The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists (BAS) is most famous for its “Doomsday Clock,” which assesses how close we are to a worldwide anthropomorphic catastrophe, including global warming and nuclear war. Right now the clock stands at “90 seconds till midnight,” but it’s gone back and forth over the years and I don’t take that figure too seriously.
But the journal is a serious one dealing with important existential issues for humanity, and I believe it’s widely respected (it was founded by Albert Einstein and participants in the Manhattan project after the nuclear bombings of Japan in 1945).
Well, it was serious—but now, after seeing the article below, we have to worry about ideological capture of yet another organ of science and technology. Why was this published?
Click the headline to read:
The article is a response to “hateful” tweets among comment that “the Vienna Center for Disarmament and Non-Proliferation received in response to a December 2022 panel discussion on LGBTQ+ identity in the nuclear weapons space.” The hatefulness is of course bigoted and uncivil, but in response the authors make insupportable statements that we need to “queer” thinking about nuclear weapons to prevent disaster. Why? Some quotes from the piece (indented):
While the event received an outpouring of vocal and wide-reaching support from some of the best-known figures in the nuclear field, the disparaging tweets illustrated the common belief that queer identity has no relevance for nuclear policy, and that examining the relationship between queerness and nuclear policy is intended to push a social agenda rather than to address substantive issues.
During this Pride Month, we would like Bulletin readers to understand that the visible representation and meaningful participation of queer people matters for nuclear policy outcomes. Discrimination against queer people can undermine nuclear security and increase nuclear risk. And queer theory can help change how nuclear practitioners, experts, and the public think about nuclear weapons.
I’ve never really understood what “queer theory” is, so of course I went to Wikipedia:
The term “queer theory” is broadly associated with the study and theorization of gender and sexual practices that exist outside of heterosexuality, and which challenge the notion that heterosexuality is normal. Following social constructivist developments in sociology, queer theorists are often critical of what they consider essentialist views of sexuality and gender. Instead, they study those concepts as social and cultural phenomena, often through an analysis of the categories, binaries, and language in which they are said to be portrayed.
. . . Similarly, queer theory remains difficult to objectively define as academics from various disciplines have contributed varying understanding of the term. At its core, queer theory relates to queer people, their lived experience and how their lived experience is culturally or politically perceived, specifically referring to the marginalization of queer people. This thinking is then applied to various fields of thinking
That doesn’t help me much; it seems to be a collection of post facto claims and generalization without much “theory”. At any rate, as you read on, the “theory”, as it relate to nuclear security and disarmament, turns out to be the usual demand for equity in a technical field based on the claim that increased equity will improve the field by bringing in salubrious views:
Equity and inclusion for queer people is not just a box-ticking exercise in ethics and social justice; it is also essential for creating effective nuclear policy. Studies in psychology and behavioral science show that diverse teams examine assumptions and evidence more carefully, make fewer errors, discuss issues more constructively, and better exchange new ideas and knowledge.
I’d check the references (I couldn’t access one of them), for the “diversity” mentioned included exclusively racial diversity and gender diversity sans “queer” diversity. The first reference in fact says that in business the “Theory” hasn’t worked, probably because it’s been misapplied. Here’s a quote from the Harvard Business Review (first link):
These rallying cries for more diversity in companies, from recent statements by CEOs, are representative of what we hear from business leaders around the world. They have three things in common: All articulate a business case for hiring more women or people of color; all demonstrate good intentions; and none of the claims is actually supported by robust research findings.
None of these references include diversity of sexual behavior or sexual identity encompassed in the authors’ call for more LGBTQ+ people, nor do they consider other forms of diversity, like socioeconomic background. While surely LGBTQ+ people should not be discriminated against in this field, and in others, the argument that they have “different ways of thinking,” and thus added representation will help stave off nuclear disaster, is not convincing. More from the BAS article:
When the stakes of making best-informed decisions are as high as they are with nuclear weapons, governments cannot afford to lose out on the human capital and innovation potential of queer people. Informed by their life experiences, queer people have specific skills to offer that are valuable in a policy and diplomacy context. LGBTQ+ people often must navigate being different from those around them; develop the ability to listen and empathize; and mobilize the skill and perseverance to make themselves heard.
This is an assertion without evidence, and the argument would of course apply to any “marginalized” group—were it true.
