Queer Theory

In order to tackle a problem, its important to first identify the root cause of the problem, how it manifests and what are the causes and effects of this manifestation.

I first looked into queer theory sometime around 2015. Having taken a long hard look at the ideology behind it I was satisfied by what I'd concluded (satisfied & alarmed)

Fast forward a few years and we are seeing more and more of the devastating effects of queer theory coming to fruition, the worst of which is centred around biology which is the bedrock of the whole trans rights agenda. Coupled with the creeping tenet of biological men competing in sporting categories created purely for biological women, we are living through dystopian times.

Yet over the past couple of years or so, I've also noticed a growing trend to steer the conversation away from the actual problems by offering up something else as its root cause. The following image is a typical example of deflecting the real root cause by bringing something else into public discourse, I've seen this image (or at least the text) on more than a handful of occasions.

This is not queer theory, while queer theory is certainly made up of layers, the three inner layers are definitely not, misogyny, male sexual arousal and access to children. These are merely by-products of queer theory (rather chilling ones, but by-products they are)

So who promotes this cynical deflection? More often than not its people whose ideology was part of the rise of queer theory to begin with, groups of people who wish to distance themselves as far as possible from any blame whatsoever so they come up with this type of rubbish.

So what is queer theory?

It comes from multiple areas of what we call the critical movement, a loose coalition of postmodern theory, feminism, gay and lesbian movements and postcolonialism.

The idea is, that we in the west live in a patriarchal society, dominated by male/female heterosexual normative ideas, all based around the nuclear family unit.

Queer theorists challenged this idea, they wanted to strip away the idea that a male/female relationship was the norm and all other ideas were substandard. This appealed to the postmodernists and post colonialists alike. The nuclear family (they opined) was an entirely western idea and there are actually many ways in which a civilisation both thrives and survives. It appealed to feminists because it resurrected ideas of smashing the patriarchy and it appealed to gay and lesbian movements because it championed the idea that their relationships were just as equal and valuable as the heteronormative view.

It also gained a lot of support from minority activists throughout the west due to its postcolonialism angle (Western hegemony is an entirely white peoples idea)

Queer theory does find a lot of support from groups with some ideological differences, they were very happy to put these minor differences aside and hitch themselves onto this bandwagon. Mainly because these are also historically oppressed and marginalised groups, queer theory is a monster at feeding grievance movements, Only in the last few years are we seeing evidence that this monster has no qualms about devouring its own.

If you strip away the layers of queer theory, you're left with a core belief system that challenges the idea of  how we view sex and gender and hypothesises how we can dismantle the ideas around power structures involving these traditional ideas. 

So you can see why it appeals to feminists, for decades they have been challenging societal roles between men and women. 

But queer theory is a lot more difficult to understand. Like all activist and/or progressive movements, they are merely branches of Karl Marx critical theory.

I'm trying to present the simplest view. While Marx wanted workers to unite and seize the means of production by breaking free of this capitalist framework, queer theorists present the idea that not only is the idea of sex in the normative sense a restriction of our own minds but also the restrictions of our own body that we can and need to break free from. The idea that not only did you not have a choice in being born, you also had no choice in your sex, sexuality or gender, whatever you were assigned at birth (they love to use assigned as opposed to observed) may not actually be your true self. This is where children come in.

Children are impressionable, malleable souls, if you can teach them (queer them) that what they were born as may not be who they truly are, then you have indoctrinated them into what essentially is a cult. Puberty blockers aren't simply a tool for a sexually confused child, they are a means to change a puberty they are biologically destined to go through into whatever sex they choose to be. Which to them defeats heteronormativity and allows them to be their true and authentic selves (or so they think) they see puberty blockers as a tool that can be used to actually pick your own puberty!

One moment your slaying the patriarchy and in the blink of an eye you're giving puberty blockers to 8 year olds and slicing off healthy breasts of young, impressionable girls. What is happening here, is child grooming.

These ideas originally came under the banner of Queer studies, it wouldn't become known as Queer Theory until 1990.

