WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:03.000 Welcome to the Deep Dive. Yeah, welcome in. If 00:00:03.000 --> 00:00:04.299 you're joining us today, you probably already 00:00:04.299 --> 00:00:06.740 know the mission. We take a stack of sources, 00:00:06.839 --> 00:00:09.500 articles, notes, and we just extract the most 00:00:09.500 --> 00:00:11.779 critical insights just for you. Right, breaking 00:00:11.779 --> 00:00:15.400 it all down. Exactly. And today we're unpacking 00:00:15.400 --> 00:00:19.600 a single Wikipedia article about a... Well, a 00:00:19.600 --> 00:00:22.160 historical document that radically shifted the 00:00:22.160 --> 00:00:24.280 vocabulary of an entire social movement. It truly 00:00:24.280 --> 00:00:27.140 changed the game. We're looking at a 1990 manifesto 00:00:27.140 --> 00:00:30.059 called Queers Read This. And it's also widely 00:00:30.059 --> 00:00:32.100 known by the title printed in massive letters 00:00:32.100 --> 00:00:34.920 on its back page, I Hate Straits. That's right. 00:00:35.060 --> 00:00:37.840 The goal of this deep dive is to explore how 00:00:37.840 --> 00:00:40.640 a four -page pamphlet handed out on a city street 00:00:40.640 --> 00:00:45.170 helped ignite modern queer theory. But before 00:00:45.170 --> 00:00:47.329 we get into the timeline and the history of this 00:00:47.329 --> 00:00:49.450 specific document, we really need to set the 00:00:49.450 --> 00:00:51.570 parameters for today's discussion. Yeah, I'll 00:00:51.570 --> 00:00:54.750 step in right here to offer a very clear disclaimer 00:00:54.750 --> 00:00:57.740 to you, the listener. Because we are analyzing 00:00:57.740 --> 00:01:00.920 a historical manifesto, the source material we're 00:01:00.920 --> 00:01:03.000 looking at contains politically charged concepts, 00:01:03.420 --> 00:01:06.540 highly radical viewpoints and, you know, controversial 00:01:06.540 --> 00:01:09.519 historical debates. Right. So it is vital to 00:01:09.519 --> 00:01:12.019 state explicitly that neither of us is taking 00:01:12.019 --> 00:01:15.120 a side here. Absolutely not. Nor are we endorsing 00:01:15.120 --> 00:01:17.120 the viewpoints or the anger expressed in this 00:01:17.120 --> 00:01:20.079 document. Our sole purpose in this deep dive 00:01:20.079 --> 00:01:22.700 is to impartially convey and analyze the ideas, 00:01:22.959 --> 00:01:25.560 the factual history and the intense academic. 00:01:25.640 --> 00:01:27.799 debates contained strictly within the source 00:01:27.799 --> 00:01:29.459 material we've gathered. Just giving you the 00:01:29.459 --> 00:01:32.620 facts. Exactly. We are simply acting as your 00:01:32.620 --> 00:01:34.939 historical guides through the text. Okay, let's 00:01:34.939 --> 00:01:37.719 unpack this. We're talking about a stack of paper 00:01:37.719 --> 00:01:41.200 dropped at a parade in 1990. A drop that genuinely 00:01:41.200 --> 00:01:43.560 changed history. It really did. Picture the scene. 00:01:43.680 --> 00:01:47.400 It is June 1990. We are at the New York Gay Pride 00:01:47.400 --> 00:01:51.000 Parade. And out of the crowd, members of a collective 00:01:51.000 --> 00:01:53.900 calling themselves Anonymous Queers. Who are 00:01:53.900 --> 00:01:56.579 marching right alongside the ACTUP contingent, 00:01:56.579 --> 00:01:59.140 by the way. Right. Right alongside them. They 00:01:59.140 --> 00:02:01.500 start handing out these broadsheets. And they 00:02:01.500 --> 00:02:03.629 didn't just print a handful. they distributed 00:02:03.629 --> 00:02:07.129 roughly 15 ,000 copies of this essay into the 00:02:07.129 --> 00:02:09.849 crowd. Which is massive. Yeah, and the physical 00:02:09.849 --> 00:02:12.689 object itself is so specific. It's a single sheet 00:02:12.689 --> 00:02:15.289 of standard -sized newsprint. Sheet paper. Exactly. 