Queer theory normalises sexual abuse.

I posted this on GCdebatesQT four months ago, but forgot to post it on my blog. Someone recently told me that the post says “deleted”, and it’s something I refer to often, so I’m transcribing it again here.

The word queer is a slur directed against homosexuals and gender-non-conforming people (who were perceived to be homosexual). It literally means “strange”, “weird”, “abnormal” or “deviant”, as opposed to “normal” heterosexual patriarchal gender-conformity.

Queer theory reclaims the slur, agreeing that homosexuality (or homosexual behaviour, since queer theory views sexuality as fluid and unstable) is indeed deviant and transgressive, but also positing that there is nothing wrong with sexual deviance: transgression of social norms around sexuality, sexual expression and desire should be celebrated in all cases and never condemned or even criticised. So those who reclaim the slur “queer” for themselves are saying, “yes, I am a sexual deviant and there is nothing wrong with that”.

This opposes the intention of (until now) mainstream gay and lesbian rights activism, which proposes that there is nothing sexually deviant about homosexuality, focusing on the discourse of human nature, romantic love, domesticity, marriage, family and other ways of bringing homosexuality into the social fold. They have been very successful in doing this in many Western countries (and at least one Asian country: Taiwan, very recently), with the legalisation of gay marriage.

According to queer theory, in these places, gay people are no longer queer (and are only included within the community due to their historical queerness) since homosexual relationships do not transgress the social norms any more. Queer theory opposes social norms around sexuality and celebrates social deviance instead. So if gay and lesbian people have sold out and joined the mainstream, who does queer theory celebrate now?

I propose that queer theory celebrates fetishists, kinksters and paraphiles instead. If you use terms like LGBTQIA+ for maximum inclusivity, who exactly are you including (whether intentionally or not) with the plus at the end of the acronym? Why is that plus necessary? How far does the ideal of inclusiveness go? Is there a line queer theorists will draw, and state firmly that we exclude these people? If so, doesn’t that plus suggest otherwise? Isn’t it an open door, letting everyone know “you are all welcome – the queerer the better”?

Great numbers of lesbians, gay men, transsexual people, and detransitioning people (and possibly intersex and asexual people) have left the LGBT+/queer umbrella citing the toleration of abuse, being excluded for not adhering to the ideals of queer theory (sometimes simply by defining their own sexuality), and generally feeling unwelcome and unsafe in the community. So who is left?

Paraphiles such as autogynephiles and paedophiles and kink communities like BDSM (with people who identify as “dom” or “sub”) and other fetishists have colonised the movement, redefining words to fit them, misusing sex positivity to forbid kink-shaming or criticism of their “identities”, and preying on young, vulnerable, traumatised, abused and mentally ill people. Right now, what is happening in the queer community is grooming – incremental violations of sexual boundaries – or normalising of sexual abuse on a grand scale.

Queer theory is inadequate to combat this, or unwilling. It contributes to the normalisation of abuse by emphasising, even worshipping, individual agency and failing to consider structural, material inequalities in power between classes of people. Its ideology refuses all types of normativity, so by its own rules, it cannot condemn paedophilia (in fact, it indulges in paedophilic rhetoric by “queering children’s sexualities”) or abuse of vulnerable people by those who fetishise rape and non-consent. It brands critics and whistleblowers as queerphobic bigots, even though those people (homosexuals) are the ones who the community was designed for in the first place.

I can say one thing for queer theory: it was originally conceptualised by people who wanted to uplift the powerless and transgress unjust restrictions on human sexuality. But now those same people must realise what is happening as a result of their rejection of materialism and true radicalism, the door they themselves opened, and stand up once again for the vulnerable people that their ideology and their actions have allowed to be harmed. Queer theorists must listen to the criticisms made by radical feminists and respond, rather than branding us evil bigots and kicking out their own critics for wrongthink.

