysical pathology that demands perpetual atonement from those deemed its carriers.

The verifiable record tells a different story. In 1691, the Virginia General Assembly did indeed enact a statute prohibiting interracial marriage and prescribing banishment for violators, declaring such unions “always to be held and accounted odious.” This and earlier laws—like the 1662 act establishing that a child’s enslaved status followed the condition of the mother—were instruments of economic control designed to stabilize a plantation system dependent on enslaved labor. They reflected cruelty and racial hierarchy, but to describe the Assembly as a “laboratory” that “created a virus” is to abandon historical analysis for political mythmaking.

Menakem’s metaphor extends beyond history into biological moralism. He claims the “virus of white-body supremacy” infects all people—Black, white, and otherwise—but insists that “white bodies” were its original vector. In doing so, his language transforms a moral failing into a physical contamination, pathologizing not actions or institutions but entire human beings. This rhetoric does not enlighten; it indicts an entire lineage for ancestral crimes, regardless of individual conscience or conduct.

The psychological consequence is predictable: self-loathing disguised as virtue. By teaching that “white bodies” are inherently supremacist, this ideology demands that people view their very physiology and heritage as polluted. It secularizes the ancient idea of inherited guilt, substituting ritual “somatic abolition” for redemption. The irony is tragic: the same civilization Menakem condemns also produced the philosophical and political revolutions—the Enlightenment, abolitionism, universal rights—that made slavery morally indefensible in the first place.

Finally, the metaphor corrodes civic trust. The Virginia Assembly, for all its failings, was also one of the earliest elected legislatures in the New World. To recast it as a “mad scientist’s lab” birthing a contagion of supremacy is to delegitimize the democratic experiment at its roots, suggesting that all institutions derived from it remain vectors of infection rather than imperfect vessels of self-correction and progress. Such thinking feeds cynicism, not justice, and erodes the moral foundations of the very equality it claims to seek.

Slavery and racial hierarchy were evils of human design, not biological inevitabilities. We honor truth by condemning those evils as moral and political wrongs—without collapsing into the superstition that guilt resides in the body or that redemption requires permanent contrition. The only real contagion here is the idea that identity determines virtue.

References

Menakem, Resmaa. My Grandmother’s Hands: Racialized Trauma and the Pathway to Mending Our Hearts and Bodies. Las Vegas: Central Recovery Press, 2017.
— Source of the “virus of white-body supremacy” metaphor and “laboratory of the Virginia Assembly” phrasing.
Hening, William Waller (ed.). The Statutes at Large; Being a Collection of All the Laws of Virginia, from the First Session of the Legislature in the Year 1619. Vol. 3. New York: R. & W. & G. Bartow, 1823.
— Contains the 1662 and 1691 acts (“Act XII” of 1662 and “Act XVI” of 1691) establishing hereditary slavery and banning interracial marriage.
Morgan, Edmund S. American Slavery, American Freedom: The Ordeal of Colonial Virginia. New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 1975.
— Authoritative analysis of how race-based slavery evolved in colonial Virginia as a means of stabilizing class hierarchies.
Davis, David Brion. The Problem of Slavery in Western Culture. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1966.
— Foundational work tracing slavery’s intellectual and moral contexts in Western thought.
Berlin, Ira. Many Thousands Gone: The First Two Centuries of Slavery in North America. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1998.
— Historical survey of the transformation from indentured servitude to race-based chattel slavery.
Bailyn, Bernard. The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1967.
— Explores the moral and political inheritance of the Virginia Assembly and the paradox of liberty coexisting with slavery.
Popper, Karl. The Open Society and Its Enemies. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1945.
— Classic defense of open inquiry and individual moral responsibility against collectivist and totalizing ideologies.