00:02:15.490 --> 00:02:18.270 Printed on both sides, just folded in half to 00:02:18.270 --> 00:02:21.210 create four pages. On the front, the text reads, 00:02:21.370 --> 00:02:23.909 Queers read this. You flip it over, and the back 00:02:23.909 --> 00:02:27.969 says, I hate straights. Handing out 15 ,000 copies 00:02:27.969 --> 00:02:31.610 of anything in 1990 is a massive logistical effort. 00:02:31.729 --> 00:02:34.830 Pre -internet, yeah. Right. To really grasp the 00:02:34.830 --> 00:02:36.770 impact of that moment, we have to look at the 00:02:36.770 --> 00:02:39.759 climate that necessitated that effort. The period 00:02:39.759 --> 00:02:41.960 when this was written was a pressure cooker of 00:02:41.960 --> 00:02:44.319 systemic heterosexism. It's a completely different 00:02:44.319 --> 00:02:46.840 world. You have the devastating HIV AIDS epidemic 00:02:46.840 --> 00:02:50.120 raging. And that's compounded by a glaring lack 00:02:50.120 --> 00:02:52.599 of an effective systemic or governmental response. 00:02:52.919 --> 00:02:55.439 But alongside the virus, there was a terrifying 00:02:55.439 --> 00:02:59.080 environment of physical danger. The source material 00:02:59.080 --> 00:03:02.340 highlights a really grim statistic. By early 00:03:02.340 --> 00:03:05.099 April of 1990, instances of violence against 00:03:05.099 --> 00:03:10.919 LGBT people had increased 122%. 122%. From the 00:03:10.919 --> 00:03:15.080 start of that very same year. A 122 % spike in 00:03:15.080 --> 00:03:17.319 violence in just a few months. That isn't just 00:03:17.319 --> 00:03:19.300 a statistic that is a community under siege. 00:03:19.560 --> 00:03:22.099 It was an existential threat. That fear and that 00:03:22.099 --> 00:03:25.259 daily reality prompted members of ACTUP to create 00:03:25.259 --> 00:03:27.939 the direct action group Queer Nation. Right. 00:03:28.000 --> 00:03:30.039 The evolution of the political concepts we're 00:03:30.039 --> 00:03:31.990 looking at today was entirely forged in that 00:03:31.990 --> 00:03:35.110 specific violent context. That context completely 00:03:35.110 --> 00:03:37.909 explains the tone of the pamphlet. Reading the 00:03:37.909 --> 00:03:40.189 excerpts in the Wikipedia article, the language 00:03:40.189 --> 00:03:43.509 is a raw polemic. Unapologetic. It really oscillates 00:03:43.509 --> 00:03:47.150 between upbeat rallying cries and outright unapologetic 00:03:47.150 --> 00:03:50.349 anger. It actively rejects the idea that marginalized 00:03:50.349 --> 00:03:52.330 people should be quiet and polite. Yeah, they 00:03:52.330 --> 00:03:54.330 were done being polite. Just listen to these 00:03:54.330 --> 00:03:58.460 opening lines from the text. How can I convince 00:03:58.460 --> 00:04:01.159 you, brother, sister, that your life is in danger? 00:04:01.259 --> 00:04:03.900 That every day you wake up alive, relatively 00:04:03.900 --> 00:04:06.919 happy, and a functioning human being, you're 00:04:06.919 --> 00:04:09.919 committing a rebellious act. You, as an alive 00:04:09.919 --> 00:04:13.159 and functioning queer, are a revolutionary. I 00:04:13.159 --> 00:04:15.280 want you to imagine the friction of that moment. 