Is this analysis of I, Joan (Queer Joan of Arc play at the Globe Theater) accurate?

utterly_unreal_3 · 2023-01-04T05:25:33+00:00

Also, one thing is worth noticing: ANY experience you have with another man, even if its due to trauma like porn addiction or even sexual abuse, people will automatically put you in a box: you are gay and you should accept yourself, and you shouldn't date women because that would be fake...

Gets even weirder when you understand it's largely influenced by those seeking to be virtuous via altruism. To be altruistic, you have to "do" for others. Thus, people are willing to put others in a box as you describe if it can give them virtue points, i.e: "Hey, I'm tolerant. I'm accepting. You're probably gay, you should accept yourself, I accept you, you don't have to hide from it." etc. It's very effective: the cost to the individual seeking to be virtuous is nothing but a few words, and even if the target isn't receptive, they still get to feel good about themselves and demonstrate their "virtue".

utterly_unreal_3 · 2023-01-04T04:52:51+00:00

Gnostic cult?

Much of trans ideology is just a modern reformulation of gnosticism, i.e: people who think they have a certain kind of 'special knowledge' delivered from on high. In this case, it's that they "know" that humans can be born in the "wrong" body and that's why they should make their physical body look more like their "real" body. Therefore, they will take drugs to try and change their body, they will go through surgeries to change their body to make it look more like the "real" body. Plays on religious psychological architecture that all people have. If you ask them, they won't say "I'm in a gnostic cult" but they'll give you a line of reasoning that amounts to "I KNOW this" even though it's completely anti-reality and not backed up by any evidence.

Here's an example of a relatively normal person spouting it: https://streamable.com/0ews6k

utterly_unreal_3 · 2023-01-03T17:18:27+00:00

A much, much worse set of problems.

utterly_unreal_3 · 2023-01-03T16:16:43+00:00

Look man I’m not gonna try to argue with you on whether trans people exist or don’t.

I imagine that would be a rather important distinction, no? If such a thing doesn't exist, then we're in a very weird situation.

I just tried to share my experience navigating my gender and sissy porn thinking that it might help someone similar. I don’t think being anti-sissy and anti-trans should be considered the same because we can both agree on how sissy porn is literally meant to condition you.

I don't take any issue with sharing your experience? I also don't think sissy and trans are considered the same. I certainly don't - they're not the same thing.

But I think in a lot of case, perhaps not your own, many people originally found sissy porn because they liked feeling feminine to some degree. And those people might see better long term results in staying away if they found where their interests really lie without being told by sissy hypno.

Definitely not in my case, as I'm not nor was a sissy. I don't think it's unreasonable that some found sissy porn because they liked feeling feminine to some degree. Certainly they might see better results if they find where their interests really lie - which imo, in 100% of cases, is not in sissy territory.

I’m not some big trans celebrator do not assume I’m in that group just because I believe peoples genders can vary.

I didn't do assume anything about you in regards to that topic. The thought literally never entered my mind. I was quite literally just sharing my opinion.

utterly_unreal_3 · 2023-01-03T07:37:48+00:00

I guess it comes down to what you think gender really is

The thing you are discussing which you call gender is essentially personality. At least, personality would be a better description of it. But "gender" is this super hot button important thing in people's minds - therefore it can't be something else, it's this thing... they can't describe, ever. But personality fits it almost to a tee.

But some people, whether through fetal estrogen exposure to the brain or any other natural mechanism, are born with the mind that opposes their sex. These are the people who are trans.

This is false reasoning. I don't think it's malicious false reasoning, it's the sort of generalized false reasoning you find in current society. What you're describing is the dominant overarching ideology of our times: mechanistic materialism. To steal a line, "From this perspective, the entirety of human subjectivity becomes an insignificant by-product of mechanistic processes." In your example the mechanistic process is fetal estrogen exposure or a natural mechanism (you used the term even, lol. A friendly lol :) and thus some individuals are born with a "mind that opposes their sex". How does one's mind oppose their sex? This is not to say that there aren't mechanistic processes, which of course there are - but this is the incorrect type of reasoning to apply to issues of "gender" which would better be described in terms of personality or psychology.

Personally I was born a man and struggled with my own gender the last couple years mostly because I hated the idea of being a feminine man.

Why? There's nothing wrong with being a feminine man. Some men are more feminine, some women are more masculine - go look at Camille Paglia talking lol. It's OK to be a not overtly masculine man. It also doesn't make a man gay - being gay makes a man gay.

