Oooooh, this is an interesting one about his intentions.
I do think online, it is easy to stay in a bubble convinced that everyone's intentions are bad.
For a couple of years I had a podcast called Queerious. I interviewed 'Queer' Artists about their work and what it was like growing up gay etc. It was quite enjoyable and affirming to hear embarrassing stories about falling in love with the straight girl in school (classic). But what I wasn't aware of at all, was that Queer Theory existed or was even a belief system.
I had heard that Queer was a slur that people used to use against gay blokes but it had been 'reclaimed'. At that time, I thought it was a powerful thing to encourage and would go to Queer groups for film nights and events. Purely to have a laugh and meet new people. Never with ill-intentions. Again, I named my podcast this because I thought it was a cool name.
Since having a massive mental health breakdown (or hitting woke breaking point as Lindsay once put it), I started to reassess things and realised that one of my core values had been ignored since being embedded in this way of thinking. My dad taught me that being gay is not a big deal. It's about wanting to have sex with the same sex and that's the only difference between me and someone else. He was right and I knew that in my heart, but for years would get more involved with being Queer, lots of naval gazing with anger and saying Capitalism a lot and spending hours and hours online and berating and shouting at people for believing differently.
I still feel ashamed about that.
A lot of people don't really have a clue about all of these theories and it would be incredibly helpful if they were rightly framed as theories and not facts. Especially when looked at in universities or social groups.
Mamdani seems to be a critical theory advocate in lots of his personal politics, so no doubt he knows what Queer means in that context, but I think the word Queer to most people now means gay or including all letters of the gay alphabet. Whether people like that or not.
And when people belong to LGB groups, it's going to be hard to have dialogue about it, because from the Queer side you are made aware that anyone questioning your views is a bigot or deliberately wants to bully people or exclude them. And I'm sure as you know being a Bisexual woman, part of the experience of being gay is not wanting other people to be picked on or left out.
Anyway, I wish I could afford to subscribe, but sadly I am a penniless pauper. But still your biggest fan and one day will curtsey you for helping me come out of this way of thinking. Seems good story telling, cognitive dissonance and rational kindness are ways of helping people come out of such ideologies.
Yes, I did try to stress at the beginning and the end that I think incomprehension about the way ‘queer’ is used in a political context is genuine and good faith. I don’t think it’s credible that Mamdani just doesn’t follow left-wing political discourse, but those who don’t directly campaign or debate can.
Are you asserting that queer is currently used in precisely ONE way and that this way is simply "correct" and anyone who uses it in any other way is simply "wrong"?
To my eyes the opposite seems obvious: Some people use "queer" to refer to a political identity, and other people use "queer" to mean simply "not straight and cis".
You can of course argue that the term ideally speaking should be used only in one of those two meanings, but I don't see how you arrive at claiming that this opinion is simply "correct".
No, I'm saying that in a political context, 'queer' refers to a particular form of theory and activism. Queer activism is one thing and LGB activism is another. I just wrote this piece breaking that down.
I say that some people do still use it as an insult and some as a broadly inclusive thing but when Andrew Sullivan says that the mayors use of it excludes gay men and lesbians he is correct. Then I explain what the two groups are arguing about.
I disagree here: I don’t think Mamdami’s use of “queer” was intended to exclude lesbians and gay men, and few of us feel excluded by it — only conservatives such as Andrew Sullivan would make this complaint.
“Gay” sounds just as politically biased as “queer” does to someone who prefers “sodomite”. Sullivan’s insistence on “LGB” reflects a political orientation no less than does Mamdami’s use of “queer”. I would suppose that the 12% of gay people who identify as politically conservative would share Sullivan’s opinion — but the majority of us switch between queer and LGBTQ interchangeably, and “queer theory” is simply not on the radar of most people who routinely use “queer” in preference to a clunky initialism. (I am referring of course to American English in everyday use, not the specialized language of the academy.)
It’s notable that Andrew Sullivan has shown animus for Mamdami from the start, and — like Sam Harris — he appears to see a suspicious, dark purpose behind the man’s every word and act. (In Harris’s case, it almost feels like a bad break-up, with every mention of the ex providing an occasion for discourse on mendacity and bad character.) I don’t think Sullivan’s reaction to Mamdami’s words should be considered representative of more than his own preferences, and his choice to interpret those words in this way.
Very well said. I want to agree with Helen and I really appreciate this article... but this is a niche argument in many ways. As a Gen Xer who was out and politically active since the early 90s, I absolutely know that many people, LGB(T) and straight alike, used "queer" as a catch-all phrase. And they continue to do so.
A minority of folks used it as a specifically sociopolitical term (e.g. "queering" classic cinema or how the old activist group Queer Nation deployed the word) and an even smaller minority of straight people used it to separate themselves from those they considered normie straights. And of course some older generations and many conservative LGB just entirely reject the word. But these are minority opinions. Queer Theory is not mainstream.
LGB activism is just anti-trans activism though. You look at those orgs and the ratio of things they do that are pro-gay vs anti-trans makes it EXTREMELY obvious.
Yes, the LGB movement focuses on not getting subsumed into the trans movement specifically, just like gay rights originally was about not having to be defined by heterosexuals. It doesn’t necessarily mean being anti-heterosexual or anti-trans, though. Just not being required to adhere to hetero norms or trans activism.
From what I see and from what these l g b without the t supporters, do, they really do try to say trans people are an issue, or at least say that there is an issue that isn't there.
And they can be straight up nasty. And i've seen this typified with all the people that i've talked to unfortunately. Or at least a great majority.That is a little bit disturbing.
And it just doesn't make any sense because we're all in that same boat. Trans rights are just as important as any other rights. I guess as important as gay rights. Just as important as black rights and human rights..
Some people are upset about compelled, speech and impingements, and the like that is entirely valid.I am worried about that. At that point, it isn't a right.It is a compelling. On the other hand it seems that this has created a backlash that is also nasty
In some cases yes but Helen is actually going through it like a Human Instead of you being an absolute bigot. Please and you're trying to get anything trying to grasp at straws so you can like justify your little hate boner.
This is the exchange right above what you quoted. That's what I have an issue with.
And the lawsuit link you posted?