ETA:

Evidence (I will keep updating this):

1. A transwoman argues that kink is essential to the identity of transwomen, and that “trans lesbians walking their wives on leashes at Pride” is “what a lot of trans families look like”: http://archive.is/H1fri
2. Queer/trans community members defend the practice of adults buying children sex toys, and critics are prudes who harm children: http://archive.is/j6MXK
3. r/antikink (a subreddit devoted to opposing the normalisation of kinks and fetishes)
4. Danger of Child Sexuality, a dialogue between Michel Foucault, Jean Danet and Guy Hocquenghem, relevant quotes arguing that children can consent to “erotic relations with adults”: https://www.reddit.com/r/GCdebatesQT/comments/brm7t8/queer_theory_normalises_sexual_abuse/eofrjge/ Foucault is the Godfather of Queer Theory; his History of Sexuality Vols 1 and 2 are enormously influential.
5. Arthur Chu on Twitter: “Children should be encouraged to see the accouterments of “fetishes” as a normal part of adult life, since they themselves will soon be adults and probably have their own “fetishes”: https://twitter.com/kliadank/status/1164575832725213184
6. This person argues that Q in the LGBTQ includes straight kinksters: https://twitter.com/sphericaltime/status/1164565038880870400, says that inclusion of fetishists is important because all groups in the acronym are connected by ‘non-normative sexual expression’: and calls themselves a representative of the wider LGBTQ community (and invites anyone who disagrees with this ideology to leave):
7. Self-identified MAP (“Minor Attracted Person”, i.e. paedophile) marched and spread “MAP positivity” at the Leeds Pride parade: https://twitter.com/finlayMAP/status/1152679597647040512 (while lesbians holding “lesbian = female homosexual” and “lesbian not queer” banners are shouted at by the entire crowd with slogans like “I’d rather be a pervert than a TERF”):
8. Paedophiles are attempting to gain acceptance and we need to stop them: https://medium.com/@thainparnell/paedophiles-are-attempting-to-gain-acceptance-and-we-need-to-stop-them-281940800eaf
9. The Trojan Unicorn: Queer Theory and Paedophilia: https://t.co/JGMVQIaV0h?amp=1
10. Queer Theory Paedophilia Jeopardy with Derrick Jensen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2u3hmZCsXoE
11. An academic article on the impact of queer theory on age of consent laws in the UK: https://www.mdpi.com/2075-471X/3/4/759/pdf
12. GNC Centric (a detransitioned woman and lesbian activist)’s testimony of being groomed as a child in online queer/trans communities: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBVoFfbMCN4&t=601s
13. The very informative Twitter account of Jon K. Uhler, an expert on sexual predators: https://twitter.com/JonKUhlerLPC
14. r/itsafetish (a subreddit devoted to documenting evidence of autogynephilia – and often (auto)paedophilia or paraphilic infantilism – in mainstream online transgender spaces)

In the comments, I reference Michel Foucault’s pro-paedophile activism and quote pro-paedophilia statements from his dialogue “The Dangers of Child Sexuality. I am only quoting the first comment below. The rest can be found at this link.

Queer theory is ultimately based on the ideas of Michel Foucault in the two volumes of his History of Sexuality. His ideas influenced Judith Butler, whose ideas I was influenced by for a long time (now I am starting to be extremely critical of them). I have also read Sara Ahmed and Jack Halberstam’s works, some of which are related to queer theory. These are just what I remember.

There is a lot I love about Foucault, but one thing I really don’t – he started a petition to abolish the age of consent in France and legalise sexual relations between adults and children, because of views like this:

<< It could be that the child, with his own sexuality, may have desired that adult, he may even have consented, he may even have made the first moves. We may even agree that it was he who seduced the adult. But we specialists with our psychological knowledge know perfectly well that even the seducing child runs a risk, of being damaged and traumatized. (…) Consequently, the child must be ‘protected from his own desires’, even when his desires turn him towards an adult.>>

How can this not be a part of queer theory, even if suppressed and unspoken? I have seen it argued in earnest by present-day queer theorists as well (no links available, sorry). Queer theorists need to at least discuss whether they agree with this and if not, how to reform queer theory from this pernicious bullshit.

I’m not accusing any individuals here; I’m criticising the theory and demanding that those who propagate take responsibility for the harms it has enabled.

Please follow the link to the post if you want to read more of the debate in the comments. As far as I know, the comments are still visible. Please let me know if the situation changes.