The DWR Friday Baroque Interlude – J. F. Fasch | Concerto in D major – FaWV L:D5

October 17, 2025 in Music | Tags: The DWR Friday Baroque Interlude - J. F. Fasch | Concerto in D major - FaWV L:D5 | by The Arbourist | Leave a comment

Johann Friedrich Fasch composed this concerto in D major (FaWV L:D5) amid his prolific output as Kapellmeister in Zerbst from 1722 onward, where the court’s enthusiasm for wind music shaped much of his instrumental work. The piece deploys an octet of winds—two flutes, two oboes, two horns, and two bassoons—against strings and continuo, evoking the concerto grosso through their vigorous dialogues and the horns’ demanding flourishes. Its three movements (Allegro in common time, Largo in common time, Allegro in 3/8) unfold over roughly twenty minutes, blending Baroque vigor with hints of emerging Classical poise.

The Mask of Victimhood: How Transactivists Weaponize DARVO to Assault Women’s Spaces

October 16, 2025 in Feminism, Queer Bullshit | Tags: Brighton, Cry Bully, DARVO, False Victimhood, Feminism, FiLiA conference, male violence, Radical Transactivism | by The Arbourist | Leave a comment

In October 2025, Brighton witnessed a stark confrontation between feminist and trans activist groups, culminating in the vandalism of the FiLiA conference venue by the direct-action group Bash Back. This incident has sparked widespread debate over the boundaries of free speech, the safety of women-only spaces, and the tactics employed in the defense of trans rights.

In the seaside city of Brighton, where the English Channel laps against shores long synonymous with progressive ideals, a gathering of women became the target of deliberate aggression last weekend. The FiLiA conference—Europe’s largest feminist event, drawing over 2,400 delegates from around the world—convened from October 10 to 12, 2025, to confront the unyielding realities of women’s lives: domestic abuse, sexual violence, lesbian safety, anti-racism, health equity, and political organizing. What should have been a sanctuary for sisterhood instead became a stage for intimidation, vandalism, and moral inversion, carried out by activists who cloaked their belligerence in the guise of righteous victimhood. This was no spontaneous protest; it was an orchestrated assault on women’s autonomy, executed through the psychological tactic known as DARVO—Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender—flipping aggressor and victim roles to confuse and shame the true defenders.

FiLiA, the Feminist International Leadership and Action charity, has championed women’s voices and sex-based rights since its founding in 1982 as Feminists in London. Rebranded in 2019, the organization organizes workshops, advocacy campaigns, and international solidarity events, explicitly excluding male speakers to foster unmediated discourse. Alumni include figures like J.K. Rowling, and sessions routinely interrogate male violence without apology. In Brighton, hosted at the council-owned Brighton Centre, FiLiA aimed to advance this mission amid escalating threats to female-only spaces. Organizers preemptively requested a Public Spaces Protection Order from Brighton and Hove Council to mitigate anticipated disruptions, only to be rebuffed—a decision that left delegates exposed to the very dangers the conference sought to address.

The aggression began hours before the conference doors opened on October 10. Activists associated with the direct-action group Bash Back vandalized the venue: windows were shattered, purple paint—symbolizing queer defiance—splashed across entrances, and graffiti labeled FiLiA “transphobic” and worse. As women arrived on Saturday, masked protesters surrounded them, chanting, jeering, filming without consent, and blocking access to the entrance. One man was bundled into a police van amid the chaos. Sussex Police launched an investigation, but the damage was done: a conference on male violence against women had itself been disrupted by male violence.

This incident exemplifies DARVO in practice. Attacks were simultaneously denied or minimized as mere “direct action,” while FiLiA was cast as inherently bigoted for prioritizing biological sex in discussions of oppression. Reversal of victimhood followed swiftly: women convening to safeguard their rights were recast as provocateurs, deserving retaliation. Green MP Sian Berry’s comments faulting organizers for “inflaming division” exemplify this inversion, as if women’s speech is a privilege revocable at the whim of the offended. Online, Bash Back celebrated targeting “hate groups” like the LGB Alliance and Transgender Trend, further amplifying the narrative of moral righteousness while eroding accountability. Eyewitness reports indicate that many of the aggressors were male, cross-dressing in the guise of protest—a striking irony in a city branding itself a “City of Sanctuary.”

