Doing Queer Theory: A Pride Month Primer
Queer Theory, how to recognize it, and why we need to stop it.
Legend holds that on Halloween night, the boundaries between the land of the living and the land of the dead become blurred, fuzzy, allowing the souls of the dead to roam the earth for one night only. It’s why participants of early Samhain celebrations wore masks — to confuse and ward off spirits.
The same can be said about “pride month”. The latent spirits known as “trans”, “queer”, “BDSM”, “kink”, and “puppy play” lay dormant all year, only to burst forth and roam the earth freely on the first of June. Though these spirits increasingly walk among us year-long, there’s no denying that all Hell breaks loose when pride month rolls around each year.
If you’ve looked around lately and noticed all the nudity, the depravity, the public displays of sexual urges, and the inexplicable push to display it all in front of children, you may be asking yourself: Why? Isn’t pride month supposed to be about tolerance, acceptance, and inclusivity? Why does it suddenly seem to be about degenerate sex and transgressing as many social bounds as humanly possible? The answer lies in Queer Theory.
Once you familiarize yourself with Queer Theory’s origins, foundational texts, and central tenets, there’s no going back. You’ll begin to see it everywhere. Suddenly, things will start to make a lot more sense. And as we’ll see, queer theorists so often lay bare their intentions in their own words. All one has to know is where to look.
What is Queer Theory?
From out of the fires of LGBT studies and cultural Marxism, Queer Theory was forged. Its most influential contributors include Michel Foucault, Gayle Rubin, Eve K. Sedgwick, and Judith Butler. Its roots date back to the 1970s with Foucault — a French philosopher and great defender of pedophilia — but it did not formally take root until the 1990s.
In its most distilled form, Queer Theory takes the Marxist formula and supplants capital with normalcy itself. Whereas Marx saw a stratification between those who have capital — the Bourgeoisie — and those who do not — the Proletariat — queer theorists see the world as divided between those who have “normalcy” and those who do not. The same oppressor/oppressed framework remains, but capital and private property have been replaced by normal sexual behaviors, and property owners replaced by those who adhere to them. “Normal” people become the neo-Bourgeoisie , and “abnormal” people become the neo-Proletariat. The oppressive force supposedly holding these norms in place is “heteropatriarchy” or “cis-heteropatriarchy”. In this way, Queer Theory is queer Marxism.
In Saint Foucault: Towards a gay hagiography (1995), sociologist David Halperin lays out exactly what activists mean when they use “queer” in this context:
“Unlike gay identity, which, though deliberately proclaimed in an act of affirmation, is nonetheless rooted in 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 an essence” (p.62)
As “an identity without an essence”, queer becomes whatever the activist wishes it to be. This explains how straight people can be queer if they’re polyamorous, “non-binary” or even just really kinky. Anything “at odds with the normal” falls under the great umbrella of Queer Theory, acquiring meaning and substance only by its “oppositional relation” to all that society upholds as legitimate. Bad becomes good, down becomes up, and wrong becomes right.
In The Queering of the American Child: How a New School Religious Cult Poisons the Minds and bodies of Normal Kids, authors Logan Lancing and James Lindsay make clear the direct lineage of Marxism and Queer Theory:
“It is incumbent on the oppressed class—“abnormal people”—to become conscious of “the truth” of Queer Theory—to develop a queer consciousness—and to become revolutionaries charged with taking control of society and abolishing (transcending) “normalcy” as a form of human self-estrangement. In abolishing normalcy, Man returns to his creative and social nature, which is intrinsically queer. Karl Marx’s revolutionary theory of History aimed to radicalize people and encourage them to take control of society, forcing everything and everyone to become communist. Queer Marxism is no different. Queer Marxism’s revolutionary theory of History aims to radicalize people, encourage them to take control of society, and force everything and everyone to become queer” (p.58).
As in traditional Marxism, queer activists have been bestowed with a pseudo-divine mission to make others aware of “the truth” — which they would be inexplicably blind to without them. Marxists know best, as do queer theorists. That is why they must take control of society and right the ship, so to speak, in a queer direction. Radicalism is a key ingredient in each ideology, as the ambitious goal of complete societal overhaul cannot be achieved without it. Little Queer Marxist soldiers must be loyal to their very core.
Lancing and Lindsay also note the totality of this theory and what it implies. If man’s nature is “intrinsically queer,” then by definition everyone and everyone must be queer — even children. Even babies in utero, as when a Boston Children’s Hospital video asserted that children know their trans identity “in the womb.” Keep this in mind when activist and Youtuber Lindsey Amer asserts that “all kids are queer” or when TikToker Jeffrey Marsh claims there’s no such thing as a boy or a girl. (This post-modern erosion of categories will resurface again and again.)