Again, any bigotry against people of color, women, and LGBTQ+ people in the area of nuclear policy is shameful and should be eliminated, but does it exist? Only one or two anecdotes are given, not a claims of “structural bigotry.”
Further, the article does nothing to dispel the notion that “examining the relationship between queerness and nuclear policy is intended to push a social agenda rather than to address substantive issues.” Indeed, I can’t imagine one could read this article and not conclude that it’s pushing a social agenda:
Here are a few of the putative advantages of creating LGBTQ+ equity (headings are mine):
Better decision making.
Including a wider range of perspectives in nuclear decision making creates a more comprehensive definition of who or what constitutes a “threat” to nuclear security. An example of this is the threat posed by some white supremacist groups with plans to acquire nuclear weapons or material, which can go undetected when a white-majority workforce does not perceive these groups and their ideological motivation as a relevant threat to their nuclear security mission. Individuals targeted by these kinds of groups—including women, people of color, and the LGBTQ+ community—are more likely to identify these types of behaviors and attitudes as security risks and can play a crucial role in identifying a potential insider threat.
This seems both hypothetic and uber-hyperbolic to me, and again, seems clearly aimed at pushing a social agenda, not ameliorating palpable threats. If you look at the second link in the paragraph above, you’ll find another BAS article that says stuff like this (note that the article is not about white supremacists, as claimed above, but “far-right extremists”:
Inspired by the ideas of accelerationism, the modern breed of violent far-right extremism is becoming more destructive, and nuclear weapons certainly fit into this profile of catastrophic violence.
. . . While some violent far-right extremists are clearly motivated to carry out catastrophic terrorist attacks, a question remains: Do they possess the means and opportunity to conduct an act of nuclear terrorism? There is no public evidence violent far-right extremist groups have obtained the resources or exhibited the requisite operational sophistication to carry out an act of nuclear terrorism.
I can’t say that this really worries me, nor am I convinced that adding more queer people to the field would help us find white supremacists plotting to use nuclear weapons. In fact, were the instances of theoretical “nuclear terrorism” already mentioned by those on the far right (some aren’t even in the U.S.) detected largely by queer people? We have no data here. Here are some of the reasons why, say the authors, we must “queer” nuclear policy. Again, quotes from BAS are indented:
The historical legacy of anti-gay discrimination in government.
Being LGBTQ+ has historically been considered a security risk. Akin to the “Red Scare” anti-communism movement, the “Lavender Scare” was a campaign persecuting and dismissing gay and lesbian federal employees. The linking of homophobia and national security concerns seems to stem from sensationalized case studies of defections of US intelligence specialists to the Soviet Union during the Cold War. This legacy of queerness being considered a security risk is still pervasive in the nuclear field.
Read the second link; it’s from 1995 and notes that since 1991 the investigators have found no cases of discrimination against gays procuring security clearances:
. . . .our work disclosed no evidence that sexual orientation has been used as a criterion in the security clearance process for federal civilian and contractor employees since 1991.
In fact, this kind of discrimination is now illegal, and could lead to lawsuits. Once again, the evidence is distorted seemingly to push a social agenda.
Finally, there’s this claim:
Nuclear facilities don’t create a “welcoming environment: for queer people.
Despite setbacks, public acceptance of the queer community is rising globally, and the supposed links between espionage and homosexuality have been unfounded. However, nuclear facilities still have a reputation for being unwelcoming toward queer people and have failed to investigate allegations of homophobia and harassment. In part, this is due to the lack of diversity in the nuclear field. Homogenous organizations run a higher risk of isolating queer employees, leaving them vulnerable to pressure. Employees in the majority can feel threatened by those they perceive as “different” and exclude them due to discomfort, rather than any legitimate risk factors. Nuclear security practice needs to refrain from treating an individual’s behavior or identity as a risk and focus instead on identifying misbehaviors that indicate malicious intent.
By failing to create a welcoming workplace at nuclear facilities—whether military or civilian—practitioners risk reducing the effectiveness of an organization’s nuclear security culture.
Again, if there is bigotry and discrimination in nuclear facilities against queer people, that’s reprehensible and should be rooted out. But here we need facts, not feelings. Given the welcome and rapid acceptance of queer people into mainstream society and science in particular, the assertion of structural bigotry is questionable. In fact, the authors adduce only one link instance of a failure to investigate homophobic bullying and abuse at one British nuclear site. That’s reprehensible, but is one instance sufficient to indict the entire field and raise a sweeping call for equity?
