You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Queer Activism’ tag.
Picture a library, its shelves stripped of Orwell and Atwood, replaced by outrage: this is the activist’s trap. Critical social constructivism—commonly branded as “woke ideology”—does not depend on truth-seeking but on the imposition of narrative, luring well-meaning observers into excusing captured institutions as merely inept (Kincheloe, 2005). To extend such charity is to enable agendas that corrode trust in public institutions and divide communities.
The Edmonton Public School Board’s (EPSB) recent book removal controversy exemplifies this dynamic. In late August 2025, a leaked list of more than 200 titles slated for removal from K–12 school libraries ignited national outrage. The list included canonical works such as Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale and Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World. Media coverage swiftly framed the list as a right-wing purge: a literary witch-hunt torching academic freedom and signaling Alberta’s dystopian slide.
Yet this spectacle obscures the actual policy. In July 2025, Education Minister Demetrios Nicolaides issued a directive requiring school boards to remove sexually explicit materials by October 1, 2025, to ensure age-appropriate resources in K–12 libraries (Alberta Ministry of Education, 2025). The directive does not ban classics nor prohibit parents from providing controversial works privately. Its scope is limited: public schools, funded by taxpayers, must not circulate sexually explicit material to children.
Seen in this light, the EPSB’s list appears less a bureaucratic stumble than a narrative maneuver. By placing revered classics alongside contested titles such as Maia Kobabe’s Gender Queer—which contains explicit illustrations of sexual acts—and Jonathan Evison’s Lawn Boy, which describes sexual encounters between minors, the Board ensured the reaction would focus on “censorship” rather than explicit content. The outrage generated by the supposed “banning” of Atwood and Huxley distracts from the substantive question: whether K–12 libraries should carry graphic sexual material at all.
To be fair, some argue this was an honest misstep. Officials under pressure may have over-applied vague guidelines, fearing punishment if they erred on the side of permissiveness. From this perspective, the inflated list reflects incompetence, not ideology. This interpretation has surface plausibility—and acknowledging it is crucial. Yet it falters when weighed against the broader intellectual context.
The precise inclusion of classics alongside sexually explicit texts mirrors the rhetorical tactics of queer pedagogy, which openly embraces provocation as a teaching tool. In their influential article Drag Pedagogy: The Playful Practice of Queer Imagination in Early Childhood, Harper Keenan and Lil Miss Hot Mess (2021) describe initiatives such as Drag Queen Story Hour as “strategic defiance” designed to “disrupt normative understandings of childhood” (p. 433). Drawing on José Esteban Muñoz’s Cruising Utopia (2009), they frame queerness as a “future-oriented ideality” (p. 1), using performance and play to challenge authority, destabilize binary categories, and cultivate “embodied kinship” rather than passive empathy (Keenan & Lil Miss Hot Mess, 2021, pp. 434–436).
This framework is not hypothetical. It explicitly advocates the use of aesthetics, provocation, and imaginative unruliness to reshape children’s perceptions. In their words, “Drag pedagogy embraces an unruly vision of childhood as a site of potentiality” (p. 437). Texts like Gender Queer or Lawn Boy, with their focus on sexual exploration and destabilization of normative boundaries, can be read as curricular extensions of this agenda. Their presence in K–12 libraries is not incidental but reflects a coherent intellectual project to prioritize queer cultural forms over developmental appropriateness.
From this perspective, the EPSB’s list functions as a narrative cudgel. By spotlighting Orwell and Atwood, defenders can recast the government’s directive as authoritarian censorship while obscuring the ideological drive to embed queer pedagogy in public institutions. The effect is the same whether activists deliberately curated the list or whether bureaucrats, steeped in activist frameworks, reproduced them unconsciously: outrage is amplified, and the debate is reframed on activist terms.
This is the trap of charitable interpretation. To dismiss the list as simple incompetence is to ignore its functional alignment with queer pedagogy’s playbook: provoke, inflate, and obscure. Even if intent cannot be definitively proven, the effect is unmistakable—a shift of public discourse away from the legitimate question of protecting children’s developmental environments and toward a defensive posture about “book banning.”
The consequences are corrosive. Communities fracture, as defenders of childhood innocence are painted as censors, and activists wield “inclusivity” as a battering ram against parental concerns. Public trust in schools erodes further. And children—the supposed beneficiaries—are caught in the crossfire of ideological contestation.
Children deserve age-appropriate materials in their school libraries—full stop. No law prevents parents from accessing contested works privately, but schools should not be battlegrounds for ideological conquest. The EPSB controversy demonstrates how critical social constructivism (woke) thrives not on truth but on narrative imposition. To resist this, we must reject the activist trap of charitable interpretation and confront directly how such narratives are engineered. Only by doing so can we restore unity, rebuild trust, and protect the integrity of public education.
“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 an essence.”
