You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Queer?’ tag.
The future of queer theory in public life will be defined by tension — between liberation and dissolution, between critique and nihilism. As the concept of queer migrates from academic theory into social activism, its anti-normative roots have begun to destabilize not only rigid hierarchies but also the shared frameworks that hold civil society together. Recognizing this dynamic is essential if we hope to preserve the moral and cultural balance that allows both freedom and order to coexist.
At its core, queer theory began as a revolt against imposed boundaries: gender binaries, heteronormative expectations, and cultural assumptions about propriety. But when “resistance to norms” becomes the sole moral compass, society loses its capacity to define virtue, responsibility, or even truth. The queer ethos—“whatever is at odds with the normal”—risks transforming from an emancipatory critique into a perpetual revolution against coherence itself.
Radical activists now extend this logic beyond sexuality, framing any attempt to establish limits or standards—biological, moral, or linguistic—as acts of “hegemonic oppression.” Efforts to balance queer aspirations with reasonable critique are thus recast as betrayal. This rhetorical maneuver shields the ideology from correction: dissent becomes proof of guilt.
Yet a healthy society requires shared reference points. Boundaries around meaning, family, education, and biology are not inherently oppressive—they are stabilizing norms that protect continuity while still allowing reform. To restore equilibrium, we must distinguish between compassionate inclusion and ideological dissolution. Supporting human dignity does not require denying human nature.
The road ahead will be difficult. Reintroducing critical engagement into discussions of gender and identity will be framed as reactionary or “anti-queer.” But clarity is not cruelty. The challenge is to defend open debate and the material basis of truth while affirming genuine freedom for individuals to live authentically. A future where queerness and normalcy coexist in mutual respect, rather than mutual negation, is possible—but only if the conversation itself remains open.
Closing Summary & Series Links
To help readers navigate the series and access each part easily.
- Part 1 — What Does “Queer” Mean?
Introduces David Halperin’s foundational definition of “queer” as opposition to societal norms and explores what it means to have an “identity without an essence.” - Part 2 — Insights from Judith Butler and Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick
Examines how Butler and Sedgwick expanded queer theory by deconstructing gender and sexuality, framing queer as a disruptor of cultural meaning. - Part 3 — The Unraveling of Society and the Quest for Balance
Analyzes how queer politics, when detached from social reality, can erode shared meaning, and proposes a framework for restoring balance between critique and stability.
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.
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” 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.
But it’s not about performing stereotypes, honest!
Only by telling and retelling of stories can we raise the consciousness of others. Thank you for your words Incessant Sentinel.
Grooming
The general concept of grooming is often too narrowly defined. While, yes, we usually see it used to reference paedophiles grooming young children, the word’s application has a much broader scope. The most common factor between all applications of this word is an individual or group of individuals slowly, methodically desensitising and preparing a person for an illegal activity, or an activity the person would not usually participate in (perhaps has even declined participating in already). Whether intentional or passive, the grooming individual will typically gently nudge and push boundaries of what their victim is comfortable with, but not so much the victim will immediately reject it. The idea is to then have a reference point: ‘If you were comfortable doing this thing then this next slightly further thing surely isn’t that big of a deal’, etc. This compounds and escalates until the victim has reached the desired final goal; usually a behaviour or specific act. Even if the groomer becomes more bold or escalates more rapidly, by this point the victim is usually inducted into a social circle where they feel they cannot air their grievances.There is a lot of overlap here with the practices of cults. First a vulnerable or malleable target is a selected. Next, the target is love-bombed; inundated with acceptance, support, emotional-availability, and generally making the person feel special and unique. After this, the victim is encouraged to cut ties with friends and family who are not part of the “in crowd” – this is often both an emotional and physical isolation, designed to remove the victim’s exposure to naysayers and censor their media input. And finally is the control. When a victim has no other structure or framework available in their lives, a cult will threaten to revoke any and all love, support, etc. (and with it the victim’s only lifeline) if they do not comply with all they ask of them. A lot of groomers operate on this same emotionally manipulative level.