The Solution:
We need to beef up the number of LGBTQ+ people in nuclear policy—that is, “queer the field”—to reap the substantial benefits of greater queer equity (though the present degree of inequity isn’t specified and is surely not known). Some quotes on the benefits:
Queer identity is also relevant for the nuclear field because it informs theories that aim to change how officials, experts, and the public think about nuclear weapons. Queer theory is a field of study, closely related to feminist theory, that examines sex- and gender-based norms. It shines a light on the harm done by nuclear weapons through uranium mining, nuclear tests, and the tax money spent on nuclear weapons ($60 billion annually in the United States) instead of on education, infrastructure, and welfare. The queer lens prioritizes the rights and well-being of people over the abstract idea of national security. . . [JAC: What is national security but a balancing of well-being and rights against dangers like nuclear weapons?]
. . . Queer theory also identifies how the nuclear weapons discourse is gendered: Nuclear deterrence is associated with “rationality” and “security,” while disarmament and justice for nuclear weapon victims are coded as “emotion” and a lack of understanding of the “real” mechanics of security.
That is another risible assertion without evidence; in fact, no quotes or links are given. It goes on:
. . . Queer theory is also about rejecting binary choices and zero-sum thinking, such as the tenet that nuclear deterrence creates security and disarmament creates vulnerability. It identifies the assumptions and interests these ideas are built on—and imagines alternatives that serve a broader range of interests, including those of the invisible and resource-stripped.
. . . Finally, queer theory informs the struggle for nuclear justice and disarmament. For example, queer artist and writer Jessie Boylan highlights the harm done by nuclear weapons by documenting the social and environmental consequences of nuclear testing in Australia as part of the Atomic Photographers Guild. Queer theory helps to shift the perception of nuclear weapons as instruments for security by telling the hidden stories of displacement, illness, and trauma caused by their production and testing.
As we know, there have been plenty of arguments for nuclear disarmament and depictions of the dangers of nuclear war made by non-queer people, beginning with Albert Einstein and Robert Oppenheimer, both cis physicists who pushed strongly for nuclear disarmament. Citing Jessie Boylan’s work does nothing to support the authors’ general argument.
And so we have Reitman and Nair’s argument, an argument that in principle could be made for any field of endeavor. It’s based on a concatenation of assumptions and undemonstrated assertions, among them the claim that queer people have a “different way of knowing” and a “different way of thinking” than do non-queer people, and that absorbing these differences could lead to in a substantially better nuclear policy than we have now.
It is an argument based in victimhood and divisiveness, and forgive me if I find it unconvincing. As I said, if you adduce the past evidence of homophobia, which was once pervasive, any field of human endeavor could be subject to this article’s argument: all fields need to be “queered.”
But assuming that each once oppressed group can bring to the table important new “ways of thinking” about policy or science itself is not only unevidenced, but leads to an “otherism” that only serves to divide LGBTQ+ from cis people.
Although the authors claim that they are not trying to push a social agenda, it seems evident that they are. What is that agenda? Simply to bring more LGBTQ+ people into nuclear policy. But given our ignorance of the claimed inequities, and especially of any important “ways of thinking” of queer people that would inform nuclear policy, this seems to be an argument without evidence.
Of course bigotry against queer people in any field is reprehensible, and often illegal, and should be condemned. Equal opportunity for entry should be the rule. But that’s not the same thing as saying that we need more queer people in nuclear policy because they bring something new and important to the table. The whole argument is in fact what the authors deny it is: a pastiche of dubious claims that add up to a social agenda.
The’ comments by the article’s readers also show that, by and large, they aren’t buying it. Have a look after the article. Here are two:
That one deals with the “merit versus ideology” dichotomy, and, as always, I’m going with merit.
The second author of this article, Sneha Nair, was appointed by the Biden Administration to the National Nuclear Security Administration earlier this year in the Dept. of Energy. The DOE is proud that 25% of its staff identify as LGBTQ+, 60% are women, and 57% are
colouredpeople of colour.https://www.energy.gov/articles/us-department-energy-welcomes-new-biden-harris-appointees-and-announces-promotions
(h/t to Fox News and The Free Press for the tip.)