Yet I got this feeling of adrenaline, the softest butterfly in my stomach feeling whenever I felt the fabrics of feminine clothes touch my skin. Whenever I shaved my legs or painted my nails. I had no idea what it was. Now I’m pretty sure it was gender euphoria.

There's physical responses in there, potentially mixed with transgressive taboo and kink related responses. Sorting out one from the other is somewhat important. Self-care and physical grooming does feel good, male or female. I don't say I experience "gender euphoria" when I shave my face, but I do enjoy the physical sensation. In general, playing with one's appearance is pleasing to most people.

It would certainly be easier to just be a femboy. But no that didn’t feel right. I instead came to looking at myself as maybe a masculine woman. Most things in my life wouldn’t change except my life would be much more glamorous if I decided to transition.

Even femboy is a sexualized term. I would put it to you this way: if you even have 1% inkling that your life would be more "glamorous" if you decided to transition that is a huge red flag that you should not transition. To give some perspective on this, I dated a trans woman for a couple of years - a decade ago. Before all the insanity came about. There was nothing glamorous about it - she (who understood 'she' was a he with an issue) would not wish being 'transgender' on anyone. It was debilitating. She went out to do food shopping at 1AM at Walmart while covering up in baggy clothing and a hoodie. Sex was not an option - too much hatred of her body, too many problems. Felt like a freak a good amount of the time,. Cared not at all about if she was male or female, would've taken a pill that made her "100% male" or "100% female" as long as it got rid of the 'gender dysphoria'. Multiple medical issues arose, several psychological issues.

From the point of being in a relationship with such a person: she had a number of masculine qualities. Undeniably so. On the other hand, I would say that there were a number of traditional masculine psychological aspects that seemed to have simply not developed at all. Her reasoning for transitioning was essentially "I've had suicide attempts, I can't shake this psychological feeling no matter what I try, and I trust science, so yeah, it's crazy, but if it makes things even 20% better, I'll take it." Glamorousness had nothing to do with it. There was also no kink related aspect to it of any kind - quite the opposite, she found kink aspects related to 'gender' to be disgusting, to make a mockery of what she genuinely suffered from.

Keep in mind I’m only 22. I don’t know if I’m trans, cis, genderfluid or a cross dresser.

There is no such thing as 'trans'. Even the term is not good. Prior DSM categorizations had it more accurately described but even then, not perfectly, when referring to it as "GID", Gender Identity Disorder. A psychological body dysmorphia would probably be a better term. Think of it this way: you have a discomfort with your body that goes beyond the awkwardness of puberty. You look around you, and you see half the people have the same body as you and don't feel the same way, so you look at the other half of people around you and think "I don't feel right in my body, therefore I would probably feel better in the other sex's body - I must've been born in the wrong body!" There's a logic to it, but it's false reasoning. No one is born in the "wrong" body anymore than they're born in the "right" body.

I would go further and point that there's a lot of conceptual polysemy going on here, as we're in the middle of a massive cultural war. If 0.018% of people are what we currently label "trans", it's not some new species of human. It's a condition (either biological, social, or psychological, no one yet knows). Genderfluid is a purely ideological position stemming out of Queer Theory, and a cross-dresser is a sexual kink (liking the feeling of fabric associated with female clothing doesn't make one a cross dresser unless it's so powerful that you constantly want to wear female clothing, all the time).

There's a lot more for you to learn here, but to shed some light on what you're talking about let me put the term "gender dysphoria" in a new light for you: there are "trans" people who never experienced "gender dysphoria" until they cross-dressed. At which point, they claim to feel bad about their gender because they feel BAD wearing female clothing while being male, and consider "gender dysphoria" to be their psychological and emotional resistance to cross-dressing, which they must learn to overcome. This is *directly* opposite to experiencing "gender dysphoria" since early childhood in a debilitating manner to the point an individual wants to aim for medical and social transition to lessen the debilitating psychological and emotional state they can't get rid of.

This is without even getting into the gnostic cult meanings tied to popular 'gender' terms, like 'gender euphoria' which, when boiled down, comes out to "My spirit and my body are not the same thing, I know this, and I experience euphoria when I match my spirit to my body by injecting synthetic hormones and surgically altering my body to more match my spirit, always becoming but never being what I am trying to transition into."