Lancing and Lindsay further explain that Queer Theory is not just a theory but a practice. It is an active process of turning our world inside out through ‘“ruthless criticism of all that exists”, as Marx put it. Drawing on the 2017 paper Teaching LGBTQ Psychology, by Theodore Burnes, they write:
“The practice of Queer Theory is called “queering.” The word “queer,” in this sense, is a verb. “To queer” is “to destabilize the social, cultural, and political normalizing structures that work to solidify identities and in doing so skew power toward the “norm.” Put simply, “to queer” is to challenge and eliminate normalcy. “Normalcy” means “the condition of being normal, as in usual, typical, or expected.” So, to queer is to challenge and eliminate the idea that anything can or should be considered normal” (p.15).
Queer Theory is not about simply achieving acceptance for the neo-Proletariat. It seeks not to expand the definition of normal, but to subvert normalcy altogether by “queering” each of our concepts and institutions one by one. To “queer” is to “challenge and eliminate normalcy altogether” — to erode the bounds between what is appropriate and inappropriate into oblivion.
In Their Own Words
Let’s look more at the words of Queerists themselves for further explanation. In But I’m not Gay: What Straight Teachers Need to Know about Queer Theory, Elizabeth J. Meyers writes:
“Queer Theory goes beyond exploring aspects of gay and lesbian identity and experience. It questions take-for-granted assumptions about relationships, identity, gender, and sexual orientation. It seeks to explode rigid normalizing categories into possibilities that exist beyond the binaries of man/woman, masculine/feminine, student/teacher, and gay/straight” (p.15).
As Meyers states, Queer Theory is not about examining the experience of LGBT people in any meaningful way. Instead, it seeks to “explode rigid normalizing categories” including man/woman and even student/teacher. It aims to blur boundaries, erase lines in the sand, and replace stability with chaos and confusion which they can then leverage to gain control.
Categorization is a crucial tool for making sense of the world, especially for young children. Child psychologists know that children learning to speak and form their understanding of language begin to categorize things almost instinctively. Mommy/Daddy, girl/boy, cat/dog kid/adult, etc. When these categorizations are disrupted or confused, the child also becomes confused and potentially destabilized. I don’t think I need to point out the consequences of such confusion and blurring of boundaries, especially as it pertains to the latter distinction.
Judith Butler — philosopher, writer, menace — takes the destruction of boundaries and categories to its natural, absurd conclusion in her Queer Theory magnum opus Gender Trouble (1989):
“If the immutable character of sex is contested, perhaps this construct called ‘sex’ is as culturally constructed as gender; indeed, perhaps it was always already gender, with the consequence that the distinction between sex and gender turns out to be no distinction at all.”
Since as far back as the 80s, Butler has not only propped up the imagined dichotomy between sex and gender, but also collapsed it to suggest that sex itself is a social construct. Though transvestite activists have long argued that gender is a social construct, it may seem that only in recent years have they grown bold enough to argue the same about sex. One has only to look back at the grandmother of Queer Theory to prove otherwise.
Finally, I would be remiss if I did not mention Gayle Rubin’s Thinking Sex (1984) in laying out the central tenets of Queer Theory. In her foundational essay — often called the “founding document of Queer Theory” — Rubin lays out a theory of sexual hierarchy, stratified by social moral value. This hierarchy is comprised of two concentric circles, with the inner ring representing the “charmed” region of acceptable sexual behavior, and the exterior ring representing the “outer limits” of increasingly less socially acceptable sexual behavior.
Inside the first circle are descriptors like “monogamous”, “free”(meaning not paid for), “coupled” “at home”, “no pornography”, “bodies only”, “vanilla”, and “same generation”. The outer circle is the dark inverse of the inner circle, comprising contrasting values like “promiscuous”, “for money”, “alone or in groups”, “pornography”, "with manufactured objects”, “S/M”, and what Rubin calls “cross-generational”.
According to Rubin, the distinction between what is sexually acceptable and unacceptable is “the last socially respectable form of prejudice”, and that any moral categorization of sexual behavior is akin to “racism, ethnocentrism, and religious chauvinism”. While Rubin concedes that sexual attitudes have relaxed enough for homosexuality to move partially into the interior circle, she laments that “sadomasochism, fetishism, transsexuality, and cross-generational encounters” are still viewed as “horrors” incapable of “involving affection, love, free choice, kindness, or transcendence.”
