"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

after the failure of the 1754 rebellion

Should be 1745.

"'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.

If the TRAs bleat on about how someone is who they say they are, and that it's not ok to impose identities in other people, how to they square the circle with retrofitting queerness to dead people who can't speak for themselves?

Same old hypocrisy in action.

So basically anyone who has ever defied any of the conventions around sex, overtly or covertly, is now "queer"?

That could be a hell of a lot of people , with very little common ground amongst them. What does a girl who defiantly pursues an academic career in the early 1900s really have in common with a "furry" in 2026?

Who isn't "queer" and who gets to decide that they aren't?

What are "the" conventions and who actually decides which they are? (Clue: reifying the word "society" isn't a useful answer.) For example, most of us who grew up when girls and women often had short hair wouldn't see that as defying a convention at all. But we also now hear of girls with short hair being asked if they identify as a boy. So is long hair for girls and women actually a convention or not?

I think thirdfiddle is right, queer is becoming associated with a lot of negative things. The ever expanding LGBTQ+ including MAPs. Furries. Male prisoners in womens prisons. Men in womens changing rooms. Sterilised children. Being screamed at by a blue haired activist.

so if great women from history gets seen as queer, then queer can be positive again. not going to happen, but I get the idea.

Back in those days though, women weren't allowed to do certain things but they may well have wanted to, so to me, the stereotypes weren't natural, rather they were imposed. We can see in countries where women gained free will, that they didn't all stick to these so called stereotypes. It's a bit like describing gerbils as non-burrowing if you keep them all in cages without the wherewithal to do so.

True. Queerwashing in action.

It looks like the word 'queer' is going back to its previous meaning, i.e. strange or odd or peculiar.
No sexual connotations at all - which will come as a big relief to people who remember a time when 'queer' was what people said as they beat you up.

So take it out of LGBTQ++, it doesn't belong there, it just means someone who is a bit different, a bit non-conventional - always wears a bright yellow beanie, wears rings on both thumbs but none on fingers, eats burgers with a knife and fork, doesn't own a smartphone, eats buttered Weetabix for breakfast, has a pet moth called Tiger - very queer!

I find it interesting that when this is pushed forward by the usual groups it is always framed as a positive and brave thing to do.

Yet there are people that also have lived outside of societal norms that seem to be ignored. Admittedly they are serial killers, psychopaths and murderers but all of them acted outside of societal norms and none of them are being claimed as queer.

Or maybe they are just the wrong type of queer.

nb, once again this shows the importance of having a solid definition of a word.

Gender ideology is as authoritarian as it is illogical.

In the report that you've based your cod science of rigid stereotypes on, you forgot to mention that the conclusion of the authors was this

Ultimately, the study concluded that pattern detection functions as a dual-edged cognitive foundation—it is equally responsible for both the rapid formation and the flexible reduction of social biases.

Is MNHQ under some sort of targetted pressure to stop feminist comments being posted on FWR?

I wrote a post last night that was if anything a very basic explanation of how women's oppression by men, meant that in an number of scenario's in the past (and today in places like Afghanistan) women would dress as men to get access to education and work, as that was (is) the only option.

This post has been deleted.

And if it was because I also said some TRAs who come on this forum try and deny the reality of women's sex based oppression, the OP should just ignore them.

That is not only a valid, lived experience, opinion, but exhibited daily.

So on a feminist forum, the host of the forum is saying feminist opinions aren't allowed?

Like I already said pattern recognition can change:

brownbootsandhats · Today 11:20
Indeed although there was a time when it didn’t feel as bad as, when I thought things might slowly be changing for the better

You'd be right. The civil rights & Feminist movements were able to shift laws which in turn shifted patterns. Equality enabled normalisation of different patterns. But not all patterns.

Newtons law of motion: an object in motion remains in motion at constant speed and in a straight line unless acted on by an unbalanced force.
Changing the pattern requires a force strong enough to change it.

*But not all patterns

I do not accept that this is universally accepted, I don't even agree that it is the majority view.
Wherever the pattern goes, so too does the majority view. Such is the law of pattern recognition. If it didn’t we wouldn't still be talking about sex stereotypes.

Like I already said pattern recognition can change

Actually you said the pattern turned into a rigid (that means fixed) stereotype

Wherever the pattern goes, so too does the majority view. Such is the law of pattern recognition. If it didn’t we wouldn't still be talking about sex stereotypes.

