We must not reject…

Queer Theory is the academic tradition (both terms used loosely) that underpins identity politics and gender identity extremism. It is grounded in the pursuit of smashing social and personal boundaries.

This is Gayle Rubin

Author of Thinking Sex, the founding document of Queer Theory.


In a very lofty academic sense, she has a point. Surely, somewhere there is a 17 year old and an 18 year old in love who aren’t abusing one another in they way we mean when we talk about adult-child relationships.

But that is the danger of taking a technical approach, and pretending there are degrees of abuse. It is a way to jimmy open the conversation and causing you admit that no not all sexual encourters are oppressive. Then you’ll need to account for every other situation and configuration of adult-child relations and examine them individually to ensure they are indeed abusive. “Yes, but what of the 16 year old who is mature for his age with the 21 year old virgin substitute teacher and the child started it?”

It is a game designed to get us to examine, in brutal tabloid detail, the prospect of sexual relationships with children. The process primes us to consider something we should not consider.

It is a game designed to get agreement that there are some forms of adult-child sexual contact that are not necessarily inherently oppressive.

To do so would be to relinquish our responsibilities as adults.

As adults we know that sexual contact has positive and negative consequence. We base our consent on our ability to evaluate those consequences. Children may be mature, they may ‘start it’, they may even consent and find pleasure in what they think of as an equal sexual relationship. But we know, the adults know that it is not equal, which makes it not consensual and therefore does make adult-child sexual contact always inherently oppressive.

We must not reject our duty as the grown ups in the room to say ‘no’ to child abuse. Even hip, woke child abuse.

For 500 points … who is the Queer Theorist that has spoken out strongly against paedophilia?

Who is no one?

Why is this important? The moral basis of Gender Ideology and transsexualism is ‘to relieve psychological suffering’. The intellectual basis of Gender Ideology lies in Queer Theory. A theory arising out of Post Modernism, that questions material reality. Queer Theory deconstructs reality, identifies binary power relationships and aims to “queer” or violate “normativity”.

Hetersexuality is “normal” as in, 90-95% of people are heterosexual. So homosexuality “queers” the normal. Male/female is a binary power relationship. Redefine the female so it can absorb the male and therefore “queer” the binary.

Can you see the resemblance to Gender Ideology?

Can you see the resemblance to Gender-Ideologue Andrea Long-Chu’s 2020 assertion that “barest essentials of “femaleness” as “an open mouth, an expectant asshole, blank, blank eyes”. A pronouncement only a male could make.


When his lecture about climate change is interrupted by some Queer Theory-wielding activists, Derek Jensen decides to engage them a game of Jeopardy about their heroes.

Against a cacophony of jeers, coughing and insults, Jensen walks through quotes from Focault, Gayle Rubin, Pat Califa and Judith Butler. Casually calling up their words on his laptop he easily conjures their thoughts on violating children.

Judith Butler is the most mild, suggesting that yes, some incest becomes traumatic only because of the social shame it produces:

So I keep adding this qualification: ‘when incest is a violation,’ suggesting that I think that there may be occasions in which it is not. Why would I talk that way? Well, I do think that there are probably forms of incest that are not necessarily traumatic or which gain their traumatic character by virtue of the consciousness of social shame that they produce.

Judith Butler, quoted by Derek Jensen

Watch the clips

The left is the clip where we play Queer Theory Jeopardy. The right is the full talk about economy, rape culture and environmental conservation. Both are hard to watch because of the jeering and abuse, but they are rewarding. An essential transcript is available here on Ovarit.

FULL TALK – Derrick Jensen talk in Eugene, OR – March 4, 2018

Some background in this interview here

Jensen gives a bit of background about what lead to the above in this interview with Graham Linehan. He says that when organising a conference for Deep Green Resistance, they refused to allow a male to sleep in the female dorms. They offered him separate accommodations, but these were refused. Instead a bunch of angry activists turned up to disrupt the conference.

It’s nice to hear from an interesting pair of people (Derek and Lierre) without them being jeered at bu children.