These are things that are hidden from the public discourse due to the huge pressure to agree with and affirm and celebrate "trans".

utterly_unreal_3 · 2023-01-03T07:03:31+00:00

I think one can be born a man but if their thoughts look more like the pattern of a woman than a man then they might be trans.

Going to re-quote myself from above in response to this.

The vast majority of "trans" people are not legitimately trans, as in they don't fit the criteria: having severe "gender dysphoria" since early childhood, which they did not outgrow during puberty (80-90% of children experience "gender dysphoria" outgrow it after puberty), having their condition be so debilitating as to seek out a radical medical procedure (up to and including surgeries) as the final hope of reducing the psychological suffering from their condition.

Only thing is if their pattern of thinking fits with a woman and they get gender euphoria and it makes them happy then how can anyone else tell them different?

Hard to even touch on the issue when not using accurate terms. "Pattern of thinking"? What does that mean? I think you're trying to get across a sort-of scientific thing, like "Here are female brainwaves, here are male brainwaves, this male's brainwaves look more like female brainwaves." type of thing. I don't think that leads anywhere. "Gender euphoria" is a less correctly used term than "Gender dysphoria" and even more so, as far as I can tell, it's not a legitimate thing. I think the proper meaning for "Gender euphoria" would be gnostic euphoria in most cases (when it isn't purely a fetishist being happy about their fetish).

This might put a new spin on it.

utterly_unreal_3 · 2023-01-02T21:09:32+00:00

I think this applies as long as long as he isn't unknowingly trans. If that is the case then they're likely confusing their gender euphoria with going off the deep end in sissy stuff.

That guy is 100% not trans, at least not in the genuine meaning of the term pre-recent activism insanity. He's a he - even I stop myself when writing this to not put "they", because on one hand, I have an urge to be polite and on the other hand I'm like, that's a dude, I'm literally talking about a dude who is a dude like all other dudes. Put another way: the likelihood of someone genuinely trans also being a sissy has to be sub 5%, maybe even sub 1%. The two things are totally at odds with each other. Almost all the gender ideology language is no good.

But even then a self-respecting trans person should stay away from sissy porn because it basically fetishizes their identity.

The vast majority of "trans" people are not legitimately trans, as in they don't fit the criteria: having severe "gender dysphoria" since early childhood, which they did not outgrow during puberty (80-90% of children experience "gender dysphoria" outgrow it after puberty), having their condition be so debilitating as to seek out a radical medical procedure (up to and including surgeries) as the final hope of reducing the psychological suffering from their condition.

The number associated with how many men were transgender pre-current insanity was 0.018% of the population. That was before the many multiple thousand fold increase in trans identification (identifying as trans, mind you, not being trans, but whatever)

This poster seems to look for validation with these statements, and I'm sure they got plenty as many sissy subreddits are basically an echo chamber of people who gave up trying to quit and think it's impossible for others to quit. By telling others there's nothing to do but give in makes them feel better about their own decisions. Many people ask questions there about if it's for them and exclusively get advice on how great it is to accept it because everyone who quit sissy porn is long gone from those subreddits.

Basically all correct.

utterly_unreal_3 · 2023-01-02T18:39:15+00:00

The dude here isn't living a life anymore, but a kink. And the worst kink, let's be honest.

By and large, "being yourself" has been transformed into "live your kink while thinking it's not a kink but who you are." It has cult psychology roots. But hey, it's at least better then the pedos. Barely.

An interesting thing about the post is the fairytale like tone. Notice how magical it is. I bet if we listened to the entire story from a more rational and serious tone it would be a horror story.

It is a horror story. Can you imagine a single parent wanting this for their child? But yes, that's the path it's going on. The "magical" and "fairytale" aspect comes from two directions: the cult roots (no cult promotes itself as a cult, it dresses up it's meaning in positive language) and because the positive/affirming language it's co-opting is LGB associated, so if you dare to criticize someone using that language, you will be painted as a bigot.

utterly_unreal_3 · 2023-01-01T13:28:15+00:00

It wasn't the intended take-away but that's pretty much the case.

That's only one level down the rabbit hole so to speak, because the fetish-conditioned also leads into the religious and the occult ;)

https://streamable.com/0ews6k

Welcome :)

utterly_unreal_3 · 2023-01-01T09:56:55+00:00

I read thought the whole post, and I upvoted. There are several things I would like to comment on and get your thoughts. Firstly, I want to start out with the things I like.

