Queer theory - origins of the madness.

[TurboTeddy]

I've seen many references to queer theory on threads here and despite googling I never really felt I'd grasped it. If you've ever wondered how trans ideology managed to gain so much tranction then this interview explains. It's a great antidote if you are questioning your own sanity in response to the relentless gaslighting by politicians and the media. You are not mad, queer theory is.

The interview is about 50 minutes long.

My brain froze

Yes it's not one to listen to if you can't give it your full attention but I thought Susan Cox did a good job of explaining things.

I listened to this the other day. It's such nonsense, it's really gobsmacking it ever got traction. All this time I thought the trans movement was accidentally rendering words meaningless, but it turns out that's the actual aim.

placemarking - i started listening and want to finish (even though my brain is melting)

Oh dear, I am going to have to listen to this, and it's nearly bedtime!

Placemarking. If you change a name then all harm done disappears 🤔

Persevere when you have the time it's really worth it. The interviewer describes his brain as exploding and later as melting. I don't think the concepts are hard to understand so much as hard to believe anyone has taken it seriously. It explains how it's taken over in academia which means we're in big trouble.

I love this video, such a clear explanation of Queer theory and the wider implications.

I've been mulling over thoughts about the end game of trans ideology; after listening to this I've concluded that the trans issue is misdirection and simply an instrument to deprive words of meaning so that those seeking absolute power can do away with any human rights.

In the early parts of the interview Susan Cox describes how queer theory sought to challenge existing ways of thinking by describing them as unproductive, she used the phrase a few times, it struck me as interesting and significant.

What terrifies me is a thought that came to me recently.
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. From the devine right of kings to neoliberalism, yet they came to be commonly accepted as unquestionable reality for decades if not centuries.

This is also a very good intro - it's specifically about the work of Judith Butler... who is very much the ' go to' Prof for the Wonderful World of Transwoo

faculty.georgetown.edu/irvinem/theory/Nussbaum-Butler-Critique-NR-2-99.pdf

What I understand from this is that queer theory says that "woman" means someone who performs femininity, not an adult female human. There is no other way to define woman, because material reality doesn't exist.

The other main point is that any transgression of social norms is 'progressive' as it amounts to 'queering' society. This means that BDSM, bestiality and paedophilia are all 'progressive' and therefore a good thing according to queer theory. The only social harm from any of this is the marginalisation of these people who are labelled as 'deviant'.

So transgenderism and TWAW comes directly from queer theory, as do the pups at pride and the rubber clad wanker at the NSPCC (protected by his employers, because transgression = good, social norms = bad). Not to forget that 'No Outsiders', coming to a school near you soon, is all about 'queering the primary classroom'.

How has something so insane managed to get so far?

So transgenderism and TWAW comes directly from queer theory, as do the pups at pride and the rubber clad wanker at the NSPCC

Stonewall's "Acceptance without exception" slogan can take on a really quite creepy aspect when viewed in that light

Was looking at the LGBT etc policy of a Trade Union recently .. and to prevent having to expand the acronym every time something else gets added on they have voted that the LGBT + structures can include anyone who feels discriminated against becuse of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

Now I'm not at all suggesting it was done for this purpose - but it reads (technically anyway) as though any rubber fetishist or 'Minor Attracted Person' could pitch up to an LGBT group meeting and demand to be included....I really don't think that's what the members at the conference thought they were voting for when they passed this as policy.

....and after fetish porn video rubberman at the NSPCC I'm thinking this isn't quite as hypothetical anissue as it might be.

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

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.

Waffly crap. Makes no sense at all.

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.

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)

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

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

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

Brodribb is really a critique of postmodernism (what QT is built on) and is available here: www.feministes-radicales.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Somer-Brodribb-Nothing-Matters.-A-Feminist-Critique-of-Postmodernism.pdf

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

That makes me happy Bezalle.

Derrick Jensen is amazing in that clip.