The student asked to not be misgendered, as she didn't want to be called a man. The professor told her that he was going to keep calling her a man anyways because his religion required him to be a dick, and then sued when the university tried to apply an equal treatment policy. That's basically someone suing for the right to harass a trans woman and winning. Which is exactly what I've been talking about.
I think it’s eye opening how many “queers” are completely blown away to think someone who is lgb can be smart, not self loathing and more right wing, or even centrist. That’s what gets me convinced it’s more a cultural norm and not just sexuality. Plus all the couples that ID as queer and only date folks of the opposite sex
That's a bit of a contradiction and sadly there are very vocal individuals that LGB without the T and they're very nuts we can't ignore that. People think that this article is ignoring that. That's why they take issue. Yet it's not
As for Mamdani, I’m willing to cut him considerable slack. Even people who are highly political, canny, and discourse-aware don’t necessarily manifest it on all of their actions.
Mamdani may understand the philosophical discourse around the word “queer”, maybe even well enough to write about it coherently, but it’s more likely that he or his comms people weren’t thinking about it in the context of issuing a happy pride tweet.
As for the word itself, I have long rejected the label, and flinch at the dividing line being drawn between LGB and QT, when many trans people do not consider themselves to be queer in the political sense
Even though my politics remain fairly left leaning, my pre transition life was pretty gender conforming, as is my post transition life. I am not looking to deconstruct gender and sex categories, in perfectly content with the one I am in (now)
"my pre transition life was pretty gender conforming"
I can never get over the way people today speak and think in openly sexist ways and have no clue at all. WTF is gender conforming! You should be saying "stereotype conforming." Gender conformance only exists in the context of regressive sex stereotypes. A muscular woman who loves sports and fishing is not masculine or "non-conforming." Are Boomers the only people who aren't raging sexists?
i have no problem with people expressing themselves in any manner of their choosing.
Yet we can still recognize that there are certain modes of expression that are more typical of males, and others that are more typical of females, in any given sociocultural context
And this can be acknowledged independent or not of whether you believe it to be a "good thing" or a "bad thing"
No, trans people have a range of views too. Of the four friends I’ve had for many years, I have two liberals, one anarcho capitalist & one whose primary ideological commitment is religious.
I think that is the right way to go to GG, but I think it's become a little more complicated with language changing and people trying to do the right thing and not upset anybody.
To me, it seems to be a circular firing squad. Tolerance yes - kindness yes. I hate to embrace conspiracy theories, but I wonder if all this is some attempt to divide the left?
Good article, thankyou. In Australia it is now illegal for lesbians to organise public events for same-sex attracted women. This is because queer theory dogma has been enacted into laws and policies. Lesbians are now meant to be attracted to males who claim to be lesbians, who describe their penises as ‘female penises’. Genderists deny or downplay biological sex and say the subjective ‘gender identity’ should override all other considerations. We are now subject to authoritarian laws informed by queer theory. The legacy LGB organisations have been colonised by queer theory and gender ideology. These LGBTQWERTY organisations now produce glossaries that redefine us to fit the dogma. Whereas a few years ago we fought for ‘same sex’ marriage, the phrase ‘same sex’ has been sent to the scrap heap. We are now described as ‘same gender attracted’. I want nothing to do with ‘queer’. I want nothing to do with the ever expanding acronym. I ask that if people would like to refer to a lesbian they use the word ‘lesbian’. If referring to same-sex attracted people, say ‘LGB’. But please don’t force-team us in the LGBTQ+ acronym, and please don’t call us ‘queer’.
You do realize that "I'm not attracted to you" is an easy statement to make? No one is "meant" to be attracted to anyone; leave that sort of social pressure to the straights. But don't try to pull the conservative trick of saying "oh, I'm not allowed to exclude gays any more? You are forcing me, personally, to be homosexual!".
What a wonderful thing to wake up to in the US! I know it's hard for people outside the LGBTQ+ world to understand that an early goal of those who share a queer political identity was pursued within the "queer" coalition: replacing same-sex sexuality with gender identity and vilifying anyone who disapproved. Lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals who resist this erasure have been labeled "conservative" or worse. As a side note, I'm a late baby boomer, and many of us adopted the "queer" label as young adults in the eighties to advertise our refusal to be stigmatized. It would be some time before we realized that threats to our sexual identity were coming from inside our community as well as from outside.
Yes, I remember this still being somewhat of a thing in the 90s when I was 16-26 and part of the alternative, grungey scene that included a lot of bisexuals and gender benders but relatively few gay men and lesbians. It was much more in the spirit of irony. Bit like me owning myself to be a baby-eater as an atheist. There was not the element of actively trying to queer everything.
I can understand the frustration we've had decades of the idea of people being born this way.And now we seem to have something that has totally gone away from that... in saying that you are whatever you identify.
This ignores the struggle that trans people have to realize themselves that they just don 't wake up each day with a different identity.It 's inborn, it 's innate, and they 're not making it up.
And with substack, there is a lot of hatred and misgendering of trans people like they don't even acknowledge them as such
"People from within those groups who hold those political beliefs are presented as the authentic ‘voice of colour’ or ‘queer voice’ while those who hold different views are regarded as inauthentic and not truly a member of the group whose opinions should be considered."
This is essentially the basis of left wing racism - you must act as your 'race' determines.
Yeah have you noticed that if there is a trans school shooter the “queer” communities try not to claim them as their own. As if the queers don’t act badly. As if behaving outside of the social norm of a pure victim makes one not a part of the community
You must have a very different media diet than I do. I saw a few 'yeah, they were one of us, and it sucks' responses from the community followed by a tsunami of "OMG the VIOLENT TRANSES are a THREAT!" right wing takes.
"While trans people are also celebrated, the majority of those who also consider themselves to be gay men or lesbians would, by the standard definition of homosexuality, be heterosexual."
In other wirds, crossdressing heterosexuals are calling themselves gay in order to coerce actual gay people into heterosexual sex. The cotton ceiling. Nothing liberating about that.
“That is, they have failed to recognise that ‘queer’ refers to a set of political and philosophical beliefs about sex, gender and sexuality which holds that having categories for these is an oppressive social construct which should be disrupted as a form of progressive political activism.” - Spot fucking on🎯! I wrote a piece about “queer ideology” and how it has come to replace to lesbian, gay, bisexual - because such terms are limiting and oppressive and how it’s completely overtaken the LGB community and movement….I long for the day where being gay, lesbian or bisexual just means who you’re attracted to and not some political statement or “identity”. I don’t want gay conservative to be oxymoronic, or Catholic lesbian to be confusing or shocking.