You went into such scholarly detail in describing this new arena in the culture wars that I feel a bit guilty for responding with so little. But—and I mean no disrespect to your careful analysis—this move to inject queer theory into nuclear weapons policy and practice seems more like BS than like anything substantive. It might become substantive if the relevant agencies take it seriously and downgrade our readiness as a result but, if so, the movement would cause substantive harm rather than good. Everyone needs to be treated with dignity and respect, and if this movement moves us closer to that goal, perhaps a bit of good can come from it. (I’m being charitable in stating that caveat.)
Yes, I agree with your last sentence, but I seriously doubt that this article will accomplish anything. Why not just write an article with that last sentence?
More important, it shows what is happening to the scientific literature. Yes, it’s BS, but we need less BS and more science in science journals and magazines.
Agreed. Science journals are not the place to prosecute social movements. The article is an embarrassment and an affront to science and nuclear policy.
I appreciate Jerry’s take on this, and I’m glad to know about this incident and the topic of queering of nuclear weapons. But on another level I can’t take any of this seriously. If one believes, as Laura Holgate does, that “DEI is and should be the moral imperative for all organisations,” and if you think in jingoistic slogans like “if you are not at the table, you are on the menu,” then you’re just not a serious person. On that basis I’m going to assume that Ambassador Holgate is posturing for her in-group here and not trying to achieve anything of substance for her constituency (the American people). The belief that “LGBTQ+ inclusion strengthens security” is one of those luxury beliefs that only a donor-class doyenne (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Holgate) could embrace with a straight face.
[edit to add: I’m with Norman @ 2]
This is why woke ideology does not get much respect. The first sentence of the article quotes an offensive Tweet: “They should not allow mentally ill people near weapons of mass destruction,” but it then uses that as an excuse to run wildly off course to make the self-evidently wrong claim that LGBTQ+ inclusion improves nuclear safety bc somehow queer folk think differently in other ways and we need all the diverse thinking we can get when it comes to nuclear safety.
It would have been far more credible to simply explain, with evidence, that people with non-binary identities are in the range of normal when it comes to intelligence, empathy, engineering skills, prudence, and so on.
“It would have been far more credible to simply explain, with evidence, that people with non-binary identities are in the range of normal when it comes to intelligence, empathy, engineering skills, prudence, and so on.”
However, in Western societies, there has been a recent spike in the prevalence of people with non-binary identities whose plan to succeed in their career and life is by intimidating others. This speaks against their empathy and prudence.
“That doesn’t help me much; it seems to be a collection of post facto claims and generalization without much “theory”.” – J. Coyne
The following quotes may help a little:
Queer Theory is about “resistance to regimes of the normal,”1 and against “theories that attempt to homogenize, normalize, categorize, and hierarchize.”2
1: Warner, Michael. Introduction to Fear of a Queer Planet: Queer Politics and Social Theory, edited by Michael Warner, vii-xxxi. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1993. p. xxvi
2: Hall, Donald E. Queer Theories. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003. p. 15
“To undertake “queering” is to deploy queer as a verb, to challenge and resist expectations or norms. For example, “queering femininity” might mean thinking about how femininity can be more than an oppressive gender ideal, and can be embodied in non-normative ways.”
(McCann, Hannah, and Whitney Monaghan. Queer Theory Now: From Foundations to Futures. London: Red Globe Press, 2020. p. 3)
“A key aspect of queer theory is resisting dominant norms….
…
Queer theory is particularly concerned with resisting norms around gender and sexuality, and questioning what is considered “normal” versus “abnormal” in these contexts.
…
In addition to resisting norms, queer theory seeks to interrogate processes of normalisation. Normalisation is a term that was introduced by Foucault to explain how norms function as a form of social control within modern societies.
…
By analysing this process, queer theory is thus concerned with the question of how norms are regulated and connected to social power.
…
Queer theory is also interested in understanding and often resisting the normative. While the term normative is related to the idea of norms, it is important to differentiate between the two terms. Norm simply describes a dominant rule, standard or expectation, but normative refers to the context surrounding how these things are established, perpetuated and often morally endorsed.
…
More broadly, queer theory is interested in critiquing, destabilising, subverting and challenging normativity. The term normativity refers to the system through which norms, normalisation and the normative are naturalised and made to seem ideal. Many queer thinkers focus their critiques on both heteronormativity and homonormativity.”
(McCann, Hannah, and Whitney Monaghan. Queer Theory Now: From Foundations to Futures. London: Red Globe Press, 2020. pp. 12-3)
Yes, I get that, but there is no “theory” that I see; simply a plan of action.
