Dead Wild Roses

In defending against activist ideology one must know the ground rules of the game. Queer activism is never enacted unambiguously. There is always a convenience, a double meaning, the truth married to a lie.

It behooves us to start with the original queer ‘scholarship’ and evaluate queer activism in light of what queer theory definitively says. So, to begin with, you need to know what “Queer” is. Logan Lancing defines the term in his book, “The Queering of the American Child” using a quote from the queer theorist David Halperin.

   “Queer activists have transformed education’s purpose, methods, and content to push kids to become Queer Activists themselves.  They have determined that the best way to do this is to teach the kids to queer themselves – to teach kids to destabilize their minds and bodies by deconstructing their identity until they become queer, which is a political cult identity that has nothing to do with sex, “gender”, or sexuality.  In the words of world renowned [?] Queer Theorist David Halperin, “queer is an identity without an essence”.  Whoa.  In full context, he gives away the game: “queer” is a wholly political stance against normalcy and legitimacy and has little or nothing to do with homosexuality it self.  He writes,

   “Unlike gay identity, which, though deliberately proclaimed in an act of affirmation, is nonetheless rooted in a the positive fact of homosexual object-choice, 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.  There is nothing in particular to which it necessarily refers. It is an identity without and essence. (Halperin 1995, p. 62, italics in original).”

Lancing, Lindsay (2024). The Queering of the American Child. New Discourses Publishing. (p. 25).