You want bigotry to not be a thing. Same as the rest of us queers. It's the main stream that's the problem there, not the even smaller and more marginalized groups.
I mean sure but that’s not what my comment was saying. Mainstream queers or as I like to the call them spicy straights have linked sexuality, specifically, homosexuality, something normal and as interesting as someone’s hair colour to a certain aesthetic and political view and identity. This is my concern. Being LGB should just be what it’s always about which is being attracted to the same sex or both the same and opposite (in the case of bisexuals). Nothing more and nothing less.
Also, if you’re worried about bigotry, maybe stop calling yourself a slur.
I’m not arguing that he wasn’t. I’m saying he makes this dependent on a concept of them as queer which naturally excludes those who aren’t queer and don’t believe in queer. When there are people who explicitly describe themselves “gay not queer” and someone choose to explicitly celebrate queer people, those who are gay and not queer will be excluded. You can say “Well, he conceives of them as queer and includes them that way.” But this doesn’t include them.
I describe myself as a “secular humanist”. If someone else chooses to reframe my category as “non-Muslim” and define the significance of it purely in relation to that one ideology that I don’t believe in and consequently see me as part of a collective that includes Christians, Jews, Hindus etc., I think it would be reasonable to say that my secular humanism has been erased from this understanding of me. Yes, I am technically included because I am a non-Muslim but I am not recognised as I what I am. I’m recognised as not something else and the significance of this is understood through an ideological framework I don’t believe in.
I think you overestimate the extent to which people who consider “queer” to be a sexual preference even think about people who describe themselves as gay not queer. In my experience they consider them much as one might consider a white person who claims not to be white.
Some do, yes, because they believe that the only way to understand homosexuality is through queer concepts and everybody else is just wrong and so not worth considering but I think I covered that. It’s like when the CSJ antiracists forget black conservatives exists or consider them as people who’ve failed to accept they are black. Or when feminists refuse to acknowledge the existence of women who don’t subscribe to their particular feminist theory and dismiss their input on the grounds they’ve succumbed to internalised misogyny.
I hope it’s clear I completely support the right of people to advocate exclusively for those who consider themselves queer and not anybody else? In the same way I support the LGB movement in exclusively advocating for same sex attracted people? The point of this piece is to say that while there is no confusion about who LGB groups advocate for, there is over who queer groups do. Your observation that many don’t even acknowledge the existence of LGB people who don’t uphold the concept of queer, let alone consider it legitimate is key to that.
Yes but I am only disagreeing with your belief that Zohran Mamdani is likely to have had the definition of “queer” as a political category in mind when he made his message. I think it is vanishingly unlikely that this is the case, and I think the far more likely scenario is that he was using “queer” as shorthand for “gay, lesbian and bisexual”, like a great many people do. The fact that many, like Andrew Sullivan, reject the label of queer for very coherent reasons doesn’t mean that anyone who uses the word is, in their own mind, excluding them.
Yes, that would be a legitimate disagreement rather than a misunderstanding. I think it’s much more likely he does know that many LGB people don’t like being called queer and why, but thinks their objections are illegitimate because they don’t include trans people. It would be surprising if someone with his political positioning did not. I was careful to leave that possibility open and stress that other people confused by Andrew genuinely don’t know this. I was perhaps a little more uncharitable than is my custom here.
Anyway, we have, for the first time, I think disagreed about something!
Oh I’ve probably disagreed with you before - though on this I’m now wondering whether we even do disagree! There might be a wider question here about people’s tendency to accept other people’s self-definition in some areas but not in others - like for example someone who’d accept anyone’s self-identification as to gender but simultaneously scoff at anyone who didn’t like being called queer. Of which I think there are quite a few.
"It is, of course, possible that Mr. Mamdani misspoke and does not fully appreciate what queer means in the current discourse of political activism. People can use the term as a slur or misunderstand it as a broadly inclusive term as indicated by the people responding to Andrew. It seems unlikely that Mamdani would not understand the political implications, however, because he is a politician who has been active on many related issues."
I find it hard to believe that Mamdani, sitting down to draft such a statement, would deliberately exclude gays, lesbians, and bisexuals who were not queer. As you say, he is a politician, and recognizes that such exclusions are not good for business. If he had thought "queer" in this context excluded a large number LGB, he'd have added "LGB" to his message. That seems to me to be the most likely explanation. So he may be aware of the political-philosophical tradition of "queer" but that knowledge may not be specifically activated in this instance. The idea that a savvy politician would, as part of a pride announcement, deliberately exclude many LGB seems like an argument requiring considerable evidence.
Maybe Mamdani just didn't feel like looking up all the current letters for a quick tweet about Pride Month(!) At any it leads to an illuminating quote from Sullivan (oh, okay, so you're not "queer") and this essay from Helen parsing layered perspectives around current cultural attitudes.
The problem is that "LGB" is, in practice, just homosexuals and bisexuals who think they personally are fine but trans people are still freaks. Very right wing coded.
You're collapsing a significant distinction: the choices are not "trans people are freaks" or "I accept the radical political agenda of the queer movement".
You can believe that trans people truly suffer from gender dysphoria, actually "feel like" a different sex, without accepting the much more radical political ideas that we should have self-ID legally and in all circumstances.
And then there is the concern that many formerly gay or lesbian pubescent or prepubescent teens are being channeled into medicalized trans routes rather than allowing them to be gay without needing a "gender identity" that goes beyond the biological. That doesn't mean trans people are monsters or freaks.
There are, in practice, two sides. And LGB is, in practice, opposed to trans folk and aligned with Christian and conservative think tanks who want us gone.
So yes, I do see LGB groups as somewhere between "I got mine, jack, fuck you" and actual anti-trans bigots.
Because we aren't in the 'debate over self-ID' phase. We are in the 'if you even admit trans people exist you will lose all government funding' phase. That combined rule for 42 federal departments closes public commentary period and goes live in July.