1. In phrases such as “queer theory” and “gender theory”, the word “theory” doesn’t mean what it means in the scientific context. Queer theory is not a theory like Einstein’s theory of relativity.
2. Political activism is an essential aspect of the Woke Left’s “critical theories”.
“[W]ith the arrival of poststructuralism in North America, “theory” was born, in the freestanding sense of the term that became so familiar in subsequent decades: not theory of this or that – not, for instance, theory of narrative, as structuralist narratology aspired to be – but theory in general, what in other eras might have been called speculation, or even indeed philosophy.”
(McHale, Brian. The Cambridge Introduction to Postmodernism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015. p. 48)
“Critical theory espouses identifying and creating an awareness of the roots of inequality and marginalization, forming and enunciating critiques of the resultant social problems, and actively engaging in resistance. The heart of critical theory thus embraces “agency,” a critical awareness that leads to informed action designed to counter processes of domination deeply embedded in our daily lives. Critical theory is an ideology directed toward identifying and solving problems, not toward an impassive reflection on the nature and meaning of problems that amounts to silent complicity and accommodation. [Peter] McLaren pointed out that morality, not logic, characterizes critical theory and social critique.”
(Cary, Richard. Critical Art Pedagogy: Foundations for Postmodern Art Education. New York: Routledge, 2011. pp. 12-3)
Of course my point is threefold, which I hope was clear. I really don’t care much about “queer theory”: this doesn’t belong in a scientific journal. Second, the support for its thesis is nonexistent. Third, it demonstrates the ideological capture of science by “theory”. Whatever “queer theory” may be, and it appears to be diverse things to different people, a very weak and tendentious article about hot it’s essential to apply in nuclear weapon control doesn’t belong in a journal like this.
Look what’s happened to Scientific American.
What happens when queering becomes the norm?
See Max Blancke’s comment at #14.
The “Q” means Queer.
Queer Theory is the doctrine of a gnostic and Hermetic religious cult.
The cult will dialectically avoid this by saying “Q” refers to “questioning”.
The origins of thought of this cult can be found in the thought of Behmenism (ca. 1500s) regarding the sex (aka “gender”) of the “godhead” and its Nature in life, and how it pertains to accession of the soul etc.
The sex of god is also a preoccupation of orthodox religion.
See (I just got this and it is fascinating):
Gender in Mystical and Occult Thought – Behmenism and its Development in England
B. J. Gibbons
Cambridge U. Press
1996
Behmenism refers to Jakob Bohme.
Are there rankings for nonsense? Like on a 1 to 10 scale with 10 being the worst, can you judge that “the earth is flat” is a 7 while “immigration causes more crime” is a 9? I am adding a value judgement in my proposed the ratings, but I wonder if an ethical value-free scale of BS is possible.
If so, this one would rank WAY up there. Why not say if we have more blond-haired people in power, the chances of a nuclear war is reduced? Or if we give the nuclear codes to tall people, we’ll be better off. (Full disclosure: I’m a tall person and occasionally have a fantasy of having the nuclear codes.)
This one frightens me more than some others because I think nuclear war is a pretty serious issue. Throwing identify politics into a decision theory concerning starting a nuclear war, in my humble opinion, trivializes a nuclear war. That’s scary!
Why do you rate a demonstrable falsehood of the flat earth as better than “immigration causes crime” which might be reasoned.
If we were talking Sweden, then immigration has indeed increased crime hugely. This is not disputed. Sweden has gone from one of the safest countries with the lowest levels of violent crime and crimes like rape, to one of the worst in Europe. And immigration is the cause.
E.g.: “In 2018, Swedish Television investigative journalism … found that 58% of all convicted of rape and attempted rape had a foreign background. 40% were immigrants born in the Middle East and Africa, … When only analysing … cases where perpetrator and victim were not previously acquainted, 97 out of 129 (75%) were born outside Europe, …” (link)
The US is very fortunate that most of its cheap labor immigrants came from Latin America, what I call a “European culture” – Christianity moderated by Enlightenment values. Europe, unfortunately, got its cheap labor from North Africa and the Mideast – “Islamic culture”. Sorry, I don’t have the time to go into all that is wrong with Islam.
Sweden is experiencing net emigration out of the country now.
On account of deportations?
One of the frequent criticisms made against Queer activism is that it encourages an escalating and over sensitive definition of “harm.” Terms like genocide, fascism, hate, and white supremacy are thrown about with little discrimination in reference to crimes like misgendering or rational dispute.