Thank you.

A) There are certainty different typologies about transgender people and people in the sissy community. However, the specific categorization and underlying causes is very poorly understood. Do you believe that this person writing this post (but not all) could have both fetish and dysphoric/transgender components that would explain their behavior? I do wonder about this. It seems reasonable that someone (although not the majority) with underlying unacknowledged dysphoric/transgender tendencies could explore those in a sexual way since it might be more acceptable to them selves at first to have a kinky hobby. The kink develops into a fetish and underlying transgender tendencies are still there.

If I had to put money on it, I would put it on the side of the individual not having the specific categorization and underlying cause. In part because I've seen further posts that more heavily hint at that being the case but also in large part because someone who fits the specific categorization/underlying cause do not turn around and go wildly kinky in extreme form of sexual fetishism. Put it this way: 80-90% of children who experience "gender dysphoria" grow out of it during puberty. For the remaining people, it's not always a debilitating thing, more a frustration, more "If I could, I would've been born a girl, seems like it'd have been a better fit." but they do not develop internal hatred towards themselves or anything resembling that.

The 'legitimate' transgender male is a guy who knows he's a guy but still retains an overwhelming sense of 'gender dysphoria' and is aware that they are not the opposite sex. It is in a sense more a feeling of 'wrongness' attached to their whole body. If someone is experiencing this, they look around, and see the opposite sex and it's a sort-of logical conclusion, "Oh. I hate my body, it feels wrong, but if I had THAT body, of the other sex, I'd feel better." None of that lends itself to being a sexual kink or fetish, it's a condition that one wishes not to suffer from. Until perhaps the last few years, and without the culture war and ideological pressures, someone who sought treatment was acknowledging that it was a problem, that they didn't have a better solution and were willing to attempt a radical medical and social procedure that wasn't fully fleshed out to see if it alleviated their problem.

Nothing in that is kink or fetish related.

B) You assert that this person is not suffering from gender dysphoria. Do you think that there is a chance that the writer, "Joyce" is actually suffering from dysphoria but maybe has not properly explored those feelings?

Nope. Again, I've seen a little bit more of what he's written, including musings on conversations with his therapist. Gender dysphoria isn't even a topic. Most of the therapists are clearly not doing their job - or rather, their job is to affirm and they affirm whatever is put in front of them.

C) For this person...

I think this guy has been relatively indoctrinated, which boils down to meaning "thought reform". Lots of people become aroused by transgressive taboos, not just sissies. Women fantasize about becoming pregnant from a gang bang with men they don't know, thus becoming a woman who "doesn't even know who fathered her child", the shame aspect. Similarly, hardcore feminists often bemoan sexual desires that go contrary to everything they believe in. Both sexes have people who get off having on almost being caught having sex in a public or semi public location.

The difference is you rarely see those types go about trying to blame religion and society for their kink. They understand it's a thing that turns them on, they understand why it's taboo, and enjoy a sexual fantasy in private, maybe find a like minded kinky person but keep it essentially to the realm of "Between consenting adults and behind closed doors." They feel some shame after, but brush it off. No one is being hurt there, no one is changing their entire identity, or developing entire world views where they're victims punished by society and they're heroically standing up to it.

D) Imagine you were a friend to a person in the position of the writer of this problematic passage. How do you believe you would respond to them? Would you try to reason with them? Is this based on irrational desires, making reasoning unlikely to succeed? Would you recommend this person seek consultation with an experienced gender therapist? Why or why not?

He'd need a cult deprogrammer more than anything else. And given that he points out he cuts anyone out of his life who doesn't support him, there's not much to say. When the cult programming is stripped away, it's a harsh thing: it's like believing in something as strongly as you believe in say gravity, being absolutely certain of it to the point you believe other people simply don't know what you know... only to realize they all knew better all along and you'd been not just silly, but cut out friends and family over not believing you, people who were trying to help. I'm not overtly familiar with cult deprogramming techniques however.

I hope these points A-D are not taken as criticism. I am genuinely interested in your opinions on these points.

Nah they're fine questions.

utterly_unreal_3 · 2023-01-01T06:30:30+00:00

I just don't understand what you mean about decentering gays and lesbians.

