Queer Theory, which nearly all of the gender and sexuality education in America is ultimately based upon, has nothing to do with “LGBT” education. This is evident to anyone who reads it, not only because its goals are diametrically opposed to LGBT acceptance and normalization in our society, but because they say so themselves very specifically over and over again. For one example, quoting Emily Drabinski, the openly politically Queer and Marxist current president of the American Library Association, from her 2013 paper “Queering the Catalog,” “Queer theory is distinct from lesbian and gay studies.” It could hardly be more blunt. She adds, “where lesbian and gay studies takes gender and sexual identities as its object of study, queer theory is interested in how those identities come discursively and socially into being and the kind of work they do in the world.” Her conclusion? “Lesbian and gay studies is concerned with what homosexuality is. Queer theory is concerned with what homosexuality does.”
What does Drabinski mean about “the kind of work they do in the world” when referring to “queer identities” and what they “do in the world”? She means activism. Nothing more and nothing less.
“Queer” is not an identity like gay, lesbian, or bisexual. It is by definition an explicitly and intentionally activist identity. That is, it is a political stance, not a fact of who someone is—in fact, not an identity at all. Again, this is by definition in Queer Theory. As David Halperin defined it in his 1995 book Saint Foucault: Towards a Gay Hagiography, a few pages away from a rousing discussion of the transformative potential of “anal fisting” as an ideal sex act,
Unlike gay identity, which, though deliberately proclaimed in an act of affirmation, is nonetheless rooted in the positive fact of homosexual object-choice, queer identity need not be grounded in any positive truth or in any stable reality. As the very word implies, “queer” does not name some natural kind or refer to some determinate object; it acquires its meaning from its oppositional relation to the norm. Queer is by definition whatever is at odds with the normal, the legitimate, the dominant. There is nothing in particular to which it necessarily refers. It is an identity without an essence.
Halperin takes great pains to distinguish homosexual being from political homosexual doing and insists that the latter is all of and exactly what Michel Foucault meant by the term “the homosexual,” which he often employed. As he explains, “[Queerness] can now be constituted not substantively but oppositionally, not by what it is but by where it is and how it operates. Those who knowingly occupy such a marginal location, who assume a de-essentialized identity that is purely positional in character, are properly speaking not gay but queer.” Drabinski obviously drew upon this view to form her own.
And what is it Queer Theory does? It disrupts. By definition. The definition of “Queer” in Queer Theory, as we see, is that which resists and challenges all norms and expectations of normalcy. So bringing into education materials based in Queer Theory, including so-called gender-critical perspectives that separate sex and gender as though they are completely different phenomena, is meant to make children activists in this disruptive, destabilizing mode of misunderstanding the world. That has no place in our educational institutions, especially when it’s happening outside of parental knowledge and approval.
Think I’m exaggerating? Here is what the educational paper “Drag Pedagogy,” arguing for Drag Queen Story Hours in schools, says about the matter: “Ultimately, the authors propose that ‘drag pedagogy’ provides a performative approach to queer pedagogy that is not simply about LGBT lives, but living queerly.” Those italics are in the original. The authors elaborate upon this notion of “living queerly” by stating,
It may be that DQSH is “family friendly,” in the sense that it is accessible and inviting to families with children, but it is less a sanitizing force than it is a preparatory introduction to alternate modes of kinship. Here, DQSH is “family friendly” in the sense of “family” as an old-school queer code to identify and connect with other queers on the street.
In my professional work, I have struggled to find a word more adequate than the officially disallowed word “grooming” to describe “a preparatory introduction to alternate modes of kinship” based around “living queerly.” These unacceptable projects, hidden behind a street-slang pun, are core objectives of Queer Theory in education, described unambiguously in their own words. “As an art form,” they tell us, “drag is all about bending and breaking the rules, and so its aims are totally different from a normative classroom.” Because, they insist, “In a broader context, fostering collective unruliness also helps children to understand that they can have a hand in changing their environment.” This, they also tell us, allows both drag performers and children to “recognize the arbitrariness of rules,” engage in “queer play,” and “feel [their] fantasies.”