No. That’s your own insecurity. LGB represents the gay community or rainbow community- people who are attracted to the same sex or both. It was always the LGB until the TQ+ added themselves on and the LGBs were forced teamed into accepting them. TQ+ are political identities, they’re irrelevant to LGB. They can have their own group without inserting themselves into another. Nothing right wing about that.
Brings sharp focus back to the deeper questions of how much of our identity do we claim to be nouns versus how much of it is adjectival. For example, are you a Democrat/Republican? Or do you simple registered to vote as a Democrat/Republican? How much of that is provisional and malleable, subject to review and change? Under what conditions, and at what cost (real or imagined)?
Which definitions of "Queer" could be considered more noun-like, and which are more political/adjectival?
I remember him writing: "The fact that Bush has to obfuscate his real goals of reducing spending with the smoke screen of 'compassionate conservatism' shows how uphill the struggle is.... A certain amount of B.S. is necessary for any vaguely successful retrenchment of government power in an insatiable entitlement state.... I just hope the smoke doesn't clear before the spenders get their hands on our wallets again..."
Thus when I see you put the words "Andrew Sullivan" and "good faith" together in the same sentence, the words that come to my mind are "easily confused".
And then I run into your: "‘queer’ refers to a set of political and philosophical beliefs about sex, gender and sexuality which holds that having categories for these is an oppressive social construct which should be disrupted as a form of progressive political activism..."
And I think: some people I run across do use 'queer' that way; others do not and use 'queer' to simply mean "not 100% heterosexual"; to refer to someone as 'queer' is to sometimes attribute a political identity to them, but more often, in my experience at least, is not.
Dollars will get you doughnuts that Mamdani means it in the latter way, that Sullivan knows that Mamdani does so, but thinks that by claiming Mamdani is celebrating those who demonize gay men and lesbians he can put one over on you.
And it worked, didn't it?
I do know that a willingness to presume good faith is one of the glories of liberalism. And that one should be proud that people can easily grift one in this way—that it is a lot better than the alternative.
But, please, may I ask you not to be so be gullible when Andrew Sullivan or others of his ilk try to pick your pocket again in this way? And may I comment to you a piece by my friend John Holbo, "Vavilovian Philosophical Mimicry" <https://crookedtimber.org/2019/12/03/vavilovian-philosophical-mimicry/>?
I do get a lot from your writings. I hope you and yours are well, or, rather, as well as one can be in a world in which while one may well be, personally, quite comfortable, we live in a world in which no man is an island.
Like “queer,” I think “non-binary” is a political identity and not a sexuality. In contrast with asexuality, non-binary strikes me as an adoption of a political identity that is transgressive.
Wow that was complicated. ID politics keeps getting crazier and crazier. I missed this transition. When I was young, the term "queer" was a slur against gay men.
What is even more confusing to me is the use of the term "Left" to describe these belief systems.
Good article. I think it is a bit of a stretch to assume Mandami has studied this stuff.
I feel like it's very hard to understand the gay liberal point of view here because my most formative experience with being queer was things which were plainly serious rule violations just got ignored because it was within the normal way society structures power.
I'd go to adults in my school, managers at my job and the consequences for plain and obvious violations of rules and norms was pretty indifferent. I experienced this around male femininity and autism. My wife experienced along promiscuity and consent lines. I don't really know how that would develop force absent some marriage of understanding of social power.
I feel like queer theory picks up at where liberalism lets off and would let equality under the law mean actual equality under the law. That like if someone lays their hands on me without my consent it's bad no matter how 'normal' it is for boys to fight.
To claim a woman is not conforming to their sex, you must first set expectations for a woman's appearance and behavior. This is the very definition of sexism. Fifty years ago we figured out that there's no such thing as a "tomboy." Today's left has resuscitated the stereotyping that women fought against decades ago. Gender ideology tells countless impressionable young people that they are not quite right, that they need to redefine themselves because they aren't proper females and males. It is not complicated. It is not good or kind. It is sexism.
Sexism is saying you HAVE to fit the stereotypes associated with your sex. That's like the opposite of 'queer' as a political theory. What makes you think that telling boys they aren't real men or telling women they are too butch is a left wing thing, and not right wing like it always seems to be in practice?
Where and when did they say we should tell men they aren’t real or telling women they’re too butch is a left wing thing? Nowhere.
You seem to have associated “tomboy” with “butch” which is your issue. Even the word butch is sexist, especially when not used by lesbians. A woman who doesn’t adhere to “feminine” stereotypes is not masculine, nor butch or a tomboy, she’s just a woman. Same goes for men who don’t adhere to “masculine” stereotypes- they aren’t gay, metrosexual or anything, they’re just men. There’s no correct way to be male or female.
Gender ideology (as the previous commenter already explained) tells men and women who don’t adhere to gender stereotypes that they MUST be the opposite sex. They don’t want to allow men and women to just be, whether it means adhering or not. Which reveals to me that queer theory and gender ideology (same thing) are pretty regressive and sexist.
Oooooh, this is an interesting one about his intentions.
I do think online, it is easy to stay in a bubble convinced that everyone's intentions are bad.
For a couple of years I had a podcast called Queerious. I interviewed 'Queer' Artists about their work and what it was like growing up gay etc. It was quite enjoyable and affirming to hear embarrassing stories about falling in love with the straight girl in school (classic). But what I wasn't aware of at all, was that Queer Theory existed or was even a belief system.
I had heard that Queer was a slur that people used to use against gay blokes but it had been 'reclaimed'. At that time, I thought it was a powerful thing to encourage and would go to Queer groups for film nights and events. Purely to have a laugh and meet new people. Never with ill-intentions. Again, I named my podcast this because I thought it was a cool name.
Since having a massive mental health breakdown (or hitting woke breaking point as Lindsay once put it), I started to reassess things and realised that one of my core values had been ignored since being embedded in this way of thinking. My dad taught me that being gay is not a big deal. It's about wanting to have sex with the same sex and that's the only difference between me and someone else. He was right and I knew that in my heart, but for years would get more involved with being Queer, lots of naval gazing with anger and saying Capitalism a lot and spending hours and hours online and berating and shouting at people for believing differently.
I still feel ashamed about that.
A lot of people don't really have a clue about all of these theories and it would be incredibly helpful if they were rightly framed as theories and not facts. Especially when looked at in universities or social groups.
