Opinion of Queer Theory

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

There's an enormous diversity within it, all the way from "jsyk plenty of societies have more than two gender roles" to "IF YOU DON'T SUPPORT ADDING AROMANTIC HETEROSEXUALS TO ~THE ACRONYM~ YOU'RE COMPLICIT IN GENOCIDE". Voted HT because I've had personally iffy experiences with it, but it's not uniformly bad and some of its more helpful insights have been rightly imported into more august fields.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

There's an enormous diversity within it, all the way from "jsyk plenty of societies have more than two gender roles" to "IF YOU DON'T SUPPORT ADDING AROMANTIC HETEROSEXUALS TO ~THE ACRONYM~ YOU'RE COMPLICIT IN GENOCIDE". Voted HT because I've had personally iffy experiences with it, but it's not uniformly bad and some of its more helpful insights have been rightly imported into more august fields.

I thought a big point of Queer Theory was questioning these acronym-style categories and their supposed opposites?

I mean, sure, allegedly. But even that can lead in some really uncomfortable "being queer is What You Make Of It (...and therefore gay people who want to get married and be faithful are 'homonormative' and Not Radical)" directions.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Forgot to add to my previous post, after the word "faithful": "...or who have distinct memories or experiences of 'queer' being a slur and (heaven forfend!) aren't comfortable being lumped under that word by their alleged compatriots".