queeringthequeer

[queeringthequeer]

like, okay, consent does literally just mean agree. which is what enables this little rhetorical trick. because there's all this cultural emphasis on sexual consent, which is just expressed as consent, a lot of phrases whose intended meanings are "rape is bad" can be taken literally to mean "i should get to agree to everything that happens in my vicinity."

[queeringthequeer]

not to sound like a weak, morally impure centrist over here, but i think online leftist communities need to be a little more accepting of the concept that most people are just. not that well informed. we live in a society that provides access to an overwhelming amount of information and yet which discourages actually diving into much beyond the surface level. Most of the people you meet out in the world are just not gonna know much about a lot of what you care about, but that's not the same as being against those things, or being unwilling to learn, or being unnamenable to those ideas. Our modern society is an unending cascade of information and misinformation and disinformation and filtering through that shit enough to actually have a solid grasp of a subject, let alone a nuanced antiestablishment political take, is a skill that takes time and effort to develop, time and effort that is in very short supply. It really bothers me when I see leftists talk about how capitalism keeps us down by taking up all our time and energy and making recovery, both physical and emotional, cost what little we can afford, and then turn around and get upset that people are politically uninformed. On some level, you gotta meet some people where they are, and have a little faith in them to be open to new ideas and information. Ignorance is not inherently intentional, and it's not the same as antipathy.

[queeringthequeer]

I would also add Sally Haslanger’s “Social Construction” in her book, Resisting Reality.

Although it’s not a book ABOUT the distinction between sex and gender, Haslanger explores the concept of what it means for something to be a “social construction,” using sex and gender as examples. This text is a bit technical, but very interesting.

Hello, I was wondering if you knew of any books, articles or even academic papers, that go into gender and biological sex/ intersex, and the difference and societal norms?

Yes! I have some great recommendations for this in particular!

The Other Olympians

Fascism, Queerness, and the Making of Modern Sports

Michael Waters

Before We Were Trans

A New History of Gender

Kit Heyam

Hope this helps!

(Affiliate links above)

[queeringthequeer]

I think a lot of women (and some men) have only ever experienced sex in the context of coercion and abuse by men, have never had a real opportunity to express or develop any kind of sexual agency (because it doesn't come automatically!), and down among the many negative consequences of this unjust state of affairs is that some people in this situation find themselves unable to conceptualize that sex for anyone (or at least, for any woman) could be anything but a horrible, coercive, violating experience; they attribute these characteristics to sexuality in its fundamental nature and not to the injustices to which they have been subjected. This is of course not nearly the greatest tragedy of this state of affairs but it is an unfortunate thing. For many people, men and women, sexuality and sexual expression are deeply fundamental parts of their experience as humans and something they could not envision a truly full life without. This is not a fringe experience but an immensely common one. But there is a deep emotional barrier to meaningful understanding between these groups and I have very little sense of how to breach it.

[queeringthequeer]

sure are a lot of ostensible Very Serious Feminist Critiques to the effect of "misogyny comes from straight women being too slutty"

[queeringthequeer]

“The emergence of trans-exclusionary radical feminism [TERF] in the 1970s, with its own version of trans panic, is only one of many trans-misogynistic echoes in recent history. TERFs... didn't invent trans misogyny, nor did they put a particularly novel spin in it...portrayal of trans femininity as violent and depressed could have been lifted from the British denunciation of hijras in the 1870s, or from Nazi propaganda about transvestites in the 1930s... Recent work by historians has cast doubt in his popular TERF beliefs ever were outside a few loud agitators... If anything, TERFs, whether in the 1970s or in their contemporary "gender-critical" guise, are better understood as conventional boosters of statist and racist political institutions... TERFs, like the right-wing evangelicals or white supremacists who agree with them politically, are not the lynchpin to trans misogyny; rather, they are at best one of its latest manifestations.” ― Jules Gill-Peterson, A Short History of Trans Misogyny (Affiliate link)

[queeringthequeer]