Queer educators damn themselves with their own words, so I’ll quote one more to illustrate one more core, often-repeated goal of Queer Theory in education. As explained by Hannah Dyer, a Canadian researcher, in a paper titled “Queer Futurity and Childhood Innocence,” the innocence of childhood and the established understanding of child developmental psychology all needs to be Queered. She writes, “Here, I help to illustrate how some of the affective, libidinal, epistemological, and political insistences on childhood innocence can injure the child’s development and offer a new mode of analytical inquiry that insists upon embracing the child’s queer curiosity and patterns of growth.” What is that about? This paper is specifically about and contains a section heading on “Queering the child’s innocence,” which is perfectly in line with what the “drag pedagogy” people want. Queer Theory in education is therefore so destructive that it aims to rewrite the innocence of childhood as an evil that prevents children from developing “queer curiosity and patterns of growth.”
None of this is remotely appropriate, and the inherently activist position it takes and seeks to instill into our children (through damaging them) is in many respects the least of its problems. It is, at the least, deranged, though it is more properly cultic and evil. It is far past time to give these damaging materials and the people pushing them into our schools the benefit of the doubt. It is long past time to say “no more, not any of it; it all has to go.”
13 comments
Trans Inc. is Authoritarian Identarianism posing as sissyporn-stormtroopers in long blonde toupees. Transibitionist con artists are narcissistic look-at-me bullies who force other people to become the involuntary audience for their public self-performances. Pig in a wig autogynephile egomaniac Busty Lemieux is the Canadian male teacher who became infamous for self-pleasuring his ego in front of his captive teenage students by parading gigantic fake breasts during classes.
Of course in Justin Trudeau’s Woke-Sap Canadodoland – where any Leftist clown-maniac is better than an evil “fascist” Tory – Busty was championed by the “citizens” who chanted Canada’s new mandatory national Trans catechism: Die Cis Scum! Kill TERFs Dead! (Trans Inc. is the first identity “movement” to use death threats as a core “value”.) Busty was put on paid leave but he’s returning to teach in another Canadian city and the school has been forced to make plans similar to those imposed under Martial Law:
“The principal highlighted to parents preparations for what he said may be an onslaught of media and potential controversy over trans teacher [Busty]… Lemieux’s return to the classroom, which included special entry and exit plans. These will include ‘having students enter and exit the building using assigned doors at entry and dismissal’ and ‘locking exterior doors during school hours, only using the front main doors during school hours’ while ‘all students and visitors will be required to use an intercom system to enter and exit the building’ and asking parents ‘to email or call before coming to the school if they wish to visit to speak to an employee.” Toronto Sun
So an entire school — all students, teachers, parents, and anyone with school business — has to conform to Military Lockdown procedures because one narcissistic autogynephile demands that other people’s right to live normal lives must submit to his getting his freak on in public. A Leftist regime uses Trans Inc. as a tool of totalitarian population control while yet another smirking autogynephile apparatchik-lackey spits in people’s faces from the safety of Nanny State’s skirts. Despicable.
OMG! Only in Trans-Land.
“New school year, new look as teacher shelves Z-cup prosthetics” Toronto Sun Sept 6/23
Busty is a bust. “She” is back to being a “he”. “Kayla” returns to being Kerry. The wig is gone. The pink frilly is gone. The giant breasts are gone (despite “Busty” telling the New York Post last year that the breasts were real and a condition called “gigantomastia” caused by reaction to estrogen.)
When Busty first hit the news, insiders at his school reported that the male shop teacher Kerry was known for being openly anti-Woke and some speculated all along that this entire clown show was a con by Kerry to show how insane Woke had become — so crazy that school boards, media, police, the courts and politicians would not just allow but demand public and parents’ submission to this insanity in the name of “rights”.