00:04:15.580 --> 00:04:17.839 Put yourself in the shoes of someone attending 00:04:17.839 --> 00:04:21.240 a pride parade in 1990. It's supposed to be a 00:04:21.240 --> 00:04:24.920 party. Exactly. It's typically a space of celebration, 00:04:25.240 --> 00:04:27.920 a brief respite from the hostility of the outside 00:04:27.920 --> 00:04:30.879 world. And suddenly someone shoves a piece of 00:04:30.879 --> 00:04:32.879 cheap newsprint into your hands that says, I 00:04:32.879 --> 00:04:34.779 hate straights on the back. Talk about a mood 00:04:34.779 --> 00:04:37.319 killer. Right. You open it and it demands your 00:04:37.319 --> 00:04:39.759 attention and your fury. It challenges the reader 00:04:39.759 --> 00:04:41.699 to tear themselves away from any comfortable 00:04:41.699 --> 00:04:44.579 state of acceptance. It creates incredible friction 00:04:44.579 --> 00:04:47.160 because it asserts that straight privilege must 00:04:47.160 --> 00:04:49.720 be dismantled before the authors can enjoy basic 00:04:49.720 --> 00:04:52.399 freedom of movement. Wow. It's not asking for 00:04:52.399 --> 00:04:54.500 a seat at the table. It's demanding the table 00:04:54.500 --> 00:04:57.620 be flipped. The linguistic shift happening in 00:04:57.620 --> 00:04:59.899 those four pages is what really caught my eye. 00:05:00.040 --> 00:05:03.420 At the time, the word queer. was heavily used 00:05:03.420 --> 00:05:05.959 as a pejorative. Almost exclusively. It was an 00:05:05.959 --> 00:05:10.180 insult. But in the late 1980s, activists, particularly 00:05:10.180 --> 00:05:13.500 people of color, began reappropriating it. This 00:05:13.500 --> 00:05:16.959 essay cements that reclamation. The authors knew 00:05:16.959 --> 00:05:19.560 the word was jarring. They even included a specific 00:05:19.560 --> 00:05:22.500 section titled Why Queer? to defend using it. 00:05:22.670 --> 00:05:24.490 The rationale they provide in that section is 00:05:24.490 --> 00:05:26.870 incredibly revealing about their mindset. They 00:05:26.870 --> 00:05:28.889 write, ah, do we really have to use that word? 00:05:29.029 --> 00:05:32.050 It's trouble. They openly acknowledge that for 00:05:32.050 --> 00:05:34.550 many people in the community, the word conjures 00:05:34.550 --> 00:05:36.610 up terrible memories of adolescent suffering 00:05:36.610 --> 00:05:39.370 and harassment. But then they make their argument 00:05:39.370 --> 00:05:41.970 for why it is necessary. The essay states, well, 00:05:42.069 --> 00:05:44.709 yes, gay is great. It has its place. But when 00:05:44.709 --> 00:05:46.430 a lot of lesbians and gay men wake up in the 00:05:46.430 --> 00:05:48.629 morning, we feel angry and disgusted, not gay. 00:05:48.829 --> 00:05:51.250 So we've chosen to call ourselves queer. Here's 00:05:51.250 --> 00:05:54.149 where it gets real. interesting. The essay makes 00:05:54.149 --> 00:05:56.449 a profound philosophical distinction between 00:05:56.449 --> 00:05:58.970 the words gay and lesbian and the word queer. 00:05:59.170 --> 00:06:02.889 In the text, gay and lesbian identity are framed 00:06:02.889 --> 00:06:06.329 almost as inherent characteristics, but queer 00:06:06.329 --> 00:06:09.089 is framed as an action. It is a choice. It's 00:06:09.089 --> 00:06:12.389 active. Yes. It is a social situation and a community 00:06:12.389 --> 00:06:15.269 you access through a deliberate commitment. To 00:06:15.269 --> 00:06:17.990 be queer, according to this manifesto, is to 00:06:17.990 --> 00:06:20.430 lead a life in active opposition to the mainstream. 00:06:21.019 --> 00:06:22.899 It's framed as a daily practice of resistance. 00:06:23.279 --> 00:06:25.240 Right. A commitment to fighting assimilation, 00:06:25.399 --> 00:06:28.040 fighting the profit margins of capitalism, fighting 00:06:28.040 --> 00:06:31.439 patriotism and fighting patriarchy. And importantly, 00:06:31.680 --> 00:06:34.600 they make sure to note the term is gender neutral. 