The Brighton disruption is part of a broader pattern of hostility toward women’s spaces, where the veneer of inclusivity is used to justify exclusion. Militant transactivism often prioritizes gender self-identification over material sex realities, demanding access to refuges, prisons, and sports at the expense of female safety. By framing sex-based protections as inherently “transphobic,” these tactics erode the foundations of feminism: the recognition that sex is the axis of patriarchal power and a critical factor in protecting women from violence. The FiLiA delegates were not debating abstract theory—they were strategizing for survival against rape, trafficking, and erasure. To disrupt their forum is to reinforce the patriarchal dynamics they resist.

The path forward requires vigilance and clarity. DARVO’s manipulations must be unmasked; women’s sex-based rights defended without apology; and discourse reclaimed from those who mistake volume and spectacle for moral authority. Only then can women gather safely, unmolested, to build the liberation FiLiA envisions—a liberation grounded in reality, accountability, and the enduring fight against male violence.

📚 References

“Council refused feminists security after trans activists smashed venue.” The Times, October 10, 2025. (The Times)
“Trans activists vandalise feminist conference.” Yahoo News Canada, October 10, 2025. (Yahoo News)
“Trans group ‘BASH BACK’ targets Brighton Centre – FiLiA has ‘blood on their hands’.” Scene Magazine, October 10, 2025. (Scene Magazine)
“FiLiA Conference Sparks Trans Rights Protests In Brighton.” Evrimagaci, October 10, 2025. (Evrim Ağacı)
“FiLiA.” Wikipedia, October 2025. (Wikipedia)
“Bash Back!” Wikipedia, October 2025. (Wikipedia)

	The Arbourist on Emergencies Act, 2026 FCA 6: T…
	Steve Ruis on Emergencies Act, 2026 FCA 6: T…
	The Arbourist on Beautiful Trouble as a Public…
	Marengo on Beautiful Trouble as a Public…
	The Arbourist on The Escalation Loop Behind “IC…

Dead Wild Roses

What Does “Queer” Mean? Part 3 — From Theory to Activism: When Rebellion Becomes Disorder

From Theory to Politics: Queer as Permanent Revolution

The Unraveling Effect: When Everything Becomes “Queer”

Restoring Balance: Queer Aspirations and Reasonable Critique

Key Takeaways

References

What Does “Queer” Mean? Part 2: Insights from Judith Butler and Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick

Judith Butler: Gender as Performance

Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick: The Open Mesh of Meaning

Queer as Liberation—and Its Limits

Key Takeaways

References

What Does “Queer” Really Mean?

Queer as Permanent Rebellion

What This Reveals

Key Takeaways: What “Queer” Actually Means

Reference

The DWR Sunday Religious Disservice – Hitchens on Religion

Refutation of the Poster Quoting Resmaa Menakem

References

The DWR Friday Baroque Interlude – J. F. Fasch | Concerto in D major – FaWV L:D5

The Mask of Victimhood: How Transactivists Weaponize DARVO to Assault Women’s Spaces

📚 References

This Blog best viewed with Ad-Block and Firefox!

Like Privacy?

Need more DWR goodness?

See what is in bloom at DWR.

The best of the bouquet.

Your opinions…

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

Categories

Posts I Like

Archives

Blogs I Follow

The DWR Community

Blog Stats

The DWR RSS feed.

Get DWR on tap!

The DWR Commentariat

Dead Wild Roses

From Theory to Politics: Queer as Permanent Revolution

The Unraveling Effect: When Everything Becomes “Queer”

Restoring Balance: Queer Aspirations and Reasonable Critique

Key Takeaways

References

Share this:

Judith Butler: Gender as Performance

Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick: The Open Mesh of Meaning

Queer as Liberation—and Its Limits

Key Takeaways

References

Share this:

Queer as Permanent Rebellion

What This Reveals

Key Takeaways: What “Queer” Actually Means

Reference

Share this:

Share this:

References

Share this:

Share this:

📚 References

Share this:

This Blog best viewed with Ad-Block and Firefox!

Like Privacy?

Need more DWR goodness?

See what is in bloom at DWR.

TAG CLOUD:What is growing at DWR

The best of the bouquet.

Your opinions…

Categories

Posts I Like

Archives

Blogs I Follow

The DWR Community

Blog Stats

The DWR RSS feed.

Get DWR on tap!

The DWR Commentariat