Mamdani seems to be a critical theory advocate in lots of his personal politics, so no doubt he knows what Queer means in that context, but I think the word Queer to most people now means gay or including all letters of the gay alphabet. Whether people like that or not.
And when people belong to LGB groups, it's going to be hard to have dialogue about it, because from the Queer side you are made aware that anyone questioning your views is a bigot or deliberately wants to bully people or exclude them. And I'm sure as you know being a Bisexual woman, part of the experience of being gay is not wanting other people to be picked on or left out.
Anyway, I wish I could afford to subscribe, but sadly I am a penniless pauper. But still your biggest fan and one day will curtsey you for helping me come out of this way of thinking. Seems good story telling, cognitive dissonance and rational kindness are ways of helping people come out of such ideologies.
Have a great week! :)
Yes, I did try to stress at the beginning and the end that I think incomprehension about the way ‘queer’ is used in a political context is genuine and good faith. I don’t think it’s credible that Mamdani just doesn’t follow left-wing political discourse, but those who don’t directly campaign or debate can.
Are you asserting that queer is currently used in precisely ONE way and that this way is simply "correct" and anyone who uses it in any other way is simply "wrong"?
To my eyes the opposite seems obvious: Some people use "queer" to refer to a political identity, and other people use "queer" to mean simply "not straight and cis".
You can of course argue that the term ideally speaking should be used only in one of those two meanings, but I don't see how you arrive at claiming that this opinion is simply "correct".
No, I'm saying that in a political context, 'queer' refers to a particular form of theory and activism. Queer activism is one thing and LGB activism is another. I just wrote this piece breaking that down.
https://www.hpluckrose.com/p/queer-is-a-political-identity-not
I say that some people do still use it as an insult and some as a broadly inclusive thing but when Andrew Sullivan says that the mayors use of it excludes gay men and lesbians he is correct. Then I explain what the two groups are arguing about.
I disagree here: I don’t think Mamdami’s use of “queer” was intended to exclude lesbians and gay men, and few of us feel excluded by it — only conservatives such as Andrew Sullivan would make this complaint.
“Gay” sounds just as politically biased as “queer” does to someone who prefers “sodomite”. Sullivan’s insistence on “LGB” reflects a political orientation no less than does Mamdami’s use of “queer”. I would suppose that the 12% of gay people who identify as politically conservative would share Sullivan’s opinion — but the majority of us switch between queer and LGBTQ interchangeably, and “queer theory” is simply not on the radar of most people who routinely use “queer” in preference to a clunky initialism. (I am referring of course to American English in everyday use, not the specialized language of the academy.)
It’s notable that Andrew Sullivan has shown animus for Mamdami from the start, and — like Sam Harris — he appears to see a suspicious, dark purpose behind the man’s every word and act. (In Harris’s case, it almost feels like a bad break-up, with every mention of the ex providing an occasion for discourse on mendacity and bad character.) I don’t think Sullivan’s reaction to Mamdami’s words should be considered representative of more than his own preferences, and his choice to interpret those words in this way.
Very well said. I want to agree with Helen and I really appreciate this article... but this is a niche argument in many ways. As a Gen Xer who was out and politically active since the early 90s, I absolutely know that many people, LGB(T) and straight alike, used "queer" as a catch-all phrase. And they continue to do so.
A minority of folks used it as a specifically sociopolitical term (e.g. "queering" classic cinema or how the old activist group Queer Nation deployed the word) and an even smaller minority of straight people used it to separate themselves from those they considered normie straights. And of course some older generations and many conservative LGB just entirely reject the word. But these are minority opinions. Queer Theory is not mainstream.
LGB activism is just anti-trans activism though. You look at those orgs and the ratio of things they do that are pro-gay vs anti-trans makes it EXTREMELY obvious.
Yes, the LGB movement focuses on not getting subsumed into the trans movement specifically, just like gay rights originally was about not having to be defined by heterosexuals. It doesn’t necessarily mean being anti-heterosexual or anti-trans, though. Just not being required to adhere to hetero norms or trans activism.
From what I see and from what these l g b without the t supporters, do, they really do try to say trans people are an issue, or at least say that there is an issue that isn't there.
And they can be straight up nasty. And i've seen this typified with all the people that i've talked to unfortunately. Or at least a great majority.That is a little bit disturbing.
And it just doesn't make any sense because we're all in that same boat. Trans rights are just as important as any other rights. I guess as important as gay rights. Just as important as black rights and human rights..
Some people are upset about compelled, speech and impingements, and the like that is entirely valid.I am worried about that. At that point, it isn't a right.It is a compelling. On the other hand it seems that this has created a backlash that is also nasty
It doesn't necessarily mean that, no. It does in practice though.
In some cases yes but Helen is actually going through it like a Human Instead of you being an absolute bigot. Please and you're trying to get anything trying to grasp at straws so you can like justify your little hate boner.
https://substack.com/@helenpluckrose/note/c-277010470?r=x5l33
https://freespeechproject.georgetown.edu/tracker-entries/ohio-university-sanctions-professor-for-misgendering-student-triggering-lawsuit/
"Someone saying things can be harassment"
"No, that's just nuts"
This is the exchange right above what you quoted. That's what I have an issue with.
And the lawsuit link you posted?
The student asked to not be misgendered, as she didn't want to be called a man. The professor told her that he was going to keep calling her a man anyways because his religion required him to be a dick, and then sued when the university tried to apply an equal treatment policy. That's basically someone suing for the right to harass a trans woman and winning. Which is exactly what I've been talking about.
I think it’s eye opening how many “queers” are completely blown away to think someone who is lgb can be smart, not self loathing and more right wing, or even centrist. That’s what gets me convinced it’s more a cultural norm and not just sexuality. Plus all the couples that ID as queer and only date folks of the opposite sex
That's a bit of a contradiction and sadly there are very vocal individuals that LGB without the T and they're very nuts we can't ignore that. People think that this article is ignoring that. That's why they take issue. Yet it's not
Where did she say any of that?
I didn't mean you were in a bubble by the way. You are without bubble!
Interesting read as always
As for Mamdani, I’m willing to cut him considerable slack. Even people who are highly political, canny, and discourse-aware don’t necessarily manifest it on all of their actions.