The thought of “queering” nuclear policy by aligning it with the special insights of those who believe JK Rowling is a hateful Nazi bigot who wants queer people dead is rather alarming.
Some interesting thoughts on escalation & sensitivity in the successor ideology.
https://www.gurwinder.blog/p/the-outrageous-rise-of-neotoddlerism
Thank you for the link! Loved the article and the title. I think it’s accurate.
Gurwinder is an interesting twitter follow.
Thank you. Excellent article.
D.A.
NYC
ps Queering of Nukes can probably find a home in the same file as Feminist Glaciology (circa 2017-ish). I’d start a file of these amazing articles but it would be too large. A compendium would be fun though and sell well I think.
D.A.
What I’m missing is reliable scientific evidence to underpin the claim that “queer thinking” is superior on nuclear policies.
I also wonder how these anti nuclear messages are received in Russia and China; will they now be convinced to change their policies?
Personally I would prefer normal stable people to make decisions about nuclear deterrence policies. Their sexual preferences shouldn’t matter in my opinion.
If this notion catches on, I can foresee a “Queerness” arms race, in which both America and Russia race to maximize the number of LGBTQIA+++ people in the personnel of their respective nuclear forces, so as not to miss out on any of the vital insights and skills that these uniquely gifted individuals can provide. Perhaps in time, a Strategic Queerness Limitation Treaty can be negotiated between East and West, so that a Balance of Queerness Terror is achieved, with neither side able to gain a critical advantage over the other in Queerness megatonnage.
How North Korea might respond to this, I have no idea. Does anyone know whether Pyongyang has a thriving gay scene that Kim Jong-Un can scour for recruits?
+++
Let’s try to keep it to the anti-scientific nonsense that a human conceived as male can discover through his own gnostic feelings that he is really female, and then sets out to enforce this belief on the rest of society. These are the people we don’t want developing or securing nuclear weapons. Not only do we not want to include them with DEI quotas. We ought to want to exclude them.
Homosexual people from “the gay scene” who aren’t confused about what sex they are and just want to be left alone to get their work done aren’t the problem. The trans activists want to conflate them because there are a lot more homosexual people willing to donate to no-longer-relevant pressure groups like GLAAD than there are trans people with the necessary dosh.
While trans-identified people are queer, not all queer people are trans. Or gay. I’ve encountered the frequent complaint that the category is being used so that heterosexual individuals or couples can include themselves in with homosexuality because they’re extra edgy and sneer at convention and the conventional, too. They’ve got colored hair, piercings, and clothing as strange as they can make it — into the Pride Parade they go!
People who work with nuclear weapons shouldn’t be devoted to the idea of smashing whatever’s consider normal and/or status quo in order to invent a new society from the ashes. Just saying.
You’re right. I’m a younger lesbian (in my early 20s), but I’m also rather ‘boring.’ I want to get married, have kids, and — horror of all horrors — my clothes all seem to wind up greige. I was fortunate enough to have come to terms with my sexuality just before the TQ+ really took off, but young enough to watch my whole friend group (and two immediate family members) transition. If you spend time in these spaces, you start to see that the foundation of “Queer” is that sexuality, and sex, are social constructs. The struggle over choosing which micro-label fits you best (pan or bi? demi? aceflux? aro?) has been reified as the “Queer” experience. And if you so much as suggest that you’ve always known, that it’s biological and unchangable? That clothing preferences and how short you cut your hair is irrelevant? You’re either privileged, or worse, a “gatekeeper” and “genital fetishist”. Regardless, you’re certainly not Queer.
Wiki’s definition of Queer Theory reveals its origin in the post-modernist focus on texts as substitution for physical things: “they study those concepts as social and cultural phenomena, often through an analysis of the categories, binaries, and language in which they are said to be portrayed.” In the arena of, say, automobile repair, the Queer Theory approach would thus focus on the “categories, binaries, and language” of words like “spark plug” and “valve” rather than use a wrench (a word that might cause offense) to get at the things themselves. Adding this approach to automobile repair sure would augment its Diversity, but one may wonder about its usefulness for repairing automobiles.
+1
Reader “David” linked to this crackpot article the other day and I tried to read it but became disgusted and gave up. PCC(E) on the other hand has the skills to dissect yet another example of big time BS and point out, in a scholarly way, what’s wrong with it.