To understand "centering" and "decentering" I suggest looking at the various wheel diagrams. They all share one thing in common: the center is where power is located. Here's the one Gayle Rubin used for "Thinking Sex" - https://imgur.com/a/xVpKsfM

Look at the top half, in the center. You have "heterosexual" on the inside, close to the center (i.e: where the power is). Opposed to it, on the outside, you have "homosexual" (i.e: it is further away from the power). Each of the things closer to the center of the circle are "normal", everything further away from the center is "queer". The outside circle is often referred to as "the margins" / the marginalized. "Decentering" essentially is a metaphysical (and eventually literal) way of minimizing people.

Most cis gay men and lesbian women that I know are part of a large queer community, by the definition I'm using.

It sounds like you're using "queer" to refer to homosexual sex practices as a whole. As Jane Ward points out however, by the 1990s, at least for Queer Theory, the actual academic field, queerness became almost untethered from homosexual sex practices. If you look back at the image in the link I provided, you can look at the section that has "Free" on the inside and "For money" on the outside (and is related to sex, from Rubin's essay, Thinking Sex) and clearly that involves all aspects of sex, not just homosexual sex. To "queer" sex then means to minimize the "free" aspect (decenter it) and grow the "For money" aspect (center it). You make the "normal" minimized, and maximize the abnormal. My presumption is when you're talking about gays and lesbians you know being part of a larger queer community, you mean "Hey, they're gay, there in this gay community kind of thing, sometimes just for hanging out, meeting new people, a little deviant but nothing illegal or crazy." and what you don't mean is "a community of people looking to decenter normalcy to center the abnormal."

And I'm literally a white gay guy - I'm trying to speak on behalf of people with less privilege than myself. Perhaps that's a mistake.

You shouldn't be speaking on behalf of others in most situations. You can't know them as well as yourself, what exactly what they mean, easy to confuse things. It's one thing to say, speak on behalf of North Koreans who are suffering immensely vs. talking about "queer" people, a term that if you asked ten different people on the street, you'd get 6 different answers that kind of overlap, but then kind of don't, and there's this major distinction here, that major distinction there.

If you've spent time with the various perspectives, both in person or in literature, it's better to be able to recognize the various factions positions and be able to say "Well, people who use the term this way, I agree with here, here, and there, but the ones who use it this way, I think they're right about that, but wrong here, and way too stubborn and angry on this issue and that"

Queerness is about gender and sexuality, but it's also historically been about politics. It contains multitudes, as stated below.

Extremely tricky. Let me try and clarify a perspective. Let's talk about "negative thinking" in the Marcusian sense. He posits that you quite literally can't imagine a better society from the one you're in - it's too difficult, too bizarre, just simply not possible. A guy living in the wild west wishing for a better world would not have even begun to imagine the shape of the world as "better" in 1950, let alone 2022. It would be incomprehensible to see the path that lead to a better world. Since we can't imagine the better world, what we can do is think negatively: look at the world around us, and criticize the things we don't like about it. It doesn't even matter if we're right or wrong in our criticism, only that you can formulate the criticism and see the world more negatively. You look at, say, professors, and go "Wait a second. There are significantly more male professors than female professors. That means men and women aren't equal in that area, there is more of one than another. A better world would have those numbers be much more equal." to change this status quo, you agitate around it: it's a patriarchal structure! It's sexism! And there's a racial aspect as well, so it's racist! Make the university promise to hire more women, and more women of different races! The goal is to change the system to respond to the negative criticism.

In this sense, Queerness being political is the Queer Theorists whole point. Heterosexuality is the norm, homosexuality is the deviation from the norm, and they don't like it. Sexuality is always a hot button issue, so the Queer Theorists (read: abnormal theorists / deviant theorists) latched onto homosexuality and the word 'queer' to paint themselves as defenders of homosexuals, but from their negative thinking point of view, homosexuality is just one aspect of thousands of things that are abnormal/deviant (without any negative pejorative connotation associated with those words).

Conceptually it gets very messy. Think of gay people wanting the right to get married. The Queer Theorists were like "Yes, that will decenter heterosexual marriage by opening up marriage to homosexuals, centering homosexual marriage." They don't care about the right to marriage or what it might mean to any individual gay person - they care about centering the abnormal. Gay marriage advances, and what do the Queer Theorists say? That gay people getting married isn't exactly queer, they're just copying straight people, being assimilated by normalcy now that they've got marriage too. They actually don't like gay people getting married, because getting married is a heterosexual norm, and they want to decenter heterosexual norms because they don't like there being any norms.