The biggest difference between grooming and friendly persuasion is consent. Friendly-persuasion seeks to have an individual state their views or practices, and reasons for having them, in the hope that by providing clarity they may encourage another person to come round to their view. Grooming is more subversive, and by definition more malicious – it is a conscious (though sometimes unintentional) practice in which someone seeks to mould and perhaps even force someone round to views that the perpetrator knows they would not normally be comfortable with. It is a process so slow, and so invasive, that while it is clear as glass to any outsider, few victims realise the true scope of what has happened to them until they are removed from the situation. Looking back on my own experience, I find it inconceivable that I was ignorant to what was happening for so long.—Parts of my pre-teen – early teenage years are a grey area for me; I have many clear memories of school and my small circle of friends, but the areas of my life referenced in this article are not so clear-cut in my mind. While I do not believe I experienced any event so traumatic as to erase all memory, said memory associated with this part of my life is not pleasant to think about – I believe it is less abject trauma, and more emotional discomfort. Whatever the cause, some isolated events are difficult to put into sequential order. While I remember the individual pockets clearly, I will admit I may make minor errors in terms of what order some occurred.
But to what exactly am I referring? Well, while I may make commentary at parts, I think it more pertinent and respectful to those reading to allow room for personal judgement. Baring in mind my introduction to this piece, I encourage you to read my experiences with a critical brain.
—The Human Library
My pubescent period was a difficult time for me. I could write an entire article all about what an unequivocal wreck of a human being I was (in spite of my wonderfully supportive mother), but I will try and succinctly list my situation at the time:
- I was recovering from an intense period of physical and mental bullying from two previous schools (institutionally backed up by the headmasters’ “boys will be boys” attitude) that still leave scars to this day.
- I had undiagnosed mental health problems and learning difficulties. I’ve since learned I’m high functioning Aspergers/ASD which overlaps with Dyspraxia, a co-morbid symptom of both being depression and/or chronic anxiety. I have an exceptionally high IQ in some areas, followed by comically sharp dips into below-average struggling in others. This can affect my ability to make friends and perform socially.
- Puberty is a fucking nightmare. I was in a vulnerable and confused place about my sexuality, and where my attraction lay. It is only these years later that I have come to make a peace with my bisexuality. I was always an androgynous individual.
The Human Library is a world-over project in which pockets of the group organise public meets. The “books” are volunteers who feel their “title” is often misrepresented or misunderstood: homeless, OCD, single mother, fraud victim, etc. If it’s something worth talking about you can volunteer. A book is “rented” by a member of the public for a few minutes, and the two can sit down with the pretext of asking any awkward or burning questions you don’t normally get to ask. It is a wonderful concept. My mother was originally involved, talking about her experiences in mental health, though after a while she began to dip off due to other commitments. I was drawn to this project by a number of factors. They lacked any teenagers, and I’d been bullied for a myriad of reasons I knew other teens (particularly girls) felt unable to speak about – such innocuously subversive things it was hard to put into words. I initially had my title as ‘Tomboyish/Androgynous’, in the hope my personal perspective might make some sceptics realise the weight of the words they slung, or to make at least one person like myself not feel so alone and to offer them catharsis.It is in the waiting area of these events that I first met someone that we’ll call “Rita“. The first time I met Rita, I assumed they were a man, right up until they told me their name. They looked, sounded, and behaved exactly like your typical “bloke”, complete with a fresh-shaved stubble and wide leg-spread sitting, and it was only when they took their coat off that I realised they had breast implants. I will not claim to know the ins and outs of Rita’s life, nor will I pass value judgements on it, but this was my initial impression of them. Later, at other events, there was also “June“, an older individual who fit in the same category appearance and situation-wise as Rita. Meeting June, I initially thought they were a 50/60 year old man with mid-length hair, until told otherwise. Whatever their individual tags or labels, it was clear these people were attempting to pass for female, or at the very least more