These sorts of concerns about porn are not new. Notably, consider the Feminist Sex Wars. Gayle Rubin, a pro-sex feminist, in "Thinking Sex" addresses this issue. Speaking about the arguments from anti-porn advocates, she writes

"This demon sexology directs legitimate anger at women’s lack of personal safety against innocent individuals, practices and communities. Anti-porn propaganda often implies that sexism originates within the commercial sex industry and subsequently infects the rest of society. This is sociologically nonsensical. The sex industry is hardly a feminist utopia. It reflects the sexism that exists in the society as a whole. We need to analyse and oppose the manifestations of gender inequality specific to the sex industry. But this is not the same as attempting to wipe out commercial sex... A good deal of current feminist literature attributes the oppression of women to graphic representations of sex, prostitution, sex education, sadomasochism, male homosexuality, and transsexualism.* Whatever happened to the family, religion, education, child-rearing practices, the media, the state, psychiatry, job discrimination, and unequal pay?"

*note that this article is quite old because it is original to the time period (early 1980s) and therefore uses outdated language

So like, it's obvious to me reading the comments on my post that anti-porn people are largely like, afraid of porn. Like the concept of a sex video is really spooky to them. They're not making thoughtful critiques of the porn industry, which is genuinely a really fucked up industry, they're mostly just spooked by the concept of a sex video and what it could Do To You If You See It.

I said this in another post, but it's like, the difference between "a ton of coffee is produced using slave labor" (valid, important criticism of the coffee industry) and "coffee turns people into raving coffee addicts who forget how to interact with anyone because they're so obsessed with their coffee" (objectively not true, insane viewpoint).

It's literally just sex videos. They really cannot hurt you.

[queeringthequeer]

Any book or other media recommendations to learn about the history of kink and its ties to queer rights/liberation? It’s something I hear talked about a lot in debates over whether kink should be allowed at Pride, and I want to learn more.

Yes! I would love to share some that have specifically shaped my thoughts around it!

Park Cruising

What Happens When We Wander Off the Path

Marcus McCann 

Transland

Consent, Kink, and Pleasure

MX Sly 

Secret Historian

The Life and Times of Samuel Steward, Professor, Tattoo Artist, and Sexual Renegade

Justin Spring

(Affiliate links above)

[queeringthequeer]

this might sound stupid but I can’t help but believe that the new wave of “birth control is actually horrible for your body, you need to get off it immediately” misinformation from influencers and the ‘natural cycle tracking’ apps suddenly being advertised is a sneaky underhanded way of causing more unplanned pregnancies that people now cannot abort. now is possibly the worst time ever to turn towards ‘natural family planning’

[queeringthequeer]

Gayle Rubin wrote about this issue in a super interesting article titled "Thinking Sex." Rubin was a leader of the sex-positive feminists in the Feminist Sex Wars. Here's a brief summary of her discussion of one aspect of the anti-pornography movement:

Rubin explores the antipornography feminist movement as an example of restructuring hierarchies of sexual value rather than abolishing them. Within this framework, monogamous lesbianism within long-term romantic relationships replaces married, procreative heterosexuality as the definition of "normal sex." Similarly to the dominant understanding of hierarchies of sexual value, prostitution, transgenderism, kink, and other ‘deviant’ sexualities are deemed morally reprehensible. In fact, the antipornography movement utilized feminist arguments to justify the supposed inferiority of these forms of sex. Rubin writes that this “discourse on sexuality is less a sexology than a demonology.” Although the definition of "normal sex" has changed to prioritize lesbianism over heterosexuality, in this particular context, the other hierarchies are further entrenched by this movement. In demonstrating that the vast majority of non-"normal" sex is ‘actually’ deviant, despicable, and disgusting even when other groups dominate the hierarchies of sexual value, within this limited context, the oppression those who engage in non-"normal" sex is further legitimized. “Fortunately,” Rubin notes, “[s]exual liberation has been and continues to be a feminist goal.”