00:06:34.839 --> 00:06:37.339 Very important point. The essay explicitly points 00:06:37.339 --> 00:06:41.399 out queer, unlike gay, doesn't mean male. What's 00:06:41.399 --> 00:06:43.899 fascinating here is how the text conceptualizes 00:06:43.899 --> 00:06:47.259 the word itself as a tool. The essay refers to 00:06:47.259 --> 00:06:49.860 the word queer as a sly and ironic weapon we 00:06:49.860 --> 00:06:51.899 can steal from the homophobe's hands and use 00:06:51.899 --> 00:06:54.240 against him. Stealing the weapon. This wasn't 00:06:54.240 --> 00:06:56.379 just about semantics. It was a calculated rejection 00:06:56.379 --> 00:06:58.600 of the liberal conservatism that existed within 00:06:58.600 --> 00:07:00.959 parts of the LGBT community at the time. Because 00:07:00.959 --> 00:07:04.019 not everyone wanted to fight. Exactly. There 00:07:04.019 --> 00:07:05.860 was a segment of the community that wanted to 00:07:05.860 --> 00:07:08.699 assimilate quietly to emphasize how normal they 00:07:08.699 --> 00:07:11.879 were. To not rock the boat. This pamphlet was 00:07:11.879 --> 00:07:14.339 a rejection of that politics of respectability. 00:07:14.579 --> 00:07:17.060 They were loud. The authors were asserting that 00:07:17.060 --> 00:07:19.680 freedom isn't about the right to privacy behind 00:07:19.680 --> 00:07:22.620 closed doors. It's about the freedom to be public, 00:07:22.720 --> 00:07:26.160 visible, and confrontational. But stealing that 00:07:26.160 --> 00:07:29.240 weapon and turning it around didn't happen without 00:07:29.240 --> 00:07:32.639 immense friendly fire. The media controversy 00:07:32.639 --> 00:07:35.720 this pamphlet caused was massive. Oh, yeah. And 00:07:35.720 --> 00:07:37.819 it started right there, the parade, with the 00:07:37.819 --> 00:07:40.139 people they were trying to hand it to. According 00:07:40.139 --> 00:07:42.439 to the Wikipedia article, journalist Esther Kaplan 00:07:42.439 --> 00:07:45.459 noted that many parade goers literally refused 00:07:45.459 --> 00:07:47.819 to even take a copy of the pamphlet. Just wouldn't 00:07:47.819 --> 00:07:49.879 touch it. Specifically because it used the word 00:07:49.879 --> 00:07:53.620 queer. The title, Queers Read This, forces anyone 00:07:53.620 --> 00:07:55.600 holding it to accept being named as a queer, 00:07:55.759 --> 00:07:58.160 even if just for the moment they are reading 00:07:58.160 --> 00:08:00.500 it. A lot of people were absolutely not ready 00:08:00.500 --> 00:08:02.649 to do that. The internal division within the 00:08:02.649 --> 00:08:04.990 activist community was just as fierce, if not 00:08:04.990 --> 00:08:07.050 more so. We can look at what happened the very 00:08:07.050 --> 00:08:10.209 next day. Right. The meeting. ACTUP held a meeting. 00:08:10.269 --> 00:08:12.370 And according to coverage by journalist Nina 00:08:12.370 --> 00:08:15.509 Reyes in Outweek magazine, the pamphlet sparked 00:08:15.509 --> 00:08:19.470 a ferocious debate. During this meeting, a straight 00:08:19.470 --> 00:08:22.470 woman stood up and condemned the I hate straights 00:08:22.470 --> 00:08:25.410 page of the manifesto. And she was actually applauded. 00:08:25.610 --> 00:08:28.050 By the room. But plotted at an ACTUP meeting 00:08:28.050 --> 00:08:30.610 for condemning the manifesto. And how did the 00:08:30.610 --> 00:08:33.379 defenders of the document fare? Not well. A gay 00:08:33.379 --> 00:08:35.419 man who tried to defend the essay during that 00:08:35.419 --> 00:08:37.519 same meeting was poorly received by the crowd. 00:08:37.720 --> 00:08:40.139 Wow. Now, Reyes, the journalist covering it, 00:08:40.220 --> 00:08:42.379 actually praised the essay in her article. She 00:08:42.379 --> 00:08:45.279 called it a persuasive argument for unified queer 00:08:45.279 --> 00:08:48.080 intolerance. And she even compared its concise, 00:08:48.200 --> 00:08:51.379 abrupt title favorably to historical texts like 00:08:51.379 --> 00:08:53.860 Sojourner Truth's Ain't I a Woman. High praise. 