LGBTQ…Z

[ChristinaXYZ]

Apparently the Z is for Zoology

"In this essay, I draw the discourses around bestiality/zoophilia into the realm of queer theory in order to point to a new form of animal advocacy, something that might be called, in shorthand, loving animals. My argument is quite simple: if all interdicts against bestiality depend on a firm notion of exactly what sex is (and they do), and if queer theory disrupts that firm foundation by arguing that sexuality is impossible to define beforehand and pervades many different kinds of relations (and it does), then viewing bestiality in the frame of queer theory can give us another way to conceptualize the limitations of human exceptionalism. By focusing on transformative connections between humans and animals, a new form of animal advocacy emerges through the revolutionary power of love."

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/hypatia/article/abs/lgbtqz/85A2B98B6708318C7C7DAAE40D15D4C9

When the backlash comes, ordinary gay men and lesbians are going to get caught up in it if there is not greater support for movements like the LGBA, that are without the TQ+. Having fought for their rights for so long this is so unfair on them, this forced teaming.

And actually ordinary transmen and transwomen who have been minding their own business for decades till the kids came along to 'woke' everyone up, they too are going to get caught up in a backlash unless they separate themsleves from the extremes of the TQ+ ideology.

@Echobelly I thought that the point is that the whole premise of queer theory - "sexuality is impossible to define beforehand and pervades many different kinds of relations" - hence the added + in effect opens the doors to acceptance of sexuality being about almost anything because it cannot be defined and if it cannot be defined it cannot be judged. How is that not a slippery slope?

Queer theory means that boundaries can be crossed and, as described in the paper, one can be not just human but part dog, and dog part human. The author wants to deploy "a discourse of sexuality that grants animals agency and fulfilment". It is, after all, better to be raped than killed and eaten for meat (according to the paper).

Her argument is that the Q overarches all the others.
How is queer theory and it's basic premise NOT a slippery slope?

‘Nutpicking’

Please direct your criticism towards the academic promoting bestiality and not at the people pointing at said academic in horror.

Thanks.

Just the next step to legally sexually abusing children.

The goal all along. And gay men and Lesbian women are being dragged down along side these sickos.

When will they stand up??

#GettheLout
#LGBAlliance

@Echobelly but this is not some outlying weirdo on tumblr or TikTok. This is an associate professor of women's studies, no less, at Duke University, a top 10 school in the USA, publishing in a journal of feminist philosophy.

It certainly is the goal of some. The question is how many?

I would also like to see some solid evidence that the LGBT+ community is "accepting" bestiality or paedophilia. From what I've seen it almost seems to be manufactured hysteria based on rather flimsy sources (the LGB-Alliance, a no-longer existing German tabloid article, a blog post by a woman's studies professor).

I doubt very much that the majority of the LGB and even the T are accepting of bestiality.

The Q tho? Attempts to normalise weird shit from the fringes is the Q’s raison d’etre.

Merida46 · Today 13:05

Thanks for raising a smile in an otherwise grim thread!

Lgb needs to stand up and say:

Attraction is sex based.

You have heterosexual people. Gay men. Lesbian women. Bisexual people. That's it.

Gender is bollocks. Transitioning isn't possible, and even you you surgically transition you are still your biological sex and gay/lesbian people have no interest in sex with you if your genitals are manufactured.

This would halt the blurring lines completly.

The link in the OP is to a paper in the peer reviewed journal Hypatia, which is apparently a 'Journal of Feminist Philosophy' and is published by Cambridge University Press. It's not a blog.

Here's the link again.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/hypatia/article/abs/lgbtqz/85A2B98B6708318C7C7DAAE40D15D4C9

And the abstract (again, this is also in the OP) as a reminder of what this professor of women's studies at Duke University published in this peer reviewed journal.

In this essay, I draw the discourses around bestiality/zoophilia into the realm of queer theory in order to point to a new form of animal advocacy, something that might be called, in shorthand, loving animals. My argument is quite simple: if all interdicts against bestiality depend on a firm notion of exactly what sex is (and they do), and if queer theory disrupts that firm foundation by arguing that sexuality is impossible to define beforehand and pervades many different kinds of relations (and it does), then viewing bestiality in the frame of queer theory can give us another way to conceptualize the limitations of human exceptionalism. By focusing on transformative connections between humans and animals, a new form of animal advocacy emerges through the revolutionary power of love.

Many of us have. The threads are here.

'Homophobic' (bafflingly) is one of the many names activists have called us.

I'm LGB myself and get hate all the time for it. I've been thrown out of so many lesbian /bi groups for challenging men being in them.

It's always me that get thrown out. Not the men. Even if they're being very obvious pervs.