I “like” the term used in Mike’s link “neotoddlerism”… sums up the trend aptly, in my opinion.
I’ll also add that what I continually see in these movements is how they corrupt language and mostly prove that what they’re really after isn’t equity, but control.
I saw it too and thought: Bulletin of Atomic Scientists—one more publication bites the woke dust.
As I understand it – they’re lying about Queer Theory, twisting it to be about discrimination. Well… there WAS discrimination in the past, there was a LOT of various types of discrimination – none of which has existed for decades. In fact, our society in word, action, legislation and custom/culture presents such a level playing field that the woke have to IMPORT injustice from the past (slavery) or even other countries (current actions against Indian caste discrimination… in California). Or turn criticism against a set of ideas into “RAAACISM!” – witness the fiction of “Islamophobia”.
And they try to make that logical jump with nonsense like “intergenerational trauma” and other non-scientific “ideas”.
When you invent strawmen… you have something to burn down. Or “queer” (verb).
Further, every time I can get an answer “Queering” means destruction of boundaries and the burning down of everything established. Wrecking systems that work, in other words. Call me crazy but I’m not comfortable with, say, wrecking the way we protect, administer and keep track of nuclear weapons. FFS.
D.A.
NYC
+1
We must distinguish “queer” from “gay”.
My sister is a gay nuclear physicist who has had an impressive career at the facilities under discussion. Of course, being gay does not keep her from dressing and acting professionally at work, and being very competent.
A queer person, in contrast, is going to feel the need to be transgressive and push boundaries constantly.
When everyone else is trying to figure out the most elegant solution to the problem at hand, the queer person is going to try to steer the discussion to talk of dildos or children’s sexuality.
They are fundamentally a disruptive force. On purpose.
Hiring the queer is like hiring circus clowns. Some professional is trying to fabricate an explosive lens to very specific specifications, and the idiot clown keeps sneaking up behind them and blowing an air horn in their ear.
The people pushing this stuff do not understand the function of professionalism or competence, and cannot foresee the consequences of de-prioritizing them.
Sam Brinton comes to mind.
Agreed, “queering nuclear weapons” means stalking black women fashion designers, stealing their luggage, posing in their clothing like some kind of skin walker, getting fired from the civil service, pleading guilty to petit larceny, and getting time served.
10+++++
I’m all for the basic motives and intentions of DEI but like anything I may at a basic level agree with having no issue calling them out for being silly.
The article implies that queering nuclear weapons people will result in peace – bu what if North Korea tries to instigate a nuclear war by forcibly misusing some queer nuclear weapons overseer’s pronouns?
Seriously, my issue with this article is that it takes the prospect of nuclear arms negotiation out of the realm of all of us in the US (or the world) and focuses it on the feelings of the individual. People in this realm should identify as part of the overall human race, not as Ze/Zim or Hu/Hu. Outside of work, be what you want. While working on anything related to nuclear weapons, just do your job.
What I find rather amusing about this article is that one can confidently—and correctly—dismiss it as nonsense without having the slightest experience in either nuclear weapons operations or policy.
What always strikes me is how much they “other” LGBTQ+ people : different thinking, different perspective, different mindset, different this that and…
It’s also akin to the noble savage mindset.
Similar to the false myth of aboriginal societies living in peace with the environment and each other, a myth has formed that LGBTQ+++ people are kind, gentle, and make decisions based on love. One older family member, a life-long Democrat and former feminist, went so far as to say that “you don’t hear about LGBTQ+ people hurting kids”. Implication being that straight men sexually assault kids but those noble LGBTQ+ people would never do such a thing.
More Sam Brintons!!! That will make everyone safer.
Seriously, as others have commented, there should be no discrimination against LGB folks, but the T and the Q? As I see it, Qs just want to be extra special, everyone gets a trophy. But Ts? I believe most are mentally ill and should not be near anything with the word nuclear.
I can’t find it now, but I recently read an article by a former sex crimes detective (herself lesbian), who described the shift in allowed discussion about cross dressers. In the past it was acknowledged that some (many?) went from cross dressing to stealing to sexual assault crimes. Now? you can’t dare say that!!!!
I am late to this post, so probably won’t get a reply…
But what the H is “lived experience”? Compared to “experience”?
Imagined experience?
Dreamed experience?
Dead experience?
Consider this a reply, LG. 🙂