(Halperin, 1995, p. 62)
References
-
Alberta Ministry of Education. (2025). Ministerial Order No. 2025-07: Age-Appropriate Resources in School Libraries. Edmonton, AB: Government of Alberta. Retrieved from https://www.alberta.ca/ministerial-orders
-
Keenan, H. B., & Lil Miss Hot Mess. (2021). Drag pedagogy: The playful practice of queer imagination in early childhood. Curriculum Inquiry, 51(5), 433–452. https://doi.org/10.1080/03626784.2020.1864621
-
Kincheloe, J. L. (2005). Critical constructivism. New York: Peter Lang.
-
Muñoz, J. E. (2009). Cruising utopia: The then and there of queer futurity. New York: NYU Press.
The first of the manipulations, and the center of how it works, is the collectivization of the “LGBTQ2 community.”
This thing does not exist meaningfully. It’s not even a genuine coalition. Gay people, and so on, exist, but that acronym represents nothing but a lie.
However they spell the acronym, its purpose is to collectivize all of the people in certain descriptive demographics and to allow the radicals to speak for their entirety, making it appear like many “marginalized” people support Woke stuff when actually only few do.
That is, Queer Activism is being done in the names of a broad pseudo-coalition “community” denoted by the acronym, even though most individuals in that “community” aren’t represented by it and may even reject it outright. Queer Activists hide behind a synthetic coalition.
It bears repeating that throughout the Queer literature, it is stressed and stressed again that “Queer” is an oppositional political stance, not an identity at all. That proves, outside of the obvious rejection by people falsely claimed by the “community,” that it’s fake.
It also proves that the Queer Activists KNOW the “LGBTQ2 community” is an artificial construction that they’re manipulating to gain empathy and support they don’t deserve. Let that sink in. They KNOW it. They’re DOING IT ON PURPOSE, WILLFULLY. So here is the Liberal Party.
So this is the first huge manipulation here: making people believe in a broad “LGBTQ2 community” that doesn’t exist except as a manipulative pseudo-coalition that speaks for and hides behind sexual minorities so it can do destructive oppositional Queer Activism in its name.
The second huge manipulation here is the claim that anything resisting Queer Activism “harms” this “community.” First of all, no it doesn’t. It just doesn’t. Nobody is being “harmed” at all. That claim is the wail of a histrionic narcissist not getting his way.
Second of all, the community itself can’t be “harmed,” even if it existed (remember, it’s a fake pseudo-coalition ginned into existence by Queer Activists to hide behind). Only individuals can be harmed, and they could be treated individually rather than collectively if harmed.
This part of the manipulation twists the ethos but not the logic of civil rights into its inverse. The logic of civil rights is that no INDIVIDUAL should be harmed through discriminatory law or policy. It has nothing to do with groups or their rights, but this inverts that logic.
People have been led to think civil rights is about protecting groups (“protected classes”) when in reality “protected classes” refers to classifications under which all individuals are protected against discriminatory activity. Race, not specific races, is protected this way.
The third part of the manipulation is in the idea of “harm” itself. For Queer Theorists, not getting their way is “hate” and “harm.” They paint a picture of fringe cases where something bad happens as though they’re indicative of the population. They’re not.
They’re trying to claim that all members of a fictitious “community” are “harmed” so they can emotionally blackmail people into supporting radical agendas from within (Communist) Queer Theory, when in fact a few individuals have problems blamed on a system, rightly or wrongly.Their objective is to provide universal solutions that might be merited in a small number of individual cases by claiming “the community is harmed.” This is akin to doing universal screenings or treatments in medicine, which is strongly discouraged for good reasons.
Doing universal cancer screenings, for example, produces far more false positives than real positives and puts people into fear and onto courses of treatment that actually harm them when they don’t need them. This “community” stuff treats the whole community for a few bad cases.
It’s malpractice justified through collectivist empathy. The remedy is to install the praxis of Queer Activism everywhere so the few special cases don’t get missed and “harmed,” but Queer Activism harms everyone, and what you might hope it would be harms most people.
The reason they think this way is because Queer Theory posits that our true, essential nature is queer. Everybody is queer. It’s who we really are, and we have to be led BACK into realizing it because it’s socialized out of us by cisheteronormative society.
What this actually reveals about Queer Theory is that it’s a Gnostic or Hermetic cult (both, really). Our true nature is obscured from us, and we have to be led to remember it by escaping the evil forces obscuring it from us. We’re all “spiritually” queer but don’t realize it.
Since Rousseau and Marx, “spiritually” has meant collectively in society. Marxism is the belief that our true spiritual nature is “social(ist),” and we have to be re-socialized into realizing who we really are: a social species with the power to create itself and our world.
Queer Theory just posits that we’re all queer (abnormal and intrinsically opposed to limitations of normalcy), but we’ve been socialized to be “normal” instead. So denying Queer Activist praxis to ALL kids (and all people) “harms” them spiritually. That’s what they really mean.
We don’t have to put up with this emotional blackmail anymore, nor do we have to accept that a fringe of radical activists with demonstrable cult views gets to present itself as the “true” voice of a broad coalition that it holds out as tokens for empathy and support.