But what does Rubin mean by “cross-generational-encounters”, you might be wondering. It may not be clear at first, as the phrase could imply age-gap relationships wherein both parties are over the age of consent. Rubin clears up that misunderstanding thusly:
“It is easy to see someone like Livingston as a victim of the child porn wars. It is harder for most people to sympathize with actual boy-lovers. Like communists and homosexuals in the 1950s, boylovers are so stigmatized that it is difficult to find defenders for their civil liberties, let alone for their erotic orientation. Consequently, the police have feasted on them. Local police, the FBI, and watchdog postal inspectors have joined to build a huge apparatus whose sole aim is to wipe out the community of men who love underaged youth. In twenty years or so, when some of the smoke has cleared, it will be much easier to show that these men have been the victims of a savage and undeserved witch hunt. A lot of people will be embarrassed by their collaboration with this persecution, but it will be too late to do much good for those men who have spent their lives in prison (p.5).”
Rubin is correct in that it is difficult for most people to sympathize with “boy-lovers.” She is incorrect in that pedophilia is an “erotic orientation” comparable with homosexuality. Gay activists have fought against such assertions for decades, and it is ironic that someone supposedly advocating for greater social acceptance of gays should make such a claim.
Rubin also refers to pedophiles with softened terminology like “men who love underaged youth,” calling to mind her earlier lamentation that “cross-generational” encounters are viewed as incapable of involving “love and free choice”. Obviously, Rubin believes that sexual relationships between adults and children are capable of these things, propping up a common justification used by many pedophiles themselves.
Finally, Rubin posits that in “twenty years or so” it will become clear that pedophiles have been victims of a “savage and undeserved witch hunt”. Although this hasn’t happened on a large scale, consider the recent advent of online “MAP” communities, or “Minor Attracted Persons.” Similar to Rubin’s use of the phrase “men who love underage boys”, this moniker is a way to soften the blow and lessen the (justified) stigmatization of terms like pedophile, groomer, or predator. True to Rubin’s predictions, these communities began surfacing online under the name MAPs circa 2021 — “twenty years or so” after Rubin wrote Thinking Sex. “There is no morality or immorality attached to attraction to anyone,” claims one pedophile advocate, eerily echoing Rubin’s theory of the arbitrariness of the sex hierarchy. As it turns out, some things are stigmatized for a reason, Gayle.
“Normal Gays”
Have you ever watched a gay couple, strolling along hand-in-hand, minding their own business, and quietly seethed because you knew their now-legally protected right to marry had stripped them of their revolutionary potential, leaving the movement with two less human shields in the fight for queer and trans liberation?
No?
That’s because you aren’t doing Queer Theory.
After Marx put forward his revolutionary theory of capital and societal control, something incredible happened: nothing. No one revolted, no one rose up against the capitalist forces that oppressed them, and no one died. This was a problem for Marx and his followers. How could they convince the poor, stupid Proletariat that they were oppressed and needed revolution to be free? And what was impeding them from seeing this for themselves? Marx and his contemporaries determined that the relative comfort and stability most jobs awarded in a capitalist society was not a positive development of the free market, but a hindrance to revolution. Stabilizing forces such as the family, the church, and the community were getting in the way. All of them needed to be abolished for the workers to revolt.
Queer Theory, once again taking after Marxism, views increasing acceptance of gays and lesbians as a hindrance rather than a step forward. Developments seen as a win by most advocates are actually a bane for revolutionaries as they strip marginalized groups of their revolutionary potential. LGBT people increasingly have access to the same stabilizing forces that kept the traditional Proletariat from revolting: the family through same-sex marriage and adoption, and church and community through increased social acceptance and participation. This is very bad for the Queer Theorists, who view social gains as merely temporary comforts, slapping a bandaid over a bullet hole, and feeding into the hands of the oppressor class. The only way to achieve true liberation is revolution. The elites want to keep the gays soothed, docile, and content so they don’t revolt. So queer activists must shake them awake, make them aware of how miserable they truly are, and convince them that they will only be free once every man, woman, and especially child is sufficiently queer.
This explains the ire so many transvestite activists feel toward Blaire White or Buck Angel. Two happy trans-identified individuals, successful and thriving, under cis-hetero-patriachy. How can they not see how oppressed they really are? They’ve lost their revolutionary potential, and are convincing countless others to abandon theirs, too.
In "Annoying Queer People are Not Why We’re Oppressed", author Devon Price, who self-describes as “some flavor of nonbinary trans man”, lays out a similar grievance.