00:08:54.179 --> 00:08:56.720 But inside that meeting room, it was pure chaos 00:08:56.720 --> 00:08:59.460 and division. Why was the reaction so hostile 00:08:59.460 --> 00:09:01.320 within that specific room? I mean, these were 00:09:01.320 --> 00:09:03.269 the folks marching together. just hours prior. 00:09:03.470 --> 00:09:06.750 It comes down to underlying organizational friction 00:09:06.750 --> 00:09:10.190 and identity. Both the supporters and the opponents 00:09:10.190 --> 00:09:12.710 of the manifesto realized that handing this radical 00:09:12.710 --> 00:09:15.809 document out alongside the ACP -UP contingent 00:09:15.809 --> 00:09:18.610 inappropriately linked the organization to the 00:09:18.610 --> 00:09:22.710 publication. ACT -UP had specific internal decision 00:09:22.710 --> 00:09:26.509 -making processes, and an anonymous, unapproved 00:09:26.509 --> 00:09:29.110 drop completely bypassed them. This is a rogue 00:09:29.110 --> 00:09:31.730 operation using the group's momentum. Precisely. 00:09:31.769 --> 00:09:35.070 But beyond just protocol, it forced a major identity 00:09:35.070 --> 00:09:39.059 crisis for ACT -UP into the open. ACT -UP was 00:09:39.059 --> 00:09:42.080 designed to be a big tent anti -AIDS group. They 00:09:42.080 --> 00:09:44.320 intentionally did not publicly identify themselves 00:09:44.320 --> 00:09:46.659 strictly as a gay organization because they needed 00:09:46.659 --> 00:09:49.059 a broad, diverse coalition fighting the epidemic, 00:09:49.159 --> 00:09:51.679 including straight allies. Yet internally, they 00:09:51.679 --> 00:09:53.940 functioned as a de facto gay liberation political 00:09:53.940 --> 00:09:57.200 action machine. This highly polarizing anonymous 00:09:57.200 --> 00:09:59.320 pamphlet, especially the I Hate Straits page, 00:09:59.539 --> 00:10:01.659 threatened to alienate the broader coalition 00:10:01.659 --> 00:10:04.279 they had built. The irony is that this fierce 00:10:04.279 --> 00:10:07.139 backlash is exactly what propelled the movement 00:10:07.139 --> 00:10:09.870 forward. Queer Nation didn't explicitly claim 00:10:09.870 --> 00:10:13.049 responsibility for the piece at first. Some interpreted 00:10:13.049 --> 00:10:16.129 the document as advocating queer separatism or 00:10:16.129 --> 00:10:18.830 broad anti -heterosexual sentiment, which made 00:10:18.830 --> 00:10:21.389 it radioactive. Totally radioactive. But the 00:10:21.389 --> 00:10:23.450 public and the press generally attributed it 00:10:23.450 --> 00:10:25.710 to Queer Nation anyway, treating it as their 00:10:25.710 --> 00:10:28.169 founding manifesto. And the media coverage of 00:10:28.169 --> 00:10:31.690 that controversy acted as a megaphone. A massive 00:10:31.690 --> 00:10:34.730 megaphone. The press generated by this very pamphlet 00:10:34.730 --> 00:10:43.250 drop at the 1990 parade skyrocketed. It spread 00:10:43.250 --> 00:10:59.879 like wildfire. That grassroots analog virality 00:10:59.879 --> 00:11:01.919 is what secured its place in history. Today, 00:11:02.059 --> 00:11:04.480 queers read this as widely regarded in academic 00:11:04.480 --> 00:11:07.440 circles as one of the earliest, most foundational 00:11:07.440 --> 00:11:10.320 articulations of modern queer activism and queer 00:11:10.320 --> 00:11:13.580 theory. It really is. The academic field of queer 00:11:13.580 --> 00:11:16.419 theory, which was just forming at the time, would 00:11:16.419 --> 00:11:18.919 later go on to expand upon many of the exact 00:11:18.919 --> 00:11:22.419 concepts discussed in these four pages. The vocabulary 00:11:22.419 --> 00:11:25.080 of identity and resistance we use today owes 00:11:25.080 --> 00:11:27.899 a lot to the shock waves prompted by this