Mamdani may understand the philosophical discourse around the word “queer”, maybe even well enough to write about it coherently, but it’s more likely that he or his comms people weren’t thinking about it in the context of issuing a happy pride tweet.
As for the word itself, I have long rejected the label, and flinch at the dividing line being drawn between LGB and QT, when many trans people do not consider themselves to be queer in the political sense
Even though my politics remain fairly left leaning, my pre transition life was pretty gender conforming, as is my post transition life. I am not looking to deconstruct gender and sex categories, in perfectly content with the one I am in (now)
"my pre transition life was pretty gender conforming"
I can never get over the way people today speak and think in openly sexist ways and have no clue at all. WTF is gender conforming! You should be saying "stereotype conforming." Gender conformance only exists in the context of regressive sex stereotypes. A muscular woman who loves sports and fishing is not masculine or "non-conforming." Are Boomers the only people who aren't raging sexists?
Yes. And your point is?
If this is somehow a rhetorical question, I don't get it. I thought I was being rather blunt. Sexism is still a bad thing in my book.
im just not sure what your beef is?
i have no problem with people expressing themselves in any manner of their choosing.
Yet we can still recognize that there are certain modes of expression that are more typical of males, and others that are more typical of females, in any given sociocultural context
And this can be acknowledged independent or not of whether you believe it to be a "good thing" or a "bad thing"
Gender isn't sex though.
I am suggesting the Q and the T are not obliged to go together either.
Some LGBs are queer, some are not
Some Ts are queer, some aren’t
No, trans people have a range of views too. Of the four friends I’ve had for many years, I have two liberals, one anarcho capitalist & one whose primary ideological commitment is religious.
It depends on your circles. There are plenty of gays and lesbians who consider themselves queer, and plenty of trans people who resist that labelling.
I always thought the goal was to establish tolerance and social acceptance of those with same sex attraction - I think that is the right way to go.
I'm sure there are some old timers around who would object to the term "Queer".
But of course, I could be wrong. I often am.
I think that is the right way to go to GG, but I think it's become a little more complicated with language changing and people trying to do the right thing and not upset anybody.
Today's progressive is often tomorrow's bigot.
To me, it seems to be a circular firing squad. Tolerance yes - kindness yes. I hate to embrace conspiracy theories, but I wonder if all this is some attempt to divide the left?
Good article, thankyou. In Australia it is now illegal for lesbians to organise public events for same-sex attracted women. This is because queer theory dogma has been enacted into laws and policies. Lesbians are now meant to be attracted to males who claim to be lesbians, who describe their penises as ‘female penises’. Genderists deny or downplay biological sex and say the subjective ‘gender identity’ should override all other considerations. We are now subject to authoritarian laws informed by queer theory. The legacy LGB organisations have been colonised by queer theory and gender ideology. These LGBTQWERTY organisations now produce glossaries that redefine us to fit the dogma. Whereas a few years ago we fought for ‘same sex’ marriage, the phrase ‘same sex’ has been sent to the scrap heap. We are now described as ‘same gender attracted’. I want nothing to do with ‘queer’. I want nothing to do with the ever expanding acronym. I ask that if people would like to refer to a lesbian they use the word ‘lesbian’. If referring to same-sex attracted people, say ‘LGB’. But please don’t force-team us in the LGBTQ+ acronym, and please don’t call us ‘queer’.
You do realize that "I'm not attracted to you" is an easy statement to make? No one is "meant" to be attracted to anyone; leave that sort of social pressure to the straights. But don't try to pull the conservative trick of saying "oh, I'm not allowed to exclude gays any more? You are forcing me, personally, to be homosexual!".
We aren't. We just exist in the spaces too.
What a wonderful thing to wake up to in the US! I know it's hard for people outside the LGBTQ+ world to understand that an early goal of those who share a queer political identity was pursued within the "queer" coalition: replacing same-sex sexuality with gender identity and vilifying anyone who disapproved. Lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals who resist this erasure have been labeled "conservative" or worse. As a side note, I'm a late baby boomer, and many of us adopted the "queer" label as young adults in the eighties to advertise our refusal to be stigmatized. It would be some time before we realized that threats to our sexual identity were coming from inside our community as well as from outside.
Yes, I remember this still being somewhat of a thing in the 90s when I was 16-26 and part of the alternative, grungey scene that included a lot of bisexuals and gender benders but relatively few gay men and lesbians. It was much more in the spirit of irony. Bit like me owning myself to be a baby-eater as an atheist. There was not the element of actively trying to queer everything.
Baby eater never occurred to me--I think I lost an opportunity.
Is that your experience? Interesting. Hmm.
I can understand the frustration we've had decades of the idea of people being born this way.And now we seem to have something that has totally gone away from that... in saying that you are whatever you identify.
This ignores the struggle that trans people have to realize themselves that they just don 't wake up each day with a different identity.It 's inborn, it 's innate, and they 're not making it up.
And with substack, there is a lot of hatred and misgendering of trans people like they don't even acknowledge them as such
"People from within those groups who hold those political beliefs are presented as the authentic ‘voice of colour’ or ‘queer voice’ while those who hold different views are regarded as inauthentic and not truly a member of the group whose opinions should be considered."
This is essentially the basis of left wing racism - you must act as your 'race' determines.
Yeah have you noticed that if there is a trans school shooter the “queer” communities try not to claim them as their own. As if the queers don’t act badly. As if behaving outside of the social norm of a pure victim makes one not a part of the community
You must have a very different media diet than I do. I saw a few 'yeah, they were one of us, and it sucks' responses from the community followed by a tsunami of "OMG the VIOLENT TRANSES are a THREAT!" right wing takes.
That’s the algorithm for you eh?
Shows you what makes you hate the other side best? Yeah.
I mostly saw an awkward silence from the left. There has been events that I’m confused none of my friends spoke up on
Which events people are even aware of is largely determined by if they are in the conservative bubble or not.
I'm curious if you went looking for lefty opinions and responses, or just waited to see if any showed up in your feed.
"While trans people are also celebrated, the majority of those who also consider themselves to be gay men or lesbians would, by the standard definition of homosexuality, be heterosexual."
In other wirds, crossdressing heterosexuals are calling themselves gay in order to coerce actual gay people into heterosexual sex. The cotton ceiling. Nothing liberating about that.