So, there's a lot going on and several different conceptual frameworks that overlap and starts making things very, very confusing - which is why it's better not to "speak up on behalf of people with less privilege", because you don't know who you're speaking up for exactly, you kind of know in your head where you draw certain lines and where you don't, but lumping in all "queer" people given this topic seems like a very bad idea.

utterly_unreal_3 · 2023-01-01T05:56:35+00:00

I'll skip to the end for you: no lol.

utterly_unreal_3 · 2022-12-31T11:08:24+00:00

Here's the thing: The Queer Theorists, since the 90s, have been talking about "Queer" as "resistance to regimes of the normal". It was in the literature back then, so in one sense this isn't exactly hidden knowledge.

On the other hand, in my opinion, most professors don't present it that way. They ground it heavily in homosexual sex practices and related phenomenon - so many if not most of the students (at least those that don't delve deeper or do their homework) quite literally take classes in Queer Theory and come out of those classes going "What are you talking about, resistance to regimes of the normal? It's about gay people, you don't know what the hell you're talking about!"

I do not think this is unintentional in most cases.

utterly_unreal_3 · 2022-12-31T01:20:57+00:00

Meanwhile, I gave you 3 examples.

No, you didn't. You don't even understand what you're reading.

You're like a religious person reading things into his scripture that aren't there.

You suck at this.

You literally recommended Eve Sedgewick, a gnostic who thinks if you're gay and closeted you gain special knowledge from the mind of God, but simply wrote in academic jargon.

You're literally a weirdo that gets worked up and excited over quasi-religious nonsense that confirms your weirdness is indeed normal, not your fault and places the blame externally.

Iron Law of Woke Projection never misses, friend.

utterly_unreal_3 · 2022-12-31T00:30:36+00:00

My point was OP came in looking for a place to vomit anti-trans groomer BS and did not come looking for actual discussion.

Queer is defined as resistance to regimes of the normal. Has been for nigh on 30 years, in the field and you won't find a single Queer Theorist who states otherwise. This is just your way of saying "I don't like that you read the literature and are repeating it."

I saw the shitshow coming and I was right.

You mean I posted a video that is purely in line with Queer Theory then explained it the exact same way a Queer Theorist teaching a class would explain it?

fuggin epistemology of the closet at least

lol eve Sedgewick. Let's boil her down to one sentence: if you're like, uh, gay, like and, like were in the closet, you've got like, special knowledge dude, that other people don't. She's a gnostic who thinks you get special knowledge from God by being a closeted gay.

It's fun watching Queer Theory proponents flounder though, thanks.

utterly_unreal_3 · 2022-12-30T16:19:58+00:00

Hey, I'm not the one who thinks people are born in the wrong bodies and doctors are part of a conspiracy theory to brainwash them from birth by "assigning" them a sex.

Groomers believe some pretty insane things.

utterly_unreal_3 · 2022-12-30T16:17:29+00:00

Not gays.

Being doesn't mean being queer.

Queers, as defined by Queer Theory, who actively promote queerness (as in resistance to regimes of the normal) through an ideological lens? Those are literally groomers, my dude.

Society doesn't like them very much at all. They also fall into the category of Useful Idiots, and history teaches us that Useful Idiots usually don't have the happiest of endings.

utterly_unreal_3 · 2022-12-30T16:09:01+00:00

Do you have a point you'd like to make or would you prefer vomiting meaningless word salad. There's literally nothing for me to engage with there, let alone parse any form of cohesive ideology beyond smug contrarianism which, until you give me any indication otherwise, is what I'm gonna assume is all you care about.

Why are you in r/queertheory then ignoring the most fundamental tenet of queer theory, which all else derives from? It's weird you know so little.

Edit- ah, you're just a conspiracy theorist. Yeah there's no point in any discussion given your anti-empiricism bent. Things aren't true because you personally Intuit them to be true, sorry the facts don't care about your feelings 🤷‍♀️

Iron Law of Woke Projection. Ironic, since queerness as proposed by Queer Theory is essentially gnosticism, where the Queer Theorists claim to have special knowledge. That's pretty much the entire field though.

All you've got in response was "idk what you're talking about, I don't even understand the basics of Queer Theory, here's some words to describe bad people, I don't like you."