Someone needs to make a documentary of this entire madness to show what a farce Trans Inc. and its hench-puppets are. Perhaps Matt Walsh could follow up his smash hit “What Is A Woman” with the true story of the Giant Breast Hoax, I Was A Tranny Impersonator for the FBI by Busty La Bust — and how the entire Woke elite not only fell for it but forced it down everyone’s throats under penalty of criminalization. May the sad sick Tale of Busty signal at last the beginning of the end of Woke tyranny.
“The definition of “Queer” in Queer Theory, as we see, is that which resists and challenges all norms and expectations of normalcy.”
This is less colloquially and more secularly known as “criminal.” In psychology this would be “psychopathic.”
When considering Queer Theory, I can’t help but be reminded of the late, great Groucho Marx (no relation) as Professor Wagstaff in “Horse Feathers”:
I don’t know what they have to say
It makes no difference anyway
Whatever it is, I’m against it
No matter what it is or who commenced it
I’m against it
Your proposition may be good
But let’s have one thing understood:
Whatever it is, I’m against it
And even when you’ve changed it or condensed it
I’m against it
I’m opposed to it
On general principles, I’m opposed to it
[STUDENTS]
He’s opposed to it
In fact, indeed, he’s opposed to it
[WAGSTAFF]
For months before my son was born
I used to yell from night till morn
“Whatever it is, I’m against it.”
And I’ve been yelling since I first commenced it
I’m against it
Lee Edelman “No Future: Queer Theory And The Death Drive” 2004
“…Edelman[‘s]… uncompromising new ethics of queer theory… takes aim at the figure of the child, whom he contends is the lynchpin of an entire rhetoric and politics of ‘reproductive futurity.’
Edelman argues that in the popular imaginary, the child – innocent, angelic, and imperiled – represents the possibility of the future and the queer is constructed as its radical negation, as the embodiment of morbidity, corruption, and stasis… Edelman urges queers to abandon accommodation and embrace their status as figures beyond the consensus of those always ‘fighting for the children.’” (stanford.edu)
“Edelman argues that the child, understood as innocence in need of protection, represents the possibility of the future against which the queer is positioned as the embodiment of a relentlessly narcissistic, antisocial, and future-negating drive. He boldly insists that the efficacy of queerness lies in its very willingness to embrace this refusal of the social and political order… Edelman urges queers to abandon the stance of accommodation and accede to their status as figures for the force of a negativity that he links with irony, jouissance*, and, ultimately, the death drive itself.” (dukeupress.edu)
*jouissance — Lacan: “an enjoyment that goes beyond the pleasure principle… a superabundant vitality… [jouissance] begins with a tickle and ends with blaze of petrol”. (lacanonline.com)
“Edelman convincingly argues that the figure of the child fulfils a rhetorical function as it is wielded in both conservative and liberal discourses. By constantly justifying political stance in the name of the present and future child, these discourses seem to imply that any political opposition would therefore be against the child. The unquestionable one-sided rhetorical use of this figure, this ‘fascism of the baby’s face’…is a historical formation… at the core of reprofuturism.
The future, by slowly becoming the centre of modern political discourse, has become less a temporal dimension than a value and has found its figurative embodiment in the child. However, while projecting its fantasy of a brighter world…ideological discourse also agitates the spectre of a darker future that will surely come if we don’t ward it off with the sacred power of the ballot.
Therefore, the future has to be protected, as does the child who, in the reprofuturism’s metanarrative, is the tiny and tenuous link sustaining and securing the transmission of our values into a brighter horizon.” (cambridge.org)
In “No Future”, Edelman created the concept of the Sinthomesexual (portmanteau of Lacan’s “sinthome” and “homosexual”): “One who has no personal interest in the future of humanity because of his/her own non-heterosexual, therefore non-reproductive sexual orientation…
Sinthomosexuals are LGBT people who reject reproductive futurism and embrace the death drive. (wordsense.eu)
These discourses constitute the child in opposition to the adult and perpetuate a cultural binary between adult and child. As pointed out above, this perspective has recently been critiqued, particularly because these traditional readings of childhood have been largelyfounded on fixed, adultcentric, white, Eurocentric, gendered, middle-class values.