feminine than they were. Given the environment we were in, I promised myself to keep an open mind. I didn’t even know them after all.We talked aimlessly in classic British style, weather, the refreshment station lacking tea, etc. for some time, then chatted briefly about our “book titles” – this provided good way of practising our spiel for the public, so I was not opposed to it. I explained my title, my desire to remove the stigma in growing girls who were experiencing non-typical behaviour, and vaguely hashed out the idea of my own confusion in my appearance and attraction. Hindsight is a beautiful thing. With the benefit of it, I can pinpoint the exact first instance of “nudging” I experienced from this group. It was when Rita started talking with me, a girl under the age of 16 they barely knew, about their breasts and their implants.And later, details on the surgery of sexual organs, particularly turning a penis into a vagina.The topic of their breasts came up at least once every Human Library afternoon, like Rita couldn’t resist talking about it. If I looked uncomfortable, it was waved away as me being naive, uneducated on the subject, or even part of the “problem stigma”. It was framed in a way that insisted ‘it’s ok, that’s why we’re at the human library, I’ll educate you‘. I felt unable to silence them when uncomfortable, given the conditions of the Library. When June was in attendance, they often corroborated Rita about how any hesitation to listen to them marked a form of ignorance or even bigotry. Despite my discomfort, I also found an odd acceptance within the group. These few members were proposing titles and labels to me in a way that made me feel normal and accepted. Terms like “genderqueer”, “genderfluid” or “transvestite/genderplay”. They said it with such authority, enthusiasm and kindness, that I felt comforted by the notion. I was gradually and consistently directed to stories and suggestions of transgender-ism, surgery options, and chest binding. Once again with the benefit of hindsight, these conversations often took place out of earshot of the other Library volunteers.Some of the places I became directed to by this group were online communities. Many were men-turned-women like Rita and June, but others were teenagers or young adults. Here they discussed and actively encouraged drastic changes, via surgery or binding/stuffing, as if promising a final elixir to contentment and happiness. Via both the Human Library group and online, people constantly attempted to bait me into incrementally more intimate discussions, with limited or non-existent results due to my shyness. Rita had, however, made references to my own chest and cup-size in conversation at least twice. In this confusion of terminology and candour, I soon became fixated on the idea of being “gender-queer”.—Gender and Dyspraxia
Throughout all my multiple experiences and events I volunteered at, I now recognise a presiding theme of one-upmanship. Some of the regular volunteers, whether the problem groomer-types or not, often felt a need to be the “most special”. It was frankly exhausting to be around. The gentleman with chronic OCD, we’ll call him “Frank”, was initially endearing if eccentric, and I honestly saw a lot of myself in him and his social isolation. However, even he was not immune to this trait.After one Library session of using the book title ‘Genderqueer’, something didn’t sit right with me. I was tomboyish, certainly, but to imply it as an accomplished identity felt uncomfortable to me. It just wasn’t a label that fit. I felt like a fraud, and like I’d been almost jimmied into it a little, then pressured to stay. Now, myself and my mum had always suspected me of having some kind of high-functioning ASD-type issues, and had begun more seriously digging into the prospects at the time, having read that this general uncertainty and confusion could be more physical than psychological. I was personally over the moon at the prospect. I was a textbook Dyspraxic, all bar a formal diagnosis, and the idea of having some diagnosis that finally explained and helped me rationalise one of the biggest set of problems in my life was invigorating. It didn’t fix the issues, but it gave me a firm foundation of understanding to work from.
During our lunch break during a Library session, I quite rightly sought to share this newfound insight with what I believed to be some of my most open minded and accepting of friends/acquaintances. The reception was a mixture of ambivalent and unempathic results. I was either actively steered away from this path, with insistences that others were just trying to suppress my gender identity and attempts to blame my problems on something else, or was met with people competitively throwing out gems like: ‘Oh, well, I’ve got dyspraxia too. And depression. And OCD and anxiety and aspergers, sooo-‘ and then bizarrely proud, smug shrugging, as they’d somehow “won” the conversation by out-pathologising me. This particular example came from Frank.