“That is, they have failed to recognise that ‘queer’ refers to a set of political and philosophical beliefs about sex, gender and sexuality which holds that having categories for these is an oppressive social construct which should be disrupted as a form of progressive political activism.” - Spot fucking on🎯! I wrote a piece about “queer ideology” and how it has come to replace to lesbian, gay, bisexual - because such terms are limiting and oppressive and how it’s completely overtaken the LGB community and movement….I long for the day where being gay, lesbian or bisexual just means who you’re attracted to and not some political statement or “identity”. I don’t want gay conservative to be oxymoronic, or Catholic lesbian to be confusing or shocking.
You want bigotry to not be a thing. Same as the rest of us queers. It's the main stream that's the problem there, not the even smaller and more marginalized groups.
I mean sure but that’s not what my comment was saying. Mainstream queers or as I like to the call them spicy straights have linked sexuality, specifically, homosexuality, something normal and as interesting as someone’s hair colour to a certain aesthetic and political view and identity. This is my concern. Being LGB should just be what it’s always about which is being attracted to the same sex or both the same and opposite (in the case of bisexuals). Nothing more and nothing less.
Also, if you’re worried about bigotry, maybe stop calling yourself a slur.
I disagree about Mamdani, I think it much more likely that he was using “queer” to mean all non-heterosexuals.
I’m not arguing that he wasn’t. I’m saying he makes this dependent on a concept of them as queer which naturally excludes those who aren’t queer and don’t believe in queer. When there are people who explicitly describe themselves “gay not queer” and someone choose to explicitly celebrate queer people, those who are gay and not queer will be excluded. You can say “Well, he conceives of them as queer and includes them that way.” But this doesn’t include them.
I describe myself as a “secular humanist”. If someone else chooses to reframe my category as “non-Muslim” and define the significance of it purely in relation to that one ideology that I don’t believe in and consequently see me as part of a collective that includes Christians, Jews, Hindus etc., I think it would be reasonable to say that my secular humanism has been erased from this understanding of me. Yes, I am technically included because I am a non-Muslim but I am not recognised as I what I am. I’m recognised as not something else and the significance of this is understood through an ideological framework I don’t believe in.
I think you overestimate the extent to which people who consider “queer” to be a sexual preference even think about people who describe themselves as gay not queer. In my experience they consider them much as one might consider a white person who claims not to be white.
Some do, yes, because they believe that the only way to understand homosexuality is through queer concepts and everybody else is just wrong and so not worth considering but I think I covered that. It’s like when the CSJ antiracists forget black conservatives exists or consider them as people who’ve failed to accept they are black. Or when feminists refuse to acknowledge the existence of women who don’t subscribe to their particular feminist theory and dismiss their input on the grounds they’ve succumbed to internalised misogyny.
I hope it’s clear I completely support the right of people to advocate exclusively for those who consider themselves queer and not anybody else? In the same way I support the LGB movement in exclusively advocating for same sex attracted people? The point of this piece is to say that while there is no confusion about who LGB groups advocate for, there is over who queer groups do. Your observation that many don’t even acknowledge the existence of LGB people who don’t uphold the concept of queer, let alone consider it legitimate is key to that.
Yes but I am only disagreeing with your belief that Zohran Mamdani is likely to have had the definition of “queer” as a political category in mind when he made his message. I think it is vanishingly unlikely that this is the case, and I think the far more likely scenario is that he was using “queer” as shorthand for “gay, lesbian and bisexual”, like a great many people do. The fact that many, like Andrew Sullivan, reject the label of queer for very coherent reasons doesn’t mean that anyone who uses the word is, in their own mind, excluding them.
Yes, that would be a legitimate disagreement rather than a misunderstanding. I think it’s much more likely he does know that many LGB people don’t like being called queer and why, but thinks their objections are illegitimate because they don’t include trans people. It would be surprising if someone with his political positioning did not. I was careful to leave that possibility open and stress that other people confused by Andrew genuinely don’t know this. I was perhaps a little more uncharitable than is my custom here.
Anyway, we have, for the first time, I think disagreed about something!
Oh I’ve probably disagreed with you before - though on this I’m now wondering whether we even do disagree! There might be a wider question here about people’s tendency to accept other people’s self-definition in some areas but not in others - like for example someone who’d accept anyone’s self-identification as to gender but simultaneously scoff at anyone who didn’t like being called queer. Of which I think there are quite a few.
"It is, of course, possible that Mr. Mamdani misspoke and does not fully appreciate what queer means in the current discourse of political activism. People can use the term as a slur or misunderstand it as a broadly inclusive term as indicated by the people responding to Andrew. It seems unlikely that Mamdani would not understand the political implications, however, because he is a politician who has been active on many related issues."
I find it hard to believe that Mamdani, sitting down to draft such a statement, would deliberately exclude gays, lesbians, and bisexuals who were not queer. As you say, he is a politician, and recognizes that such exclusions are not good for business. If he had thought "queer" in this context excluded a large number LGB, he'd have added "LGB" to his message. That seems to me to be the most likely explanation. So he may be aware of the political-philosophical tradition of "queer" but that knowledge may not be specifically activated in this instance. The idea that a savvy politician would, as part of a pride announcement, deliberately exclude many LGB seems like an argument requiring considerable evidence.
However, I've been wrong before.
Maybe Mamdani just didn't feel like looking up all the current letters for a quick tweet about Pride Month(!) At any it leads to an illuminating quote from Sullivan (oh, okay, so you're not "queer") and this essay from Helen parsing layered perspectives around current cultural attitudes.
The problem is that "LGB" is, in practice, just homosexuals and bisexuals who think they personally are fine but trans people are still freaks. Very right wing coded.
You're collapsing a significant distinction: the choices are not "trans people are freaks" or "I accept the radical political agenda of the queer movement".
You can believe that trans people truly suffer from gender dysphoria, actually "feel like" a different sex, without accepting the much more radical political ideas that we should have self-ID legally and in all circumstances.
And then there is the concern that many formerly gay or lesbian pubescent or prepubescent teens are being channeled into medicalized trans routes rather than allowing them to be gay without needing a "gender identity" that goes beyond the biological. That doesn't mean trans people are monsters or freaks.
In theory, sure.
In practice? Nah.
