Queer theory - origins of the madness.

In general it seems to be the idea that all change which superficially gives people more freedom must be 'progressive', without any thought of where the changes might lead us.

There is a tendency to assume that it won't, yes. People tend to say that suggesting it might is a slippery slope argument.

Freedom is something in itself that we tend to take for granted, isn't it? What really makes us free? Is more freedom always good?

Bit of a tangent but I hadn’t realised how this rubbish spreads its tentacles: www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/columnists/kids-with-adhd-are-being-denied-help-by-radical-postmodernists-dr-john-j-marshall-1-4961716

I also notice the term ‘lived experience’; I am sure I have seen this in the context of Scottish Government grants or perhaps a scheme to get input from those with ‘lived experience’ in the context that those with ‘lived experience’ have a more valid voice than anyone else but especially academic; anecdote over objective evidence.

I think we really need to ask ourselves why we implicitly tend to think this makes sense.

As far as sex is concerned, I think it's because the more liberal attitudes that we have now compared to the past are seen as positive by most people. That idea is extended to future changes, so that everything which is more 'liberated' or permissive is automatically seen as progressive.

In general it seems to be the idea that all change which superficially gives people more freedom must be 'progressive', without any thought of where the changes might lead us.

I baulked over the length of it too Wrath but JCJ is very good at explaining it all...have to admit I watched in 1hr blocks!

is by definition whatever is at odds with the normal, the legitimate, and the dominant, and aims to destabilize dominant ideas of identity, whether that identity is sexual, gendered, ethnic, national, and political and so forth’. This sounds liberating and progressive

I think we really need to ask ourselves why we implicitly tend to think this makes sense. Because even without any examples, it's pretty illogical. How has it become an unspoken part of our thought process? How do we root it out?

They were fab OldCrone and I read all 4 (think it was 4) with my jaw on the floor given the history of some of the dodgy characters involved. I have shared them around as I managed to digest them and I'm no intellectual, but I don't think my mum or some of my friends would take the time to read them and really 'get it'.

The subversive nature and deliberate redirection of queer theory, I don't know, it's pretty dark and I have a suspicious mind but most mums I speak to just think that broadly speaking it's not dangerous and the T belongs with the LGB.

These are bright women and not particularly woke, just not tuned into these conversations and in an ideal world I would have some pithy 'hook' to make them questions things and begin to think critically.

I'm actually thinking a point made in the video in the OP might be it: example - a girl who likes cars, is by feminist views a girl who likes cars and girls can like cars and be girls, QT would suggest she wasn't a girl at all.

I guess I'm looking for similar examples that induce that lightbulb moment.

terryleather
That clip is 3 hours long?

So much to understand
So little time.

Sigh

OhHolyJesus
Have you read ThatDoctorEM's essays that she linked to earlier in the thread? First one here:

medium.com/@doctorEm/the-trojan-unicorn-queer-theory-and-paedophilia-part-i-a0cf30ef7bfa

The first paragraph covers why going against societal norms isn't always a good thing.

When I see the term ‘queer feminist’ or ‘queer feminism’ I suspect, maybe hope, that those using these descriptors have not done the reading. As the old proverb states ‘the road to hell is lined with good intentions’. I do not believe that all these young woke people, charities, institutions and arts festivals are supportive of rape and paedophilia, of ‘queering’ and transgressing boundaries feminists have worked tirelessly to establish. Nevertheless, this is what queer theory aims at. As Sarah Beresford has analysed, ‘The term “Queer”… is by definition whatever is at odds with the normal, the legitimate, and the dominant, and aims to destabilize dominant ideas of identity, whether that identity is sexual, gendered, ethnic, national, and political and so forth’. This sounds liberating and progressive until we remember that ‘the normal, the legitimate, and the dominant’ include the idea that adults should not sexually abuse children. Unnervingly, the reframing of child sexual abuse and liberating of paedophilia from the margins of society is a dominant idea within queer theory.

That's my problem too Nonny, I happily do the ground work and wade through it and try to sum it up so to be able to explain to others.

(I explained what Woke meant to a friend in Singapore the other day who didn't know what it meant and if you haven't come across this stuff before it is pretty hard to grasp.)