The next time we had a public session, I used the title “Dyspraxia / ASD”. I came at it from an honest and open position of being new to the concept of it, yet being a possessor of it, and how I now realised it affected my life. That day, my title was hands-down one of the most demanded talks in the Library, and I was enthused with the progress that was made, along with the fantastic conversations I had with individuals just like myself. To accomplish my original goal, of making gas-lit, jaded victims of bullying and cruelty feel vindicated and justified almost drove me to tears. Rita and some of the inner-circle seemed displeased and did not share my newfound happiness, often passive-aggressively trying to put down my success whenever I returned to the waiting area. I was becoming less dependent, less enamoured with them and the concept of cross-dressing or gender-play, and their attempts to label the ones I now reached out to as the enemy only succeeded in me severing ties with them and the Human Library altogether.—
Follow UpsOur area is small, and as such the political circles are smaller still. I have encountered Rita at various discussions or debates, mostly gender related, and more or less ignore their work now. I find myself unable to objectively listen to their stances, given the inappropriate references to gynaecological surgery and my breasts I encountered when underage, no matter how well-intentioned they thought it was – I will not degrade anyone involved by pretending to listen to someone I can no longer respect.Frank continued to Facebook message me once, maybe twice a year up until 2018 – I’d originally friended him so I could like/share the posts about the junior football team he coached, and help support them. The messages were mostly harmless, if exceptionally overly-familiar – he often acted as if we were close friends. Some details were a little too intimate, but nothing rude or crass, simply overtly-emotional. Until, after having not spoken to him more than 7 times in my life (3 of which were online), he randomly messaged me with: ‘I think I’m transgender.’ followed by something along the lines of ‘I paint fingernails. I need advice’. It is worth noting that Frank is younger than Rita, but still a good chunk older than myself. I had no response, and it was quite frankly the final nail in a coffin of over familiarity and oppressively non-appropriate behaviour. I did not really know this man, yet had been asked on many separate instances by him to answer unusual and intimate questions for his own benefit. I doubt maleficence in his case, but over-exposure to a cult of over-sharing, to the point where I think he genuinely believed this was normal, everyday behaviour between near-strangers. I politely, but firmly, explained I no longer believed any further communication was appropriate, that I was not the one to discuss these issues with (nor was I qualified to), and have not heard from him since.
Epilogue
I bring us to the end of this tale with the unfortunate reflection that there is no one message to glean from it. This article is different to my usual, in that it is more a telling of facts and experience than introspection. But I would like it to serve a purpose.If it were to find any such purpose, let it be the knowledge that my story is not unique. Indeed, it is also one that has a significantly happier ending than most who also tell it. The subversive behaviour is often hard to describe – when we victims attempt to cite it we are often dismissed or ignored. Grooming, cultish behaviour, stamps a lasting impression on our lives, and yet I still find myself struggling to formulate a description of the seditious nature of many involved. Even now, I find myself simultaneously appalled to remember all that occurred, yet not feeling my article has done justice to the constant chipping and nudging I was bombarded with for so long.
These individuals were given unprecedented access to myself, and other vulnerable persons. Laughably, persons with direct labels on themselves as to how they may be manipulated, literally like a book on the shelf to be perused and selected. It doesn’t matter if the intention is malicious or ignorant, there are increasing pockets of sub-cultures in which this damaging behaviour is encouraged, overlooked, excused, and even hidden. Children are having normal, sometimes transient, issues and parts of maturation pathologised into immediate, permanent, life-changing surgery. Pre-teens who have not fully developed their sexuality are having said sexuality scrutinised and laid-bare by grown men and women who have no rights to it, nor qualifications beyond ‘I think it’. And we have grown women regretting their transitions as the freedom of their adult lives finally allows escape and outside perspective on these sub-cultures.
I cannot force judgement or groom any who reads the stories of myself or others, but I can hope for friendly persuasion. I can hope for mindfulness and scrutiny to the damage being done by unqualified, emotionally stunted individuals with no medical credentials. I escaped the “Cult of the Queer”, yet others are still firmly at the mercy of these people, the whims of the incapable, and many vulnerable books still sit on the shelves unaware they’re being selected.