The dustbin acronym needs to go. It's insulting to people who want to live perfectly decent lives. Queerness is just used to include any aspect of sex, irrespective of deviance. If it was intended to cover LGB it would not be necessary to have it at all. We exist fine without queerness, thanks

Does it though? My lesbian mate is very much from the queer theory school of gayness. A long history of pushing the limits of her looks, drugs, sex and everything else. Good well paid job in London.
I’m not sure as a fairly parochial heterosexual I can’t tell her she isn’t a lesbian because she enjoys shagging a trans woman every now and then. I mean I could try but the whole point is that her sexuality and sex is nothing like most peoples.

the whole point is that her sexuality and sex is nothing like most peoples.

Which is great, good for her, I hope she's having a great time.

It's the removing the word meaning biologically female and exclusively attracted to other biological females that's the problem. Pick any other word, just don't destroy the concept for other women so that they have to deal with being called 'sexual racists' for being gay.

It's rather like be trans. That's great, do whatever makes you happy. But only a total dick excludes women from women's spaces.

If she is shagging a man she's not a lesbian.

Christ 😂😂😂

That's the whole fucking problem.

She's not a fucking lesbian if she's fucking transwomen. She's a bisexual woman.

End. Of.

Do you know how long lesbian women fought for lesbianism to be recognised? They were told they were bisexual or crazy or just hadn't met the right man. They forced into conversation therapy and RAPED by doctors to cure them because they didn't want penises.

The didn't want penises.

If you wnat to be sexually involved with a penis you ARE NOT A LESBIAN.

And its offensive to every living lesbian and every lesbian that suffered trauma, humiliation and lost their freedom and lives to classify lesbianism as SAME SEX ATTRACTION.

I'm sure your friend, with the good paid job in London (wtf, relevance? 😂) likes to feel like she's pushing boundaries and being all so very cool. But unfortunately she's just a bog standard bi girl who has a fetish for men in women's clothes.

I really can't imagine which word got my post deleted. 2 of the 3, or maybe 4 things/words, it could possibly have been, are in use elsewhere on the thread, the other 2 i wouldn't have thought were a deleting offence? Of those 2 - there is a very similar point being made to 1 of them, so that just leaves the 4th and it's not the word that needs to be banned but the thing in question.
Anyway, suffice it to say, I'd said, I'm surprised that people are just catching on!

I didn't get a chance to read it.

I found a thread from 2021 discussing this paper. There are some interesting posts and links on there.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4320892-Queer-theory-and-bestiality-LGBTQ-Z?

There's a link on there to the full text of the paper. Scroll down to p257.

https://webs.wofford.edu/williamsnm/phil%20315/thinking%20queerly%20about%20sex.pdf

Most are not of course. Many disagree such the LGB Alliance. Many have no idea what is going on. But also many advocate for the LBGTQ+ queer theory side of things, sometimes without undertanding it or having thought it through, some because they really believe it and this is part of that.

The trouble is even if you are just being kind when advocating for LBTQ+ or assuming that separting the LGB from the rest makes you are Tory, then you are becoming more and more complicit with the extremes of this fast moving movement where postitions such as denying biology which would have been regarded as extreme 10-15 years ago have become mainstream along with more and more sexualised content for children. The influencers and decision makers such as the Mermaids trustee who had to be kicked off recently as being too extreme even for them are pushing at the barriers and safe-guards really really hard. Some of the safe guards have broken already (see what is being taught in schools).

Far from being the occasional outlying weirdo soem of these people have real power in the in the DFE for example, as head teachers, and as of this week as the leader of the UK's biggest teaching union. These may be weird but they are hardly peripheral figures.

And finally almost nobody really knows what the Q+ is for. If you campaign to promote something that vague then you cannot complain when all kinds of things that you did not intend creep in under the radar.

The underlying problem I see it is that there are a lot of foolish people who believe what someone up thread said - that people have a natural boundary against things like sex with animals or children.

That's simply not true. There seems to be some level or aversion to some extent that is fairly common, a sense of ick, certain types of incest are almost universally acknowledged and aren't all that common. But it's not that strong, especially with some people, and it can easily be over-ridden by environmental conditions. It's not that hard to find groups of people or even societies in some cases where what we would call perversion is normalized, common, and many regular nice people don't think it's problematic.

We have a line around these things because our culture has take a position that strengthens whatever natural aversions people have, so that most find them more taboo than they would otherwise, also would fear social stigmatization if they flouted them.

We wouldn't need the strength of cultural taboo if people just naturally wouldn't do those kinds of things.

Removing culturally mediated taboos will almost always result in many more people doing the thing that we don't want them to do. But it's been a weird thing on the left for a long time, this idea that giving up certain taboos won't affect basic behaviour patterns. It's weird given how constructionist they can be in other areas.