Dead-End Queer Theory

In the early 1990s, a new branch of critical theory known as “queer theory” was emerging in academia. Previously known as a slur against homosexuals, “queer” became an umbrella term used to describe anyone whose sexual behavior or gender expression differs from societal norms. Queer theory criticizes these societal norms about gender and sexuality with the goal of overcoming them (as is the case with critical theories as a whole), but the intentional vagueness of “queer” itself raises many questions as to what exact norms some queer theorists seek to challenge.

Gayle Rubin’s 1984 essay “Thinking Sex” is widely considered to be one of the founding texts of queer theory, in which she argues that any and all sexual morals are nothing but a right-wing moral panic. Rubin grouped in all sexual behaviors which were stigmatized by society at the time – including but not limited to premarital sex, homosexuality, prostitution, and abhorrent paraphilias such as pedophilia and sexual sadism – and claimed that they are equally worthy of being normalized.

Given that the US ruling class utilizes academia as one of its dominant modes of ideological enforcement, it is unsurprising that American society has gradually become more tolerant of various behaviors which Rubin defended. Acceptance of homosexuality between consenting adults, one of the more benign behaviors which Rubin advocated for, has drastically increased within a relatively short period of time. However, acceptance of both same-sex relations and marriage has dropped slightly since 2022, likely as a reaction to the more extreme actions of the LGBTQ+ movement.

Far more worrying is the normalization of objectively harmful and reactionary sexual behaviors among various sections of American society. Among the younger generations, sadomasochism is now widely seen as something that women should enjoy, despite the fact that it has led to an increase in severe injuries and even deaths among women. Most leftist organizations have taken on the same exact position as the Open Society Foundations on the question of prostitution: it should be fully legalized because “sex work is work”. So far, most people still openly say that pedophilia is wrong (besides a fringe minority which advocates for “minor-attracted people” to have equal rights), but many liberal and left-leaning individuals have no problem with allowing children to be exposed to explicit displays of sexual behavior as long as it is in the name of “LGBTQ+ inclusion.”

Why should Communists care?

“Like communists and homosexuals in the 1950s, boylovers are so stigmatized that it is difficult to find defenders for their civil liberties, let alone for their erotic orientation.” - Gayle Rubin

By equating the persecution of “communists and homosexuals in the 1950s” with moral opposition to “boylovers” (pedophiles), Rubin helped build the foundation for the forced teaming of queer theorists with western communists. Harry Hay, a Communist Party USA member who was also an outspoken member of the pedophile advocacy group NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association), solidified this forced teaming, and CPUSA still promotes him to this day. Not only did Hay bastardize Stalin’s works on national liberation to claim that homosexuals are an oppressed “nation” within the United States, but he also supported Perestroika and the anticommunist counterrevolutions in Eastern Europe, as was typical of liberals within the CPUSA in the 1980s.

With very few exceptions, almost every self-proclaimed “socialist” and “communist” organization in the West today has adopted queer theory as a non-negotiable core tenet of their ideology. Members of these organizations introduce themselves with their preferred pronouns, as a way of signaling their adherence to the unscientific belief in “gender identity” and rejection of the material reality of biological sex. Every June, they attend Pride parades along with big banks and weapons manufacturers. When working class parents protest against Drag Queen Story Hour events, these organizations slander them as “reactionary”, as if Communist revolutionaries have ever advocated for men to dress as caricatures of women while reading to children. Between Hay’s pro-pedophile activism and the modern western left’s failure to defend the safeguarding of women and children, bourgeois right-wing ideologues have been given the perfect opportunity to mislead the masses and convince them that Communism goes against their interests.

By enforcing adherence to queer theory among their membership, these organizations also alienate themselves from the majority of the anti-imperialist world which upholds traditional values. Most countries outside of the Americas and western Europe do not legally recognize same-sex marriages or self-identification as a different gender, and public opinion largely agrees with these laws. Western NGOs often take advantage of this, using “LGBT rights” as a vehicle to either spread their influence in other countries or demonize these countries as homophobic or transphobic. If we claim to be anti-imperialist while forcing the same exact values which are weaponized against countries that go against the interests of western imperialism, why should we expect our international comrades to take us seriously?

As Communists, we cannot allow queer theory to continue poisoning our organizations. The US empire is continuing to crumble around us, the American people are looking for solutions, and yet most “communist” organizations insist on making themselves look completely repulsive. Why should we expect women and girls to believe that we care about their safety, if we see no problem with men in dresses violating their privacy? Why should we expect parents to believe that we will bring a brighter future for their children, if every June they see us supporting the men in fetish gear who openly march through the streets, let alone if we openly advocate for experimental medical treatments on “trans kids”? For those of us who actually want to win, it is extremely important that we get our act together and present ourselves as upstanding leaders and representatives of the American working class, which will not be possible as long as we keep buying into this reactionary liberalism.