There are, in practice, two sides. And LGB is, in practice, opposed to trans folk and aligned with Christian and conservative think tanks who want us gone.
So yes, I do see LGB groups as somewhere between "I got mine, jack, fuck you" and actual anti-trans bigots.
Because we aren't in the 'debate over self-ID' phase. We are in the 'if you even admit trans people exist you will lose all government funding' phase. That combined rule for 42 federal departments closes public commentary period and goes live in July.
We can be against what the current administration is doing without creating oversimplified "us vs. them" discourse.
Ok. Are you against what the administration is doing to trans people? Or is that just a hypothetical?
No. That’s your own insecurity. LGB represents the gay community or rainbow community- people who are attracted to the same sex or both. It was always the LGB until the TQ+ added themselves on and the LGBs were forced teamed into accepting them. TQ+ are political identities, they’re irrelevant to LGB. They can have their own group without inserting themselves into another. Nothing right wing about that.
Lol. You missed the whole pre-aids gay rights movement, huh?
Brings sharp focus back to the deeper questions of how much of our identity do we claim to be nouns versus how much of it is adjectival. For example, are you a Democrat/Republican? Or do you simple registered to vote as a Democrat/Republican? How much of that is provisional and malleable, subject to review and change? Under what conditions, and at what cost (real or imagined)?
Which definitions of "Queer" could be considered more noun-like, and which are more political/adjectival?
Dear Ms. Pluckrose—
I remember Andrew Sullivan...
I remember Andrew Sullivan back in 2001...
I remember him writing: "The fact that Bush has to obfuscate his real goals of reducing spending with the smoke screen of 'compassionate conservatism' shows how uphill the struggle is.... A certain amount of B.S. is necessary for any vaguely successful retrenchment of government power in an insatiable entitlement state.... I just hope the smoke doesn't clear before the spenders get their hands on our wallets again..."
Thus when I see you put the words "Andrew Sullivan" and "good faith" together in the same sentence, the words that come to my mind are "easily confused".
And then I run into your: "‘queer’ refers to a set of political and philosophical beliefs about sex, gender and sexuality which holds that having categories for these is an oppressive social construct which should be disrupted as a form of progressive political activism..."
And I think: some people I run across do use 'queer' that way; others do not and use 'queer' to simply mean "not 100% heterosexual"; to refer to someone as 'queer' is to sometimes attribute a political identity to them, but more often, in my experience at least, is not.
Dollars will get you doughnuts that Mamdani means it in the latter way, that Sullivan knows that Mamdani does so, but thinks that by claiming Mamdani is celebrating those who demonize gay men and lesbians he can put one over on you.
And it worked, didn't it?
I do know that a willingness to presume good faith is one of the glories of liberalism. And that one should be proud that people can easily grift one in this way—that it is a lot better than the alternative.
But, please, may I ask you not to be so be gullible when Andrew Sullivan or others of his ilk try to pick your pocket again in this way? And may I comment to you a piece by my friend John Holbo, "Vavilovian Philosophical Mimicry" <https://crookedtimber.org/2019/12/03/vavilovian-philosophical-mimicry/>?
I do get a lot from your writings. I hope you and yours are well, or, rather, as well as one can be in a world in which while one may well be, personally, quite comfortable, we live in a world in which no man is an island.
Yours, J. Bradford DeLong
* Please subscribe to DeLong's Grasping Reality: <http://braddelong.substack.com/subscribe>
* Please order the worldwide six-figure bestseller: "Slouching Towards Utopia: An Economic History of the Long 20th Century, 1870-2010": <https://www.amazon.com/Economic-History-Twentieth-Century/dp/0465019595/>
Like “queer,” I think “non-binary” is a political identity and not a sexuality. In contrast with asexuality, non-binary strikes me as an adoption of a political identity that is transgressive.
Wow that was complicated. ID politics keeps getting crazier and crazier. I missed this transition. When I was young, the term "queer" was a slur against gay men.
What is even more confusing to me is the use of the term "Left" to describe these belief systems.
Good article. I think it is a bit of a stretch to assume Mandami has studied this stuff.
It is telling that while there are gay right-wingers, I have never heard of a queer right-winger.
The point of Google defining 'queer' as a harmless umbrella term, without nuance, is to normalise queer theory.
I feel like it's very hard to understand the gay liberal point of view here because my most formative experience with being queer was things which were plainly serious rule violations just got ignored because it was within the normal way society structures power.
I'd go to adults in my school, managers at my job and the consequences for plain and obvious violations of rules and norms was pretty indifferent. I experienced this around male femininity and autism. My wife experienced along promiscuity and consent lines. I don't really know how that would develop force absent some marriage of understanding of social power.
I feel like queer theory picks up at where liberalism lets off and would let equality under the law mean actual equality under the law. That like if someone lays their hands on me without my consent it's bad no matter how 'normal' it is for boys to fight.
To claim a woman is not conforming to their sex, you must first set expectations for a woman's appearance and behavior. This is the very definition of sexism. Fifty years ago we figured out that there's no such thing as a "tomboy." Today's left has resuscitated the stereotyping that women fought against decades ago. Gender ideology tells countless impressionable young people that they are not quite right, that they need to redefine themselves because they aren't proper females and males. It is not complicated. It is not good or kind. It is sexism.
Sexism is saying you HAVE to fit the stereotypes associated with your sex. That's like the opposite of 'queer' as a political theory. What makes you think that telling boys they aren't real men or telling women they are too butch is a left wing thing, and not right wing like it always seems to be in practice?
Where and when did they say we should tell men they aren’t real or telling women they’re too butch is a left wing thing? Nowhere.
You seem to have associated “tomboy” with “butch” which is your issue. Even the word butch is sexist, especially when not used by lesbians. A woman who doesn’t adhere to “feminine” stereotypes is not masculine, nor butch or a tomboy, she’s just a woman. Same goes for men who don’t adhere to “masculine” stereotypes- they aren’t gay, metrosexual or anything, they’re just men. There’s no correct way to be male or female.
Gender ideology (as the previous commenter already explained) tells men and women who don’t adhere to gender stereotypes that they MUST be the opposite sex. They don’t want to allow men and women to just be, whether it means adhering or not. Which reveals to me that queer theory and gender ideology (same thing) are pretty regressive and sexist.