These readings are challenged by a counter-discourse that argues that meanings of childhood have been constituted and defined by adults, for adults, who thus determine how a child should behave, what a child should know and how and when they should come to know it.
Thus, the defining boundary between adults and children, and the ultimate signifier of the child—childhood innocence—is a constructed social and moral concept.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277065309_In_the_Name_of_'Childhood_Innocence'_A_Discursive_Exploration_of_the_Moral_Panic_Associated_with_Childhood_and_Sexuality
_________________________________________________________________________
This article questions how we might continue to envision an open and inviting engagement between the terrains of childhood studies and queer theory. Matters of childhood innocence in particular are problematised throughout.
Throughout, I think alongside existing scholarship in this journal and elsewhere with regards to the necessity of problematising innocence as both moral rhetoric and as a mechanism of white supremacy, whilst also contributing to continuing debates regarding the linearity of child development.
In theory and in practice, there remains a fundamental negation of the fact that children are competent knowers of their own lives, identities, bodies, and minds, and the ‘sanctified image of a phantom child’ (Pugh, 2011: 162), always innocent and in danger of corruption, takes precedence over the lived experiences of real children, some of whom are already queer.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/09075682211026948
_________________________________________________________________________
cross-generational encounters(Gayle Rubin) intergenerational sexual encounters(Bruhm and Hurley)
_________________________________________________________________________
Vitally, one of the benefits of queer theory’s interest in childhood as a site of criticism has been the forging of an opening into dialogue concerning the child’s agentic relationship with sexuality.
James Kincaid (1998) and Bruhm and Hurley (2004) show how an easy collapse of all childhood sexuality into definitions of trauma forecloses careful consideration of the child’s agentic relationship to perverse and queer sexuality.
Their work is not interested in minimizing the corporeal or emotional impacts of sexual trauma experienced in childhood, but in understanding the possibility of children and youth to recruit amounts of bodily pleasure and to retroactively rework, in adulthood, how and why these experiences are formative.
In a provocation to the suffocating rhetoric of childhood innocence, Bruhm and Hurley cut through the seal of virtuosity surrounding the child’s sexuality by suggesting that an intergenerational sexual encounter may be queerly pedagogical for the queer child or youth who is “initiated into sex by older figures who were not necessarily exploitative or harsh”.
https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/68298/1/Dyer_Hannah_M_201411_PhD_thesis.pdf
These are some of the most ridiculous arguments I have ever seen voiced or written. Thank you for exposing them to us.
Groomer 101 Definitions:
“Child Grooming refers to actions or behaviors used to establish an emotional connection with a child under the age of consent, and sometimes the child’s family, to lower the child’s inhibitions with the objective of sexual abuse. Child grooming can occur in various settings, including online, in person, and through other means of communication. Children who are groomed may experience mental health issues, including anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress, and suicidal thoughts…
[‘Easy Meat’:] In 2011 in the UK, a number of high-profile child exploitation cases were described as ‘on-street grooming’ or ‘localized grooming’. [see ‘Easy Meat: Inside Britain’s Grooming Gang Scandal’ by Peter McLoughlin, 2016] Child grooming is also used as a starting place to recruit minor children into various illicit businesses such as child trafficking, child prostitution, cybersex trafficking, or the production of child pornography…
Chickenhawk[:] slang used in American and British gay culture to denote older males who prefer younger males for partners… called ‘chickens’, i.e., the prey of the chickenhawk. Other variations include chicken queen and chicken plucker… ‘Chickenhawk’ also indicates a man who uses underage boys for his sexual pleasure. The usage was publicized by members of the controversial group NAMBLA [North American Man Boy Love Association] in the 1994 documentary film ‘Chicken Hawk: Men Who Love Boys’…