The hunger for effective gay liberation movement is real. It would seem at least Mr.Thorstad is tired of rearranging the gender-identity deckchairs on the good-ship “Oppression Titanic”.
“By the twenty-fifth anniversary of Stonewall in 1994, I regarded the gay movement as already mostly dead, although the commemorations did include some radical venues, such as the large “Spirit of Stonewall” alternate march. By then the gay movement had been taken over by marketing and corporate interests. Repeal of sodomy laws—the movement’s most important demand—had long been put on a back burner because it focused—uncomfortably for some—on sex acts instead of identity and liberal “rights” and because it challenged religious superstition and the oppressive Judeo-Christian tradition that underpinned the laws. Instead, the “LGBT movement” was pushing for marriage, hate-crimes laws, and the right of gays to serve openly in the imperialist military. The Supreme Court’s 2003 ruling throwing out sodomy laws was the most important victory for the gay and lesbian movement. Since then, the other demands have also been won, none of which advance the cause of sexual liberation. The former liberation movement is now mired in genderism and assimilationism.
By 1994, the hateful, antigay word “queer” was increasingly being used to describe same-sex love. Things have only gotten worse since then, with “queer” widely used, even by the straight media, despite its being a vile, self-hating term that threatens violence. The struggle for sexual liberation has been diluted by a focus on dozens of fanciful and questionable genders and has resulted in a virtual erasure of gay males and lesbians. Sex is not even part of the alphabet-soup vocabulary. Highlighting victimhood is in. Instead of fighting social injustice, the LGBT goal is to assimilate into a heterodominant capitalist system, aping its failed institution of marriage, promoting monogamy (a bit player in the mammalian heritage), and espousing patriotism, militarism, and conventionality. Gay Inc. has swallowed up the original “liberation day” marches and turned them into billboards for the profit motive. Even the main U.S. spy agency, the NSA, commemorates “pride” by lighting up its headquarters in the rainbow flag colors. The LGBT movement has jettisoned the goal of liberating the repressed sexuality of everyone, including heterosexuals, in favor of seeking mere “equality.” Equality is a low common denominator that does not challenge heterosupremacy. It is the goal of a movement that has been tamed and lost its spirit of radical struggle.
In the 1970s, one could hear a gay youth contingent in a gay pride march chant this playful provocation: “2, 4, 6, 8, How do you know your husband’s straight? 3, 5, 7, 9, Hey, lady, your husband’s mine!” Today, such a chant would be unimaginable.
This degeneration is widely recognized by older activists, less so by the younger set. As a result, this year another alternative march is planned for New York City to the official Heritage of Pride corporate sponsor. The Reclaim Pride Coalition (RPC), organizer of the alternate event, condemns the inclusion of floats and is marching “against the exploitation of our communities for profit and against corporate and state pinkwashing,” and in “resistance against police, state, and societal oppression.” OK so far.
But RPC has a serious flaw: astonishingly, it is calling its “alternative” event a “queer liberation march.” That’s an insult to gay men especially and belies its claim to inclusivity. Nothing could drag me to a march that bills itself as “queer.” That is antithetical to the “spirit of Stonewall” and to gay pride. It is viscerally offensive.
RPC criticizes HOP for not addressing the “urgent continuing needs” not of gay men and lesbians, but, in a reordering of myriad oppressed categories, presumably by order of importance, of the “Trans, Bisexual, Lesbian, Gay, Queer, Intersex, Two-Spirit, Asexual, Non-Binary, Gender Non-Conforming and related communities.” What a mouthful!
And it promotes a mind-numbing collection of politically correct causes: “We March in opposition to transphobia, homophobia, biphobia, racism, sexism, xenophobia, bigotry based on religious affiliation, classism, ableism, audism, ageism, all other forms of oppression, and the violence that accompanies them in the U.S. and globally.”
bleatmop
Mystro
The Arbourist
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…