text. 00:11:28.120 --> 00:11:31.279 As historically foundational as it is, looking 00:11:31.279 --> 00:11:33.740 back at the document from a modern academic perspective, 00:11:34.320 --> 00:11:37.220 reveals some massive blind spots. It wasn't a 00:11:37.220 --> 00:11:39.419 perfect theory. It was a rough draft written 00:11:39.419 --> 00:11:41.759 in a state of emergency. If we connect this to 00:11:41.759 --> 00:11:43.799 the bigger picture, we really have to look at 00:11:43.799 --> 00:11:46.179 the academic critiques that followed in the years 00:11:46.179 --> 00:11:49.220 and decades after to understand those blind spots. 00:11:49.580 --> 00:11:52.059 Because the pamphlet was written in such an urgent, 00:11:52.120 --> 00:11:55.039 angry, and binary way, later scholars have pointed 00:11:55.039 --> 00:11:57.639 out exactly who and what it missed. Let's get 00:11:57.639 --> 00:11:59.600 into those. We can start with Kathy J. Cohen. 00:11:59.779 --> 00:12:03.820 In a highly influential 1997 critique, she argued 00:12:03.820 --> 00:12:06.460 that the essay fundamentally misidentified the 00:12:06.460 --> 00:12:09.259 target. She noted that the manifesto mistakenly 00:12:09.259 --> 00:12:12.460 targets heterosexuality itself rather than heteronormativity. 00:12:12.720 --> 00:12:14.899 That distinction is the core of her critique. 00:12:15.220 --> 00:12:17.879 By targeting straight people entirely, which 00:12:17.879 --> 00:12:20.159 is the literal title of the I Hate Straits page, 00:12:20.539 --> 00:12:23.879 Cohen argued that the pamphlet created a reductive 00:12:23.879 --> 00:12:27.639 us versus them dichotomy. It flattened a very 00:12:27.639 --> 00:12:30.159 complex social structure into a simple binary. 00:12:30.990 --> 00:12:33.309 Cohen pointed out that this dichotomy completely 00:12:33.309 --> 00:12:35.830 lacks class consciousness and ignores racial 00:12:35.830 --> 00:12:38.610 oppression. Her crucial point was that a focus 00:12:38.610 --> 00:12:41.509 on heteronormativity, the societal structures 00:12:41.509 --> 00:12:43.789 and institutions that enforce a certain type 00:12:43.789 --> 00:12:46.750 of normal, would allow us to recognize that non 00:12:46.750 --> 00:12:49.090 -normative straight families are also marginalized. 00:12:49.129 --> 00:12:51.450 That makes a lot of sense. Whether due to class, 00:12:51.450 --> 00:12:53.929 race, or family structure, many heterosexual 00:12:53.929 --> 00:12:56.549 people are regulated and excluded by the exact 00:12:56.549 --> 00:12:59.029 same systemic forces the pamphlet is fighting 00:12:59.029 --> 00:13:02.409 against. saying, I hate straights, the authors 00:13:02.409 --> 00:13:05.129 alienated potential allies who were also suffering 00:13:05.129 --> 00:13:08.190 under the same overarching system. Cohen wasn't 00:13:08.190 --> 00:13:10.230 the only academic to point out these massive 00:13:10.230 --> 00:13:12.789 gaps in the theory. The source mentions Martin 00:13:12.789 --> 00:13:15.490 Joseph Ponce, who echoed Cohen's sentiments much 00:13:15.490 --> 00:13:18.490 later in 2018. He wrote that the essay completely 00:13:18.490 --> 00:13:21.110 fails to account for manifestations of queer 00:13:21.110 --> 00:13:24.809 privilege and heterosexual disadvantage. That 00:13:24.809 --> 00:13:27.769 concept of queer privilege adds a necessary layer 00:13:27.769 --> 00:13:30.909 of nuance that the 1990 document completely lacked. 