"A Queer History of the United States for Young People" by Michael Bronski: people who don't fit into the molds society forces on them are queer

"'queer' which is an umbrella term euphemism for non conforming."

No it fucking isn't. People have been trying to get activists to say EXACTLY what they mean by "queer" for ages without any success and you come along and say that it's simply someone who's non-conforming, like they'd all missed it somehow?

Not a chance mate.

after the failure of the 1754 rebellion

Should be 1745.

Back then? She'd still be 'queer' which is an umbrella term euphemism for non conforming. Today no.

That's today. Not when Deborah Bottomley was alive. You are STILL imposing 21c terms on 18c behaviour. Stop it.

edited for meaning

Is that a long winded version of “Yes, we can change the goalposts at will, and retroactively”?

It seems to me that it doesn’t require a lot of thought to ask oneself “Was Lady Astor queer/queering parliament when she was walked into the House of Commons?” or “Those mathematicians at NASA, can we validly queer them retroactively and what if the living ones disagree?” It does seem that you find being a maverick or a pioneer incompatible with being a woman, and are rather closing down the options one has available to women.

Going a bit further it seems that you are unwilling to critically assess your own framework and to think about whether the results it spits out are valid or absolute nonsense.

The OP is saying she objects to Deborah Sampson being labelled with a description that did not exist in her time and does not explain what she did. I am with the OP for this is moral anachronism and presentism, both of which are improper to use of people in the past.

You could with just as much justification (ie none) describe Bonny Prince Charlie as queer because he escaped from Scotland dressed as a woman after the failure of the 1754 rebellion - and for the same reason as Deborah Bottomley, to escape detection.

I posted that text into AI and asked where it came from and it returned this

The text is a modern educational summary explaining the "predictive brain" theory of social bias. It synthesizes classic cognitive schema theories with modern empirical data—specifically the 2017 findings from NYU/Journal of Experimental Psychology showing that high-level pattern tracking is the catalyst that transforms real-world observation into rigid social stereotyping.

The specific link between "detecting statistical regularities" (pattern recognition) and the automatic generation of stereotypes was prominently established in a landmark 2017 study co-authored by researchers David Lick and Jonathan Freeman.

What the link is between the original post and queering dead women is has me stumped, though, probably because the person posting it is using so much pseudo scientific jargon their points are incomprehensible.

This does indeed seem to be an attempt to reverse the polarity.

Goodbye Gay rights.

Hello Queer rights for anyone who is 'odd'. Which includes everyone and means absolutely nothing.

Probably made it up. It has no scientific basis whatsoever. Gobledegook flatters it.

If you have a brain then why don't you start using it.

That isn't science that is ridiculously oversimplified pseudo-scientific gumf about how the brain functions.

I've done a search for it and I can't find it the source. Did you make it up yourself?

OP is not confused, she is pointing out that saying Deborah Sampson had what were generally unconventional interests for her time in that she was so passionate about the American revolution that she enlisted to fight has nothing to do with queer theory. To do that Sampson had to disguise herself as a man (probably as a young boy, but I don't know the story so cannot be sure about this). This is not queer in any sense of the word, but an entirely normal and known phenomenon ('James' Barrie, a doctor, and Mary Bonnie, a pirate, are other examples, though I don't think that Bonnie disguised herself). Both Barrie and Bonnie knew they were women but wanted to do things that women mostly did not do in their society. Their position in life allowed them to make this choice, unavailable to women in other strata. Other women also made unconventional choices, for example Sarah Ponsonby and Elinor Butler, who lived together privately as a couple, able to ignore scandal because of their social class and access to personal money. Hester Stanhope, who had been William Pitt's secretary and hostess, left Britain in 1810 to explore the Middle East and died in what is now Lebanon in 1839. These women cast aside the norms of their sex and class but they were not 'queer' in any sense meant by modern day writers (though Ponsonby and Butler were clearly same sex attracted).
Not sure what you mean by this: Categorising gender non conforming people as 'queer' isn't saying gendered categories should exist but that they do regardless of their stereotyping.
No-one has suggested that 'queer' means that gendered categories should exist or that they do regardless of their stereotyping. A stereotype exists because it is observably common, but it is still a social construct and many will not conform to it. E.g. sci-fi is often considered something teenage boys read - which accounts for some of the puerile narratives, I suppose - but women also enjoy, and write science fiction, some subverting the 'teenage boy' type narratives (UK le Guin) others subverting them to feminine (not feminist) narratives (McCaffrey). Some are able to think out of their time - le Guin somewhat except in 'Always Coming Home' which is horribly into the narrative of peaceful, earth-centred indigenous peoples - others don't - McCaffrey, who has a lamentable habit of having women do the sewing and the cooking even in stories where women are highly qualified scientists, dragonriders or high-born princesses (she might be right about princesses in some times, Catherine of Aragon made Henry VIII's shirts).
So what are you saying?
The OP is saying she objects to Deborah Sampson being labelled with a description that did not exist in her time and does not explain what she did. I am with the OP for this is moral anachronism and presentism, both of which are improper to use of people in the past.

I'm sorry this makes no sense

None of that poster makes any sense, it's random words thrown into cyberspace

I'm sorry this makes no sense. There is no "law of pattern recognition". What you even mean by "the pattern" is unclear. The majority does not always follow an emerging trend.

We're talking about sex stereotypes because the trans lobby keep dragging us back there because the only way that they can sustain their argument that men can become women is by reference to sex stereotypes.

They are dragging women backwards in time.

Reverse polarity!

Let me spell it out:

Anyone who has a brain cell independent of the society they live in is "queer"
So we are supposed to see "Queer" as a good thing to be

People who break societal rules that exist for keeping people safe are also labelled "queer". Public fetish, age inappropriate communications to children, no single sex spaces for women, and far worse things.

The suspicion obviously being that "queer" is trying to sneak the very bad things in under cover of the positives. A sort of forced-teaming between positive things like women standing up against oppression, completely run of the mill things like mildly stereotype non-conforming clothing, and things that are and should remain criminal. Whose interests is it in to lump all of that together? The criminals.

This widening of the concept of 'Queer' and 'LGBTQI++++" completely erases the meaning of language and makes it impossible to argue that any particular group needs specific protections or rights.

Isn't that the whole point? Lewis Carroll was ahead of his time with Humpty Dumpty. The ultimate aim, it seems, is to stop people talking about this altogether either because the words have no meaning at all or they don't have the meaning that has been adjudged correct

"Oh but Miss Wollenstonecraft, you are just 'queer'. The other women are perfectly happy to be uneducated. I'm not being prescriptive, just descriptive".

To be fair, I can imagine this conversation.

When it's applied to children you get to see the end point 😡

However, there is value in using it to describe her, because it helps us understand that throughout history there have been people who did not fit into the molds society tried to force them into. Deborah Sampson was one of those people, and in that sense, she was certainly queer.

This widening of the concept of 'Queer' and 'LGBTQI++++" completely erases the meaning of language and makes it impossible to argue that any particular group needs specific protections or rights.

Obviously this is why many of us are so concerned about 'woman' and 'sex' and 'homosexual' losing meaning in legislation.

So being queer is the human condition it'slike being nonbinary. Even more meaningless than I realised.

Well they certainly can't identify out of the horrors visited on them, a fact that GI enthusiasts are remarkably quiet about.

So according to this book Emmeline Pankhurst was queer?

Are women who want to go to university in Afghanistan also queer?