Chronophilia: [A] number of sexual preferences across age groups subsumed under the technical term chronophilia… In research environments, specific terms are used for chronophilias… ephebophilia[:] the sexual preference for mid-to-late adolescents; hebephilia[:] the sexual preference for earlier pubescent individuals; and pedophilia[:] the primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children; nepiophilia aka infantophilia is the sexual attraction towards babies and toddlers (aged 0-4/5 years); minor-attracted person (MAP) [:] a pedophile (including nepiophiles), hebephile, or ephebophile… use [of the term MAP] is commonly interpreted as a sign that the speaker supports or is sympathetic to such people…
Virtuous Pedophiles[:] is an Internet-based mutual support group for pedophiles who acknowledge having a sexual interest in children but try not to act on their attraction. Members support each other in trying to lead normal lives without committing child sexual abuse…
‘A Long, Dark Shadow: Minor-Attracted People and Their Pursuit of Dignity’[:] a book by [female pretending to be a male] Allyn Walker, then Assistant Professor of Sociology and Criminal Justice at Old Dominion University… [Walker] emphasize[s] that pedophilia represents an uncontrollable sexual preference, implying that moral judgments of right or wrong are not applicable to the preference itself…
The Prostasia Foundation[:] a San Francisco-based child protection organization with some rather unconventional policy positions [such as ‘Kink Awareness’]. They support the sale of child-like sex dolls, advocate in support of the sexual depiction of minors in drawings and cartoons, and believe sex offense registries don’t protect children.”
(from radical far-left website “Wikipedia”)
completely valid argument, however there is very little support if any at all in the LGBTQIA+ community for MAP identifying individuals as most dont see it as a valid identity and condemn it greatly. i understand that most right wing extremeists dont understand much of the community of the LGBTQIA+ but that shouldn’t mean that they should be allowed to be missinformed. i recommend that for everyone who reads this should at least do a devils advocate and check the other side and see if the argument is even supported by them. in summary, the heavy majority LGBTQIA+ does not support MAP identitys and most don’t consider it under LGBTQIA+ because it is harmful toward a group of individuals.
Help us fight this problem in the courts:
https://burien-news.com/2023/04/21/parent-brings-civil-rights-lawsuit-against-highline-school-district/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=parent-brings-civil-rights-lawsuit-against-highline-school-district&ct=t(RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN)&mc_cid=87eb884476&mc_eid=6cc4fa5dde
Throughout their history, by means of their performative art, clowns have been encouraging their audiences comprising “children of all ages” to express their own personal imaginations, creativity, and iconoclastic ideas–in non-sexualized ways. Yes, there have been groomers among clowns, but that grooming is not an essential–much less a necessary–component of a clown’s art. It is a sex-neutral art that emphasizes humor, fun, and imagination. Conversely, a drag queen’s performance, while incorporating those entertaining elements, puts sexuality front and center, making it the star of the show. This emphasis on sexuality makes drag performances inappropriate for children, so it is reasonable for one to suspect performers of Drag Queen Story Hours of having sinister ulterior motives, including the grooming of children to be sex partners for adults.
commenter wrote: “Drag Queen Story Hours… sinister ulterior motives… including the grooming of children to be sex partners for adults.”
Yes. There are sinister sexual motives as well as blatant political, social and cultural motives behind the madness of Drag Queen Story Hour. Queer Drag Queens used Freirean theory to name and claim their “oppression” and to further proclaim their “right” to “educate” their “oppressors’” own children to stop the “fascism” of “far-right capitalist white power and privilege” by making their “oppressors’” children into the Drag Queens’ co-oppressed thus subverting their “oppressors’” successors, the very children of their “enemy”! (Children belong to the State not parents, said Rousseau, Marx, Stalin, Mao, Marcuse, etc.) Drag Queen Story Hour is a Leftist Freirean Frankenstein that manufactures “oppressed” Queers out of their non-Queer “oppressors’” very children! This is even more terrifying because it is so successful.
This is what grooming is all about-destroying the innocrence of children, traditional families and moral values in one fell swoop via brainwashing that inflitrates “public education”