By Christian Watson

I’ve been reading a few queer theory papers in lieu of pride month and I found something interesting. Queer theory actively tries to provide the intellectual justification for sexualizing children. I shall explain how.

In the introduction to this paper, titled “Queer Theory’s Child and Children’s Literature Studies,” Professor Kevin Kidd asks the question “What is queer theory doing with the child?” Firstly, if this is a question that need even be asked, something is terribly wrong.

Kidd recognizes the jarring nature of such a question, and then proceeds to explain how Queer Theory handles the term “child.” Kidd praises that the term “child” is no longer a settled term which describes a stage of human development. Rather, thanks to queer theory, the term “child” is now contested, and therefore amendable according to the desires of these theorists. See the following excerpt:

He continues that Moon and Sedgwick, whose work deals with the distortion of the term “child” (which they call “queering”) brought the idea of childhood into the realm of queer studies, while not “essentializing” the “queer child.” See here:

Kidd recognizes that the basis for this redefinition of child/childhood rests on “post-structural theory.” We now have enough information to render a judgment about these series of claims. Firstly, poststructuralism claims that words do not correspond to reality, but are instead self-contained units which can only relate to one another. So for example, the word “dog” or “cat” do not describe an actual reality, but instead a series of terms constructed to contrast with one another. Poststructuralism takes it’s ques from theorists like Jacques Lacan. Lacan famously declared that “The Real” is non-existent outside of the womb. That is, everything we experience from the point of birth onwards is a socially constructed, artificial reality which dictates our understanding of the world. Nothing is real.

Now, back to poststructuralism. The poststructuralists take this idea and apply it to children. What is a child the poststructuralist will ask. He will not ask it to investigate physical phenomena, but rather to tear down the “social construction” of the word “child” and remake it in his image. Remember, the queer theorist, just like the poststructuralist, is interested in disrupting “normativity.” They do not believe objective claims can be made about reality.

Everything is artificial, everything is fake, including the way children are regarded amongst us. Hence, the “queering” of children. Since a child’s place in society is entirely artificial and subject to tweaking, their supposed “innocence” is of the same measure.

So to disrupt normativity, we must also disrupt notions of childlike innocence, and explore a child’s role in the world beyond what is commonly agreed upon. This is deconstructionism at it’s worse. There are a few problems with the foundations of poststructuralism, especially as it relates to queer theory.

Issue A: The problem of “social construction.”

Even Lacan will admit that social systems have their roots in reality. His claim is that we cannot get around these systems because they surround us throughout life. Thus, our understanding of the world is largely formed by them. This runs into a serious philosophical problem.

This problem is one of epistemology. If knowledge of the world flows from social systems/institutions, how can Lacan and his compatriots gain their insights? Furthermore, how does social construction account for man’s faculty of reason, by which he can examine worldly events and draw conclusions about them, even independent of “social construction?” For example, fire emits heat. Every animal on this Earth can tell that by mere sensation. Man is instinctually primed to self-preservation, and for a long time that drove him to utilize fire as a means of cooking food, providing warmth, shelter, and illuminating his surroundings to ward off creatures of the night. Fire has since been used for many other, grander purposes, proceeding from it’s initial use. The same principle that animates a camp fire also created the combustion engine, which allowed man to challenge time and space, two natural facts of the world. The example of fire shows the futility of social construction: there are natural phenomenon that are observable, measurable, and usuable through a finite set of ways.

If you try to use fire while underwater, it will not work, for example. There’s an objective process underlying this reality, and it exists regardless of social perception. It was the translation of this natural process into social relations which allowed mankind to craft civilization. The poststructuralist critique cannot answer the problem of fire, either. Since the term “fire” describes a physical phenomenon in the world, and we can verify that through observation and testing, the term is valid. It is not a self-contained unit; it is a flourishing reality.

The second problem B: Fallacious reasoning

Indeed, poststructuralism (and therefore Queer Theory, which is based upon it) suffers from several fallacies including, but not limited to:

• The genetic fallacy
• The univariate fallacy
• The genetic fallacy

Simply put, [the genetic fallacy] attacks the origin of a concept rather than it’s merits. For poststructuralists (and queer theorists) the origin of words (as social phenomenon) constitutes the merits of their use. This is backwards. Regardless of their origin, words describe /something/ and this particular something may have nothing to do with society other than it’s genesis in a social context. But the genetic fallacy makes the social origin of the idea the sole emphasis. And by doing that, the genetic fallacy cannot faithfully engage with an argument.

The second fallacy, the univariate fallacy, poses one answer to complex and multi-faceted problem in which there may be more than one answer. In the case of poststructuralism, it is it’s reduction of language to a mere social context, without exploring its merits beyond that realm.

So, we’ve established a few things thus far:

1. Queer theory rejects the normative (and correct) definition of childhood and tries to reform it in it’s image.
2. Queer theory is powered by poststructuralism, an anti-truth doctrine.
3. Poststructuralism is caked with several fallacious and is therefore unfit for serious analysis.

All of these factors lead me to my final point:

The endangerment of kids

The moment a fallacious doctrine can be used to assess the condition of childhood by rejecting basic truths about it, which are observable in nature (which poststructuralism rejects), is the moment children (or any subject of this madness) are in danger.

Queer theory, by use of poststructuralism, is a danger to children everywhere. The queer theorist can justify taking a child to see a drag show as a process of “queering” them. As in, rejecting the idea that children should be exposed to certain things as normative ideas that should be dispelled.

The queer theorist can also justify children taking hormone alerting drugs as a rejection of gender norms – which Judith Butler, who contributes to Queer Theory with poststructuralist analysis, claims are scripts pre-written for people, and not objectively based in sexual differences between men and women – and thus an act of valor.

I will not belabor the point. The simple truth is this: in almost every case, given it’s apparatus of analysis and it’s corrupt, deconstructionist foundation, queer theory provides zero guardrails to protect children from predation.

In fact, it justifies predation on the basis of virtuous rebellion against society.

For that reason alone, any sensible person should firmly reject queer theory and everything it entails.

The continued safety of children depend on it.

Christian Watson is a political commentator, a dynamic cultural thinker, and podcast host of the “Pensive Politics” show.