This one is going out to Antonio of Venice. In another thread I observed him calming that woke trans behavior couldn't be socialist, because the USSR was anti-gay.
So this is an educational resource for those who don't know how politicizing of fundamental social concepts like sex and gender roles can work towards a Neo-Marxist agenda.
Here is a link to an episode of James Lindsay's New Discourses podcast, where he defines Queer Theory and gives some of its history.
New Discourses Bullets, Ep. 94; The Political Definition of "Queer"
James Lindsay isn't perfect. He is committed to the reform of the sphere of academia, and he recently tried to make "woke right" a thing. That said, he is very knowledgeable and gives extensive citations for every point he makes in this podcast. There are well cited publications elsewhere in his body of work which have extensive discussion and exhaustive citations. This is (more or less) the short, short version.
Queer Theory is a descendent of Critical Theory and redefines the Marxist class struggle along different lines.
tl;dw:
The podcast episode critiques queer theory as defined by David Halperin, a foundational queer theorist.
Halperin frames "queer" not as an identity rooted in reality (like being gay) but as a political stance opposed to norms, legitimacy, and dominance. Halperin’s definition seeks to elevate Foucault to sainthood and divorces "queer" from any "positive truth" or "stable reality," instead positioning it as a fluid, oppositional force against societal structures.
Lindsay argues this politicizes identity, conflates personal and political realms (a "Marxist maneuver"), and enables radical outcomes—including destabilizing science, rejecting limiting principles, and potentially justifying harm to children. Queer theory’s lack of "essence" or grounding in reality, Lindsay claims, makes it inherently destructive, warranting opposition to its ideological framework.
tl;dr tl;dw:
Queer Theory defines "queer" as political action specifically in opposition to existing social structures; deliberately conflating sexuality with political action. Doing so it makes action outside the sexual orthodoxly inherently political, without restriction. IMNHO Queer Theory specifically encourages both sexualizing and politicizing the youth.
The astute observer will observe this is exactly what is happening with the grooming and transing of kids.
Queer Theory is explicitly a Neo-Marxist ideology. So is basically all of the current "Applied Post Modernist Intersectionalism"
I think the issue is Applied Post-Modern Intersectionalism rejects the concept of the Marxist Historical Dialectical Materialism. Socialism typically operates off of Dialectical Materialism, but typically puts it to the side when it becomes politically necessary. We saw this with both Fabian Socialism, National Socialism, and WW2 Stalinism.
Queerness is literally nothing more than Sex Communism. You sometimes even see people like Vaush push Queer historical revisionism and claim that pair bonding never happened in early human history, and that all societies were purely hedonistic and basically pan-sexual. This is a bastardized application of Rouseau's Nobel Savage concept into the idea of sex, where cultural limitations were implanted by civilization onto the savages in order to oppress his will. In reality, we know that all societies tend to push for some kind of pair-bonding, as it is a successful mating strategy for humans. We also see pair-bonding replicated a lot in the natural world.
Queers are basically treating normal sexual relationships the same way every Applied Post Modernist Intersectionalist treats civilization, or the same way every Marxist treats Romantic History, and the same way every Socialist treats Capitalism.
It is important to understand that Queer is very clearly not an asserted gender, nor an asserted sex, nor an asserted sexual orientation. When push comes to shove, though the activists will hide it, the truth is that "Queers" are a political designation. They have nothing to do with gender, sex, or sexuality. They are a political movement demanding radical change to those topics.
Hence, yes, it is a form of Sexual Communism / Socialism. The topic that the Socialists are covering happens to be specific to sex, rather than race, religion, gender, or nationality.