I’m thinking that activities that celebrate regressive stereotypes of female behaviour are not particularly progressive or useful in society. I fully support practitioners of Drag who want to practice their rituals in the appropriate societal context. However, there is a trend put Drag into contexts that are most definitely not appropriate for instance, elementary schools. Children are not equipped intellectually or emotionally to properly understand what is going on during “Drag story book hour” or “dance celebration. Nor should they have to be.
Ostensibly the purpose – “Drag Queen Story Hour, Drag Queen Storytime, and Drag Story Time are children’s events first started in 2015 by author and activist Michelle Tea in San Francisco with the goals to “inspire a love of reading, while teaching deeper lessons on diversity, self-love and an appreciation of others.” The events, usually geared for children aged 3–11, are hosted by drag queens who read children’s books, and engage in other learning activities in public libraries.“.
Sure.
But then we run up against this:
A 44-page search warrant filed Friday by a Division of Criminal Investigation (DCI) special agent said investigators found Blomme, using the name “dommasterbb,” uploaded 27 videos and images containing child pornography. Two of the files were uploaded at a Milwaukee County government building, the search warrant said,” a summary notes.
Blomme formerly served as the President of the Cream City Foundation from 2017 to 2020, which describes itself as “mobilizing philanthropic resources by harnessing the pride, passion, and commitment of LGBTQ+.”
The foundation also runs a Drag Queen Story Hour program, an event that “captures the imagination and play of the gender fluidity of childhood and gives kids glamorous, positive, and unabashedly queer role models.”
“In spaces like this, kids are able to see people who defy rigid gender restrictions and imagine a world where people can present as they wish, where dress up is real” a description adds.”
Children do not need gender fluidity or queer role models that destabilize their identity and worldview. More pertinently, they should not be exposed to grooming by pedophiles who happily take the queer label in exchange for access to their child victims.
Let’s keep what Queer Theory is front and centre in our minds – https://youtu.be/n-NseFg2kno
Remember when you could just go study a subject and not have to deal with the inane bullshit outside said field (most fields have enough internal BS going on). Not anymore. Now you can get dial your oppression into serious subjects and feel good correcting others when they mistake your clownshow (academic work) as satire.
I’m not sure when the definition of progressive queer activism changed to mean defiling and destroying women’s spaces, but unsurprisingly, the violent men of Queer activism (terrorism) are at it again. And quite honestly, they (GAG) can fuck the hell right off – violent patriarchal repression of women with a shiny coat of queer paint is still male violence and misogyny – and has no place in a society that claims to value women and stand for ‘equality’.
This violent shit doesn’t raise eyebrows or cause a stir in the media because the targets are only women after all. Meghan Murphy and the Guerrilla Feminist Collective are on the case though. Thank heavens.
“GAG / Gays Against Gentrification have vandalized the building housing the Vancouver Women’s Library. This latest action is prompting the following comparison of this new alt-white group’s activism.
♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂
Protest methods against for-profit business in Chinatown:
* Stand across the street, 1/2 a block away, sing a nice christmas song with the lyrics changed protesting gentrification & racism (as an all white group)
* Inch closer, but remain outside the business, on the far side of the sidewalk so as not to disrupt customers and business operations
* Smile, sing, display signs neatly and respectfully, either laid on the sidewalk or in their hands
* Abide by all common-sense understandings of legal protest on/near private property
* Take responsibility for and pride in their action
♀♀♀♀♀♀♀♀♀♀♀♀♀♀♀♀♀♀♀♀♀♀♀♀♀♀♀♀♀♀♀♀♀♀♀♀♀♀♀♀♀♀♀♀
Protest methods against volunteer-run, no-profit, free & inclusive women’s library on the night of their launch:
* Shout and scream slurs at library visitors outside
* Enter and take over the space with outraged entitlement
* Jason, a white male, continually asks which women inside are sex workers, and shouts “we don’t want you in our fucking spaces”, referencing the fact that he outed himself as a “trans person involved in sex work” thereby staking a claim to the area (?) which is a well known hunting ground for Johns seeking children and indigenous women specifically. Jason, are you a John? Can you clarify what you meant by “involved in sex work”? This can have so many meanings. TIA
* Destroy and steal library property: ripping artwork, destroying books, stealing wine, pulling the fire alarm
* Physically intimidate and assault library visitors outside
* Scream sexist slurs at women library visitors outside
* Bar library visitors from entering the space, actually turning people away who travelled in the heavy snow to reach the library
* Steal hand-painted sandwich board outside the library
* Vandalize the building that houses the library. A space shared by a diverse group of artists and artisans, jeopardizing the safety, livelihood, and work of many, not just that of the library.
* Discard all common-sense understandings of legal protest inside or on private property
* Deny any responsibility for their actions although almost every member of GAG was present and engaged
* Repeatedly claim to be committed to engaging in learning and discourse, yet reject, shut down, delete any and all criticisms, coming from a wide range of people and groups.”
So, GAG understands what peaceable protest looks like, but they chose not to when it comes to a library for women. This is what happens when women challenge the dominant male narrative in society, and this is why we need a feminist movement that is dedicated to fighting for female emancipation from patriarchy.
Donate to the Vancouver Women’s Library at this link.
bleatmop
Mystro
The Arbourist
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…