Michael Foucault: Marxist philosopher. His original ideas are rooted in the belief  that we cannot clearly define sex

Gayle Rubin: Introduced queer theory to the feminist movement by exploring the idea that not only is sexual oppression between a man & a woman the work of the patriarchy, it (patriarchy) is also oppressing "inter-generational" sex. Yes, this is exactly what you think it is, the word we would normally use is "paedophilia"

Eve Kosofsky Sedwick: Pushed further on the boundary of discussions around sex & gender

Judith Butler: Draws heavily on Foucault. But also leaned heavily into Gayle Rubins work.

These are just a few, the tip of the iceberg. But they have been the most prominent voices over the decades.

It's fairly easy to separate queer theory from the ideas of first and second wave feminism, but many feminists (and women in general) still buy into the core idea of queer theory. This is because (like all spawns of Marx critical theory) they believe that all oppression is linked. It was Kimberle Crenshaw who gave us its official title, what we know today as Intersectionality. So while it should be fairly easy to separate ideological beliefs, its actually very hard to shrug off when it comes to the later waves of feminism, because linked oppression is a core tenet of their whole belief system.

Although I've taken a few swipes at feminism in this blog, its pretty unfair to lay too much of this problem at their door. Gayle Rubin was very much a champion for second wave feminism, yet when she wrote her 1984 essay "thinking sex" many feminists could clearly see the writing on the wall.

The important detail to remember here is that, like in every walk of life not all feminists are the same, not all black people are the same, not all muslims are the same etc, you get the idea. This is why the Intersectional framework is so fundamentally flawed, very much in the same way identity politics is fundamentally flawed. Having one, guiding principal framework that covers the entire western world is pretty stupid when you think about it.

Western society is built around the individual. Intersectionality (and by extension queer theory) is built around collectivism, the idea that we don't exist as individuals, we exist as collective groups.

Women, girls, detransitioners alike who want to defend womens biological rights all find their only outlet to speak through the media are the more traditional conservative outlets. Riley Gaines, the American swimmer who dared to speak out about the unfairness of boys competing against girls in swimming events found her voice on the very right wing Fox News. On this side of the pond, its GBNews, most recently giving Louise Distras a platform (among many others)

So, Queer Theory needs to be properly identified before you can think of mounting a defence against it. Labelling the Trans rights movement as a men's rights movement is not only fundamentally flawed its also giving queer theorists exactly what they want, activists thrive on your reaction to their action. We see this all the time. Where feminism is most effective is when they're able to provoke a negative male response because this gives them the boogie man they actually wanted to attack, when black activists want to get the response they need, they'll come up with ideas such as "whiteness" or "white supremacy" which is code for attacking white people indirectly without actually saying it. But it will provoke a negative response from white people which is of course what the intent was all along.

We see this all the time among activists like Shola Mos Shogbamimu and Kehinde Andrews. Shogbamimu is a prime example of this, she'll constantly berate non believers as having a lack of critical thinking skills, yet she herself has none. Her entire worldview is critical theory (not critical thinking) dogma.

For better understanding in how an activist works, here's a link to their latest toolkit

The real action, is your targets reaction

So how would a queer theorist activist get the reaction they want? Well, for a start they would want to throw you off balance (see the image I posted at the beginning of this blog) This is an ideal reaction for them because it confuses and divides their target. Misogyny is always a good one, because when normal men (and indeed a lot of women) read this, they switch off. 

"Male sexual arousal and access to children" which further divides your target (mainly by obfuscation)

Which is why we see that most of the prominent feminists who do speak out get attacked more often than men who speak out because it helps obscure the more radical feminists hidden in the queer theorist domain (there are a lot). 

Gender critical feminists are still loathe to throw the sisterhood under the bus, so they'll frame the queer theorist women as handmaidens, women who have been groomed by the patriarchy to be submissive to the almighty man (patriarchy). 

This is exactly what the queer theorists wanted them to do! When a small movement wants to take down a bigger target, among the first steps you take is to divide and weaken your target, this stuff is all in their toolkit.

That's not to say that women aren't suffering more than men when it comes to trans rights, because they are, but queer theory isn't the patriarchy trying to outflank feminists from the left.

This dark, shadowy bedfellow that feminists eagerly jumped into bed with in order to destroy male patriarchy all those years ago isn't done just yet, Britain is staring down the barrel of at least 5 years of a Labour government. A Labour party brimming with activists, champions of diversity & equity & queer theorists.

Things are going to get much, much worse.