(note that this graphic from the article includes outdated terminology. This article was first presented in 1982.)

Description of the graphic from the text:

Figure 2 diagrams another aspect of the sexual hierarchy: the need to draw and maintain an imaginary line between good and bad sex. Most of the discourses on sex, be they religious, psychiatric, popular, or political, delimit a very small portion of human sexual capacity as sanctifiable, safe, healthy, mature, legal, or politically correct. The “line” distinguishes these from all other erotic behaviors, which are understood to be the work of the devil, dangerous, psychopathological, infantile, or politically reprehensible. Arguments are then conducted over “where to draw the line,” and to determine what other activities, if any, may be permitted to cross over into acceptability.

So since you’re obviously trying to be obtuse about Sabrina carpenter - people are mad because it’s misogynistic and anti-feminist. Have you even seen the album cover? She’s on her knees with some dude holding her by the hair. Since you’re being a little bitch about it I won’t start on the politics of why this matters even more right now. Get the fuck out of here you stupid Russian skank

I'm sorry everybody I know I'm supposed to do some kind of zinger in reply but this is genuinely so fucking funny

[queeringthequeer]

This is great!

Reading recommendation for the last page:

S. Laurel Weldon's "Difference and Social Structure: Iris Young's Critical Social Theory of Gender"

Speaks to the contradiction between using gender as a category of analysis while denying an essentialist definition of 'woman' or 'man'

Author argues that Iris Young has "an understanding of the concept of gender that enables critique of social structural injustice at a macro-level while simultaneously and equally acknowledging the political importance of group differences among women."

Note: second wave feminist works, like those of Carole Pateman or Catherine MacKinnon, were often criticized for adopting an essentialist understanding of 'woman.'

🌈✨Second chapter is done! ✨🌈

Hello! Like I promised yesterday, here is the second chapter of the first chapter of “A Wake-Up Call for the LGBTQIA+ Community” is ready! This time, I'm finally talking about queer theory 🌈. I explain what it is and also my thoughts about it as a member of the LGBTQIA+ Community 🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️ myself. If you haven't already, please read chapter 1 about postmodernism first! It's crucial for understanding queer theory! It's in this blog for free too so check it out! Chapter 3 will be published soon too and will dive deeper into queer theory especially compared to science 🔬... If something doesn't make sense now, I swear it will by then 😅.

Spoilers aside 😉, if you're here after reading chapter 1, I hope you enjoy this new chapter 💕✨!

[queeringthequeer]

In addition, sexuality is tied up in capitalism. The prioritization of heterosexual, monogamous, marital sex fulfills the never-ending need for labor. In this way, sex becomes socially useful to a capitalist society. Furthermore, gender and sexuality are entangled practically. We can separate them to foster productive analysis, but our contemporary folk understandings of gender implicate sexuality and vice versa.

Recommended Readings:

Dennis Altman's Homosexual: Oppression and Liberation

available for free on archive.org with an account

Published 1973, essentially a treatise on post-stonewall gay liberation ideology, addresses the entanglement of gender and sexuality, super interesting read

Diane Richardson's "Patterned Fluidities: Reimagining the Relationship between Gender and Sexuality"

details FIVE different ways of understanding the relationship between gender and sexuality! very informational and eye-opening.

Carl F. Stychin's "Being Gay"

this is a broader article about gay identity, but it makes some interesting points about consumerism & gay identity

Gender is enforced by capitalism

incoming wall of text:

gender is an incredibly complex and abstract concept that can never really be fully explained in an objective and all-encompassing way. it only exists within context. in a capitalist society gender is a tool to keep the working class divided and to uniquely exploit women.

whilst scientific consensus is that gender is inherent in a person, capitalism and commodity-driven society has an undeniable role in the development of the gender experience.

much of what gender is in the modern capitalist west is tied to consumerism. the ruling class keeps the working class divided by any means necessary, including fostering strong differences between the two binary genders. masculinity and femininity being opposed to each other is a concept only found in capitalist society.

