It used to be that people who described themselves as queer were simply gay, lesbian or bisexual. Some rejected the idea of reclaiming the slur on principle while others believed it was an effective way to change the meaning and thus the power of the word. Now fewer and fewer people are referring to themselves as gay, lesbian or even bi. Most just say they’re queer. Why is this the case, and whom does it serve?
‘Queer’ ultimately means whatever the person using the word means – and that’s the point. Referring to oneself as queer is a deliberate, often well-meaning attempt to signal one’s inclusivity. If you do say you’re gay or lesbian and insist that means you’re same-sex attracted, trans activists will call you a bigot (Don’t believe me? Scroll down to the bottom). Better not open that can of worms and make someone feel invalidated. One big happy rainbow family.
Queer is a word that describes sexual and gender identities other than straight and cisgender.
Planned Parenthood
Notice ultra-woke Planned Parenthood uses the word straight instead of heterosexual; this framing avoids associating biological sex with sexual orientation so it’s accommodating to gender identity.
The Unitarian Universalist Association, however, presents a much more expansive definition:
Although this definition is less widely known, many so-called queer people identify with the fourth definition. For them, it isn’t about sexual orientation or even gender identity necessarily, but the simple act of kicking against sexual norms. As a radical feminist, I believe some norms should be smashed, including gender, but not for the sake of it. That’s just nihilistic teenage rebellion. In Sexual Politics, Kate Millett demonstrated that rather than happening in a social vacuum, social shifts happen in the context of pre-existing power dynamics. In a patriarchy, the sexual revolution of the 1960s inevitably found a way to exploit women while claiming to liberate them. A modern iteration would be SlutWalks which, conveniently for straight and bi men, give them exactly what they want.
I don’t care if men wear makeup, carry purses, wear their hair long or don’t know how to change a tire. Gender critical people often say they don’t mind men in dresses. Yeah, well radical feminists do, and not because the cocks in frocks are performing femininity. Now, one might think feminists would appreciate men adopting the feminine gender role. The first problem arises when men leverage gender identity to claim that doing so makes them women. The second is what femininity means to them. Men no longer perform femininity while acknowledging they’re men like they once did in the goth, glam, and hair metal scenes. Thanks to porn, more men than ever are internalizing the fetishization of the female body, transposing themselves as the female object of desire. As sexual submission is indelibly linked to femininity, these men get a charge out of pretending they’re a member of the subordinate sex, frequently identifying as masochistic “sissies”. This is evidenced by the explosion of sissy hyno porn and forced feminization. These men are otherwise known as auto-gynephiles. Men like the Oakville high school teacher with gigantic prosthetic breasts and protruding nipples, a dude who calls himself Rosemary Times and exposes himself in public and women’s spaces (NSFW), darling of professional gender critical feminists Debbie Hayton, and, as radical feminists have suspected all along, Lia Thomas. The list of AGPs is endless.
Once you see these things, you can’t unsee them and it becomes clear why cross-dressing in this context is neither innocent nor a human right. Men don’t have to worry about trans-identified females creeping into their washrooms, locker rooms, and changerooms to perv on or film them, film themselves while committing lude acts, or assaulting them. Women simply don’t tend to have that compulsion and even if they did, they could easily be overpowered by men. Trans activists always accuse “TERFs” of being prejudiced against trans people when in fact the issue is the ever-present reality of male violence and, that threat aside, the right of both females and males to privacy.
Because queer theory fundamentally values transgression, there have always been people – men, largely – with “marginalized” sexual interests within LGBT culture, notably becoming more visible in the 1970s with drag, transvestism, and transsexualism. As such, the LGBT/queer trajectory has been and remains controlled by men, initially with gay men and now, increasingly, straight trans-identified men. It was largely gay male culture, which can be quite misogynistic, that embraced practices like BDSM, leather families, porn, prostitution, etc. Some lesbians did as well, but to a much lesser extent and it wasn’t a feature of the culture of women-identified-women. In other words, these practices aren’t inherent to homosexuality or bisexuality. What does someone who likes to flog or be flogged, choke or be choked, or have multiple partners have in common with any random homosexual?
After the AIDS crisis and the recognition of same-sex marriage, LGBT advocacy increasingly shifted from sexual orientation to sexual identity. This allowed the kink community to gain a stronger foothold. Bottom feeders like pedophiles saw the opportunity to stake their claim, convincing some prominent queer activists to begin referring to them as “minor attracted persons” or MAPs. Michel Foucault, a founder of queer theory, has been accused of raping children and was at the very least a child sexual abuse apologist. Since Foucault and John Money, numerous prominent queer/trans activists have tried to destigmatize pedophilia and normalize the idea of child sexuality, that children are sexual beings, including Peter Tatchell and Jacob Breslow. Alok Vaid-Menon, posting from his Blackmatter Facebook account, once referred to girls as kinky and deviant. A queer Pre-K teacher in California published a post on social media questioning childhood innocence.
Bearing all of this in mind, it doesn’t take an evangelical Christian to question the appropriateness of bringing children to drag shows, which until very recently have been understood even by liberals as adult entertainment. That male drag performers are grotesque sexist caricatures of femaleness should be considered damaging to children, especially girls. We now have several instances on camera of men performing as scantily-clad female strippers interacting with children, taking their money or encouraging them to stuff cash into their g-strings. Even when performers are conscious of what’s appropriate, somehow some parents aren’t. These videos are real. The political persuasion of those sharing them is irrelevant. Those who believe Drag Queen Story Hour is innocuous might be surprised by what some LGB people have to say about the messages children are really getting from these events, including stories that encourage them to believe they may be born in the wrong body, can become the opposite sex, and should change their gender to fit their personalities.
The question isn’t whether LGBT people are perverts or predators. The question is, why do organizations like the Pedophile Information Exchange and the people who associate or sympathize with them always glom onto queer politics? Because the queer community and queer advocacy are usually male-led and unfortunately, male sexuality can be very problematic. Combine that with a movement whose ethos is rainbows and love on the surface and transgressive sexuality de rigueur underneath, and ‘queer’ can either be something beautiful or something monstrous.
Lavender Blume 