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.
Which can be seen in offshoots of critical theory. Feminism is this same offset of the “patriarchy”, LGBTQ is the offset of heteronormativity, on and on. What I find interesting is that this need to create opposition was massively controlled and targeted for decades. The difference today it seems is that the torch somehow didn’t get passed properly and lunatics are now running the asylum, which makes me wonder if that is just the natural consequence of creating this dichotomy.
Feminism is slightly different, because it is fifty years older than Critical Theory. Further, Feminism is designed to put women into the dominant role that they imagine men to have.
All while Feminists are raging against the biological imperative to have babies and raise a family.
Simply put, Feminism is penis envy. They want what they think men have and imagine themselves being the most rich and successful Chads, complete with wealth and harem.
I think Feminism informed Critical Theory and the Frankfort school was jealous of the success that Feminism has found.
But you are 100% correct. Feminism is and always has been deeply Marxist in origin and application. In the UK the ancient domestic violence movement was taken over by literal Socialists and used to secure a funding stream for their programs for social change, all while playing on the emotions of Useful Idiot women.
There are some very interesting interviews with Erin Pizzey on YouTube. She was very much on the leading edge of applied family systems and mens' rights. She was chased out of the UK (her dog was killed) because she would not bend the knee to the Socialists.