“The problem is, none of these traits tell us anything about how safe a person actually is to be around. Only observing their patterns of behavior can do that. The seasoned and effortlessly cool gay person can be an abuser just as easily as the unfamiliar and awkward one; the person with the most social awareness, cultural cachet, and knowledge of on-trend talking points in the room can still be a self-centered, sexist, racist, elitist bore.”
Price argues that social markers like “cringey” and “cool” don’t actually determine how “safe" a person is to be around (whatever that means). Someone could identify as it/itself, a polyamorous asexual demiromantic, or maybe even a MAP, as long as they hold the correct moral and political beliefs optimal for achieving revolution. As a member of the oppressed “abnormal” class, Price has developed a thoroughly queer consciousness, so it is incumbent on her to raise the consciousnesses of her comrades, spark revolution, take charge of society, and abolish normalcy. That means identities like stargender and dollgender are valid, but cissexism and acephobia? Absolutely not. Price eschews traditional conceptions of what is appropriate sexually and socially in favor of inverted “queer” conceptions — blurring the lines between the charmed circle and the outer limits of Rubin’s sex hierarchy in a distinctly Queer Theory way. Essentially, every identity is valid, but not every viewpoint.
In an interview on activist and professional tweeter Matt Bernstein’s channel, Price echoes the talking points expressed in her essay, taking aim at “conservative LGBT people” like Blaire White and Buck Angel. (Buck is no conservative.) In the video, the two discuss not the greater visibility both have inarguably achieved for the trans-identified, but lament their derision of less “cool” LGBT people instead. By making fun of or calling out nonbinary gender goblins, AGPs, “MAPs”, and the like, both creators have built considerable platforms for themselves, proving that trans-identified people don’t in fact, have to struggle to survive. There is no trans genocide, no great conspiracy of oppression — and people like Blaire and Buck prove it. Which is exactly why they must be crushed under the heel of Queer Theory.
Wrapping up her essay, Price writes:
“The greatest violences of queerphobia happen to us quietly, every single day of our lives. Our trauma begins the moment our infant bodies are slid into onesies that read Ladies Man or Daddy’s Girl, and follows us into slumber parties, health classrooms, camping trips, locker rooms, and family weddings. Homophobia is written into our laws, taught in our standardized tests, printed on our government forms, passed around in nearly every watercooler conversation.”
Has she read Judith Butler? This precisely echoes the philosopher’s conceptions of gender as performance, sex as social construct, and gender roles as “assigned” and re-enforced through socialization. Only Price raises the stakes, asserting that “trauma” is induced by baby onesies emblazoned with cis-heteronormative phrases. She takes aim at nearly every facet and institution within society, from sex ed to marriage to our system of government, insinuating that each inflicts trauma not just on the “queer” child, but on every child. All the more reason to tear them down and start anew.
Pride Month Perversions
Pride month has become the playground of Queer Theorists. By taking advantage of empathy, riding the coattails of previous civil rights movements, and calling all who oppose them bigots, queer activists have been able to get away with increasingly perverse and boundary-crossing displays. The formula of Queer Theory can be seen playing out across the country as pride parades and LGBTQIA+ events kick off: We, the abnormal Proletariat, are oppressed by the normie Bourgeoisie and their conventions. Therefore, we must “queer” as many of them as we can by collapsing categories, transgressing social and sexual norms, and blurring the boundaries of what is acceptable and not, what is for public vs for private consumption, and what is for adults vs children.
By violating, subverting, and eroding these boundaries little by little, and with our media, our corporations, and our government invariably on their side, the Queerists will eventually succeed in abolishing them altogether. Let’s make sure that doesn’t happen — this pride month or ever.
Please enjoy this family friendly image gallery and thanks for reading!
Pride parade-goers chant “we’re coming for your children”:
A (busted) drag queen proclaims that your children will join him:
“Yes, kink belongs at pride, and I want my kids to see it”:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/06/29/pride-month-kink-consent/
Acvisit Lindsey Amer saying kids and kink can coexist at pride:
The writer mentioned Jeffrey Marsh. I saw him on Twitter. Anyone who doubts the essential sickness of “trans” can watch any of his videos and will be enlightened. His sickness is palpable and his creep factor is off the charts.
Judith Butler — philosopher, writer, menace - ahahahaha. Great line. And excellent article. Interesting how many “queer theorists” believe that indoctrinating children is necessary for their revolution. They want children at the forefront, as useful propaganda objects. Otherwise, they could care less about them or their wellbeing.