00:13:31.250 --> 00:13:35.529 A wealthy, white, cisgender queer person might 00:13:35.529 --> 00:13:38.350 hold significant societal and economic privileges 00:13:38.350 --> 00:13:40.750 that a poor, straight person of color does not. 00:13:41.169 --> 00:13:45.090 The essay's broad, sweeping strokes ignored the 00:13:45.090 --> 00:13:48.509 complex realities created by race, class, and 00:13:48.509 --> 00:13:51.429 gender asymmetries. It assumed a universal queer 00:13:51.429 --> 00:13:54.090 experience that simply didn't exist. Then you 00:13:54.090 --> 00:13:56.799 have scholar Ulrika Dahl. who brought in another 00:13:56.799 --> 00:13:58.899 angle. She suggested that the essay's critical 00:13:58.899 --> 00:14:01.539 stance toward heterosexuality as a whole was 00:14:01.539 --> 00:14:03.799 actually deeply rooted in lesbian separatism. 00:14:03.879 --> 00:14:06.720 Which recontextualizes the document again. While 00:14:06.720 --> 00:14:09.000 the manifesto claims to be a broad, unifying 00:14:09.000 --> 00:14:11.960 call for all queer people, Dahl and others argue 00:14:11.960 --> 00:14:13.879 that its framework was actually quite narrow. 00:14:14.120 --> 00:14:16.399 Very specific. It was projecting a very specific 00:14:16.399 --> 00:14:19.240 faction's ideology onto a massive, diverse population, 00:14:19.720 --> 00:14:21.779 leaving many people out of the narrative entirely. 00:14:22.240 --> 00:14:24.100 So what does this all mean? We are looking at 00:14:24.100 --> 00:14:29.179 a document that is undeniable. It took a word 00:14:29.179 --> 00:14:31.740 that was actively used as a weapon against a 00:14:31.740 --> 00:14:35.779 community, stole it, and forged it into a completely 00:14:35.779 --> 00:14:38.879 new identity based on political action, choice, 00:14:39.100 --> 00:14:41.720 and defiance. It really did? It sparked a national 00:14:41.720 --> 00:14:44.139 movement and laid the groundwork for an entire 00:14:44.139 --> 00:14:47.139 academic field. Yet, at the exact same time, 00:14:47.220 --> 00:14:50.570 it was deeply flawed in its scope. It was a sledgehammer. 00:14:50.769 --> 00:14:53.370 It required subsequent generations of scholars 00:14:53.370 --> 00:14:56.169 like Cohen, Ponce, and Dahl to come in with a 00:14:56.169 --> 00:14:57.929 scalpel. That's a great way to put it. They had 00:14:57.929 --> 00:14:59.970 to point out the blind spots, ask who was left 00:14:59.970 --> 00:15:02.629 out of this call to revolution, and refine the 00:15:02.629 --> 00:15:05.289 theory so it actually accounted for race, class, 00:15:05.610 --> 00:15:07.850 and intersectional oppression. It's a masterclass 00:15:07.850 --> 00:15:10.190 in how language and social theory are forged 00:15:10.190 --> 00:15:13.039 in the fires of conflict. It shows us how a marginalized 00:15:13.039 --> 00:15:15.299 group facing an existential threat like the AIDS 00:15:15.299 --> 00:15:18.700 epidemic and spiking violence used a raw, unpolished 00:15:18.700 --> 00:15:20.740 piece of media to seize their own narrative. 00:15:21.279 --> 00:15:23.700 They forced the world to look at them on their 00:15:23.700 --> 00:15:26.539 terms, even if those terms alienated their own 00:15:26.539 --> 00:15:28.889 peers and allies in the short term. It demonstrates 00:15:28.889 --> 00:15:31.509 that social progress and academic theory don't 00:15:31.509 --> 00:15:33.610 always start in a polished university classroom 00:15:33.610 --> 00:15:36.629 or a peer -reviewed journal. Sometimes the catalyst 00:15:36.629 --> 00:15:39.370 is an angry, anonymous broadsheet handed out 00:15:39.370 --> 00:15:42.529 on a city street. The messy, controversial origins 00:15:42.529 --> 00:15:45.149 are just as important as the refined theories 00:15:45.149 --> 00:15:47.710 that come decades later. It really is a testament 00:15:47.710 --> 00:15:50.149 to the power of the written word and the sheer 00:15:50.149 --> 00:15:52.929 force of a community demanding to be seen. This 00:15:52.929 --> 00:15:54.769 raises an important question, a final thought 00:15:54