women feeling the need to express their femininity and men needing to express masculinity manifests as consumerism when capitalism works as intended. think, for a second, why you need to express your gender in the way that you do, and you will likely find that it ties to upholding capitalist societal relations. for example, a femboy wishing to express his femininity likely will interpret femininity through what he has seen other feminine people do. in a commodity-driven society this will, among other things (which i will get to), be the products that they buy/use. by this i mean skirts and makeup and whatnot.

the other things that this theoretical femboy will see when interpreting femininity is the feminine genders social role. he would perhaps see how women are expected to be subservient to men, and mimic these relations. it is crucial to see how said relations only exist in a capitalist society. there is no reason for the patriarchy to exist other than to benefit the ruling class of the bourgeoise.

i believe that post revolution, gender would become far less important, both personally to individuals (feeling gender less intensely) and on a broader scale (equality in the workplace, less misogyny). i also think it would allow further abstraction of gender, letting non-binary genders be better recognised by society as said society would not need to maintain division between the two binary genders.

[queeringthequeer]

Anti-intellectual attitudes are on the rise on social media, the billionaires who run these apps are banking on people being uneducated or uninterested in education slipping from their fingers. So now is a good time to invest time into following accounts that teach you things, engaging with their content, and most importantly LEARNING.

Communal learning is inherently anti-fascist. Give them hell.

[queeringthequeer]

one way I would explain a lot of Marx’s social theory, especially his later social theory, is “the tool wields the hand.” that is to say, at some point in history, people designed a tool to fulfill some end, and the design of the tool was informed by a social situation that had need of that end (for good or ill).

the way it was designed in turn shapes not just human behavior, but the automatic comportment of the body and the mind; repeated use through time and space and social processes makes us shift the way we move through the world until it becomes second nature, socially developed instinct, to make use of the tool and to do so in particular ways. to adjust ourselves *to* the tool. even if through some means - education, self-reflection, political activity - you become conscious of the tool and how it affects you, that doesn't necessarily mean you can stop using it, as long as your social existence still depends on it.

meanwhile, the end which the tool was meant to achieve takes on a life of its own, it appears as the actual agent in the situation, and human beings themselves are just the motor for ensuring the meeting between the tool and the end.

this is, for Marx, what value and money and machines and factories are: social technologies that were designed for some purpose - perhaps good, perhaps bad, but our dependence on their social existence makes condemnation, if not irrelevant, at least limited in scope and utility. but these technologies have become fetters, expressions of domination not just by other people (managers, bosses, capital-holders, politicians and lawmakers) but by a social situation that assumes its own perpetual self-expansion is a virtue. human potential expands - cooperation, new scientific advancements, the proliferation of certain forms of knowledge - but because that expansion is always turned towards one particular end, the actual horizon of human action and capabilities contract, as the whole world is turned into a giant factory in which human beings are its raw materials

[queeringthequeer]

"Joy is an act of resistance" is becoming a comparable phrase to "I'm keeping you in my prayers." It's a nice sentiment and it FEELS better than saying nothing but it doesn't actually require you to do anything so it's not especially helpful on its own. When I was a kid my mom was hospitalized for several months and our family got a lot of prayers but we definitely remembered the folks who backed up those prayers with a casserole. Make sure you back it up with a casserole in 2025.

[queeringthequeer]

Anti-Fascist Queer Book Recommendations

Find these books and more queer reads:

[queeringthequeer]

Sexual Hegemony by Christopher Chitty

Friend of mine just gave me this book that looks quite interesting.

Snippet from the back cover: “Only by grasping sexuality as a field of social contention and as and as the site of class conflict, Chitty contends, can we embark on a politics that destroys sexuality as a tool and as an effect of power and open a front against the forces that keep us unfree.” Commentary also refers to it as a “modernized History of Sexuality” (Foucault).

Haven’t read yet, but will be doing so soon. This bumps up against a lot of my other research & personal interests.