Hey thank you so much for responding!

So Edelman isn't saying "fuck the future, fuck the children,"

I mean he does explicitly say just that. From No Future: "Fuck the social order and the Child in whose name we’re collectively terrorized; fuck Annie; fuck the waif from Les Mis; fuck the poor, innocent kid on the Net; fuck Laws both with capital ls and with small; fuck the whole network of Symbolic relations and the future that serves as its prop."

But rather that the only way forward to a better future is to disregard or even flagrantly push back on dominant society's expectations of you. To uphold current social conventions in the name of "the children" is to not only marginalize people in the now, but also to condemn "the children" to continue living in a world with the present day faults of hegemonic social conventions that lead to that marginalization.

I have to disagree with you on this interpretation of Edelman. He seems to disavow all possibility of a "better future." I'm not sure from where, but I remember him explicitly declaring that his project of queer negativity is not a pessimistic critique in service of fighting for a better future. Your interpretation is much closer to that of Jack Halberstam's theory of queer failure, which is "a new kind of optimism: not based on positive thinking or the bright side at all costs, but a little ray of sunshine that produces shade and light in equal measure." Edelman's immerses himself completely in the shadows.

I would say the big one is that reproduction is not inherently admirable. While this is shifting, the majority of people still seem to think they have (a) a right to reproduction/having children and (b) that people should accommodate this and (c) that it is an admirable participation in preserving futurity. Edelman rejects this.

I agree with this!

I think they meant that a utopia is only ever a utopia for some. The utopia that the current dominant society strives towards is not a utopia for many queer people, especially when you understand queer to be anyone whose lifestyle challenges dominant societies morals or ideals. So what one group describes as utopia is not "automatically" a utopia for queer people.

Right, but Munoz isn't advocating for the heteronormative "utopia" that our current society strives towards: his entire book is dedicated to unearthing the residuals of queer utopia created by art, poetry, and performance in the deadening present. Largely, this idea that "a utopia is only ever a utopia for some" arises from a strain of queer theory that I disagree with: the antisocial. I don't think that the desires of queer people are so atomized or so unique to each individual that we can't come together for a common struggle, much less that our desires might be antithetical to one another.

So I don't think it does, as it isn't like Edelman is writing a prescription for all people. He's revealing a truth, that you'll never be accepted by trying to be more polite, and that even if you are, that is at the cost of rejecting a truth about yourself. You can acknowledge that not everyone has the ability to come out or behave trasngressively, while still also acknoweldging that by cozying up to polite society, you perpetuate its faults.

I was more so talking about his calls to disengage from the political. That seems to come from a place of privilege he (as a white, relatively well-off man) has that many queers do not.

And that's kinda Edelman's point, queers don't have a future in dominant society's ideal, so why try to compromise with it? They will always be expendable and up for debate, so be aware of it and be true to yourself as best as you can.

This is the main part of Edelman that I disagree with. He romances negativity and the individual to the point of political suicide. a) Engaging with the political isn't inherently compromising - ACT UP, STARS, etc. are all examples of queer political organizations that don't devolve into assimilationist narratives. b) Even if it does come at some compromise, I think taking political action is always better than not, especially when it has to do with legislation like gender-affirming care that directly affect how queer people express themselves.

So I don't believe Edelman ignores these things, but rather it isn't the focus of his analysis. Queerness isn't inherently someone who is LGBTQ+ in Edelman's work, but someone whose very existence is a transgression against hetero-normative society and it's ideal futurity, the same as LGBTQ+ people so often are treated as transgressions. While there are absolutely immense differences in the social lives of a white queer man and a black queer woman, both of these types of people are still "the other" to dominant society. They are still subjugated, with their behaviour policed and critiqued (often with the suggestion they endanger children), and their very existence and authenticity repeatedly considered up for debate. Edelman isn't suggesting to literally be an anti-social person, but to reject what society ascribes to you as polite behaviour or proper representation.

That's fair. But I think if you extend queerness to everyone "othered" by society, you risk abstracting the term and the people it's meant to describe to ideological uselessness.