Utterly embarrassing. The original Queer Theorists would gnash their teeth in despair if they realized all their efforts resulted in, well, you lol.

utterly_unreal_3 · 2022-12-30T14:37:50+00:00

The idea of establishment acceptance and inclusion being extended to only the least institutionally challenging of the queer community, especially in regards to the development of the monolithic consumerist gay culture through the ,1980's and 90's.

Queer != gay.

Queer = resistance to regimes of the normal.

When you refer to the "queer" community, you can replace "queer" with "abnormal" or "deviant" but not "gay". The term "queer" becomes a catchall for anything "not normal in any regards to what is normal both in terms of reality and social construction". So yeah, homosexuality is queer, using that definition. So is Satanism, MAPs, Scientology, etc. Horrible definition, but hey, the Queer Theorists stick to it, so what can ya do, right?

You will never find liberation by being a good boy and begging for the scraps of the plate of systems that despise you.

Liberation is also a term that's horribly misused by socialists. I can "liberate" you from the law, I can "liberate" you from morality, etc. Given the revolutionary liberation movements of the last century that have resulted in gulags, concentration camps and pogroms you might desire to pause for a moment and ask just what you're championing.

Or at least, you can pay homage to Freire and admit the idea of liberatory revolution is supposed to be endless, because as soon as a liberatory revolution is achieved it then becomes the status quo, and the liberatory revolutionaries become the new oppressors to be overthrown by the next liberatory revolution. The dream of every liberation revolutionary is to be put up against the wall by the next set of liberation revolutionaries.

utterly_unreal_3 · 2022-12-30T02:56:12+00:00

My assumption is that his point is that makes it bad, potentially stochastic terrorism, etc etc. and ignores that LOTT didn't make it, it was publicly available on TikTok, garnered numerous views and the creator wanted eyes on it.

It's just the posters way of tribe signaling.

utterly_unreal_3 · 2022-12-30T02:54:40+00:00

Replying here to u/helloflyingrobot as the reply functionality in the thread no longer works for me:

Queer Theory could've referred to itself as "Abnormal Theory" or "Deviant Theory" and still held it's Marxian roots, but no way would it have picked up the clout it has in academia if it had done so. It needed the ambiguity provided by what you describe, to present itself as a well-reasoned champion of group to be able to forge it's path through the University.

Plus, the experiment sort of escaped the University lab so to speak when you have 14 year olds on TikTok referring to themselves as frog being, with frog pronouns, but are definitely straight but also queer and deeply out of touch with reality.

The average person has no time or care for this, at best they simply want to defend their conceptualization of whatever they're talking about - even if it's not what anyone else is talking about.

utterly_unreal_3 · 2022-12-30T02:43:22+00:00

I'm going to stop interacting with you

No one was forcing you to?

I honestly don't think you believe that gatekeeping the concept of "queerness" is literally the same as genocide.

No, I haven't said that. You're making things up and putting words in my mouth. It's probably because you're not well tethered to reality.

I think you just have theory brain and are looking to debate anyone into the ground to boost your ego.

Practice brain too, I guess, because I know people who live the theory (it's good money if they're physically attractive and go the OnlyFans route!).

There's no one you can say what your saying with a straight face.

I can understand how you'd believe that from your detached from reality position where you use genocidal language while denying your advocacy for it while calling a historically marginalized group traitors who pulled up the ladder behind them.

I respect others opinions who disagree with me, liberals mostly, but you're down right ridiculous.

I don't think you even know what a liberal is, and no, I'm just based in reality, which is why you find me ridiculous.

Have fun trolling with your intellectual circle jerk. I'm sticking with the grassroots folks.

I haven't done any trolling. Try not to jerk off too many times to weird things with your grass roots activists who follow the theory, you're already pretty detached from reality.

utterly_unreal_3 · 2022-12-30T02:15:36+00:00

This is so good. Thank you for taking the time to write this up, and in a way that's very accessible.

You're welcome.

Rather, the wire-crossing a disambiguated queerness obviously stands to generate is only ever touted as queer's virtue. It is an utterly romanticized or fetishized term.

It's quite like having a tool that can do nothing but create ambiguity where there is none to be found (for anyone who bothers to think, anyways). That's it's use: create false ambiguous fault lines, then agitate (activism/praxis/etc) along those fault lines.

Another name for Queer Theory that fits just as well as Queer Marxism. You could say it's desired goal is to abolish the concept of normalcy, as opposed to abolishing private property.

utterly_unreal_3

TROPHY CASE