I've already answered you on this. Are you one of those people who repeats what they say again and again until you batter people into agreeing with you?

There is no such thing as a "law of pattern recognition". And it is not a given that the majority will follow any social pattern.

We are increasingly talking about sex stereotypes again because male trans people claim that they have become actual women and they can only make that claim with reference to sexual stereotypes.

Trans activists are dragging women back into sexual stereotypes that women themselves rejected (when they felt like doing so) years ago.

Changing the pattern requires a force strong enough to change it.

We were happily changing the pattern of social expectations of the female stereotype. The trans activist movement is dragging us back by our hair while we scream and shout and you do not listen.

Are you identifying as the White Queen from Alice in Wonderland and making sure you believe six impossible things before breakfast?

@IwantToRetire

I suspect it was telling posters to not reply to other posters that got you deleted. I've noticed similar posts being deleted over the last week or so

And if it was because I also said some TRAs who come on this forum try and deny the reality of women's sex based oppression, the OP should just ignore them.

Sorry - the above was to choppingwoodcarryingwater

I studied history and find this absolutely ridiculous. Sometimes we do apply terms to people in the past, when it fits, but not like this that is absolutely ludicrous. You can say that Edward II almost certainly had homosexual relationships, but there was no concept of gay as an identity. He had a loving (at the beginning) relationship with his wife and fathered children.

So sex stereotypes only exist now because of trans people otherwise they wouldn’t? Like in Afghanistan where trans people 'don't exist'? 🤥

In case you hadn't noticed the monumentally disgusting misogynistic discourse regarding the Cornell 7 rape, it has exactly zero relationship to trans people so it might be time to give the trans derangement syndrome a rest.

And no, rigid does not mean impossible to change.

There is no such thing as a "law of pattern recognition". And it is not a given that the majority will follow any social pattern.

The context is how social stereotypes.are created not general behaviour. Please do inform us all of the cognitive brain mechanism that creates stereotypes then. Science is all ears….

by whose socially constructed standards though, exactly?

She wasn't queer by her own socially constructed standards. Nor was she queer by the socially constructed standards of the time, because the term and meaning didn't exist. In fact, because gender theory is so new, for the majority of history she wouldn't have been considered 'queer' by any prevailing socially constructed standards, and, even now, she is not considered queer by socially constructed standards of many modern feminists (i.e. the majority of posters on these boards).

So, who DOES get to a) define these standards and b) decide who they are applicable to? And why do they get overriding authority?

So, who DOES get to a) define these standards and b) decide who they are applicable to? And why do they get overriding authority?

"Men are whatever men say they are and women are whatever men say they are".

Rule 8 from:
https://forwomen.scot/05/02/2025/rules-of-misogyny/

It's why they constantly seethe and get so furious with women on here who refuse to obey them 😁

by whose socially constructed standards though, exactly?

It's in the word 'socially'. As in the social standards of the time she would have been considered as 'unusual' to say the least.

Nor was she queer by the socially constructed standards of the time, because the term and meaning didn't exist

Being considered as 'unusual' because you are socially non conforming means the same thing being the point.

and, even now, she is not considered queer by socially constructed standards of many modern feminists (i.e. the majority of posters on these boards).

Gender critical feminism is a niche feminist thought that's one of many so its hardly the feminist bible. And in any case, they accept gender constructionism given their incessant banging on about sex stereotypes.

So, who DOES get to a) define these standards and b) decide who they are applicable to? And why do they get overriding authority?

Social categorisations do via pattern recognition. "The authority" so to speak is the human condition. See upthread for details.

So sex stereotypes only exist now because of trans people otherwise they wouldn’t? Like in Afghanistan where trans people 'don't exist'? 🤥

I did not write that or anything which could be reasonably considered as meaning that by anyone interested in a sensible debate.

I am not the one who issued pseudoscientific gumf about how stereotypes are created, including twice stating that there is a law of pattern recognition when no such thing exists.

I don't need to explain to you how stereotypes form, my own arguments are based on the fact they exist, and that the trans lobby are dragging women back to them, not how they form.

Gender critical feminism is a niche feminist thought

I think you must mix in some niche circles yourself if you believe that it is a niche feminist thought to believe that men cannot turn into women.

It is the majority viewpoint.

I love it when a post confirms my points. Thanks for backing me up pal!