I explained Queer Theory as questioning the establishment or questioning societal norms but then it sounds like a good thing and I got into a discussion about how questioning family structures in society in the past meant gay people came out people could now be openly gay (of course I agreed this was a good thing) and it went off on a tangent. I need to crystallise my argument or try a different phrase or approach.

I had been looking for some easy to understand explanations of queer theory as well. They seem notoriously difficult to find. A lot of the language used in queer theory is gobbledygook and intentionally designed to sound intellectual and profound but actually makes little sense when you try to understand it.

All of those interviews and links look great (and I will read and watch properly) but if I wanted to share a very basic definition or resource to cover the headlines of queer theory, so to speak, can anyone recommend something here?

I get that it's complex and so breaking it down isn't that easy, but for my mum and others who are trans-peaking all other the place I want to give them the background or give them something to explain where it all came from, where it's roots go and why it's got its claws into universities (my main bugbear atm). Very grateful for anything that can be shared onwards.

The Reality Report with Jane Claire Jones is brilliant - "sex, gender and the social/cultural/political influence of "superstar academic" Judith Butler's more extreme claims regarding these subjects."

It's 3 hrs long but well worth it.

What if history is littered with ideologies that, at the time of their creation no sensible person took seriously as they believed it would never gain traction, it was just laughable nonsense.

This is scary, but an important insight I think. Because once you realise this you have to look at all the ideas you take for granted as obviously true in a new way. Not to break them down like a deconstructionist, but to make sure they actually rest on firm foundations.

One of the reasons I think queer theory has taken hold is people in general don't want to admit that they don't understand it.

I suspect many don't realise they don't understand it. Quite a few seem to think it means letting go of bad ideas and embracing the good future ideas.

Isn't it odd how it is usually exploitative practices which are always queered to indulge and benefit men?

It makes me think of this brilliant article (Content Warning, porn and violence): medium.com/@jessicamasterson_6828/the-third-wave-dream-girl-begs-to-be-broken-9eb0bb717f29

Derrick Jensen is amazing in that clip.

That makes me happy Bezalle.

Side note, but my DP once found a copy of "Gender Trouble" in a public dustbin

For books taking on queer theory from a feminist perspective I would recommend:

1. S. Jeffreys, Unpacking Queer Politics
2. S. Brodribb, Nothing Matters

Hi, I have written a few things on queer theory which may be of interest or help. I can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear but I have given it a go at translating some of the waffle.

One of the reasons I think queer theory has taken hold is people in general don't want to admit that they don't understand it. Well, the problem is with queer theory not the person who doesn't understand it, it has been designed to be incomprehensible. It is incoherent jib jab in my opinion.

I like to use the slavery analogy to explain.
Radical feminism: we need bolt cutters, we need to break everyone's chains to free the slave.
Liberal feminism: If people choose to wear chains then they have agency and are thus empowered, therefore no slaves.
Queer theory: if you paint your chains and call them bracelets then you are free, we need people to wear chains so that some can paint them.

Here is my Sex and Social Constructionism outlining the various positions: medium.com/@doctorEm/sex-and-social-constructionism-99da4fb31ea5

Here is the first part in my series of four essays looking at Queer Theory and Paedophilia: medium.com/@doctorEm/the-trojan-unicorn-queer-theory-and-paedophilia-part-i-a0cf30ef7bfa

bite size chunks of queer theory and accompanying 'relaxed' attitudes to sex with children - with examples from all of the big players (and some of their PoMo inspirations)

I tried to read Gender Trouble. Gave up as I decided that life was too short. But as far as I could tell from what I read and others have said, Butler's argument is that the oppression of females depends on a shared agreement of what a female is. If we "queer" sex - ie mess the categories up - then that will throw a spanner in the works and females will be liberated, because nobody will know what a female even is anymore!

(I could be wrong, but this is what I think she is saying)

It sounds kinda plausible until you remember that biological sex is the reality of how we reproduce and nobody is ultimately going to forget what the sexes are.

Waffly crap. Makes no sense at all.

I want to read the Queer theorists comment on the intersectional complexities raised by Yaniv.

With all of the radio interviews, tribunal filings, SM activity, the theorists are not short of material to analyse.

I am despondent, thinking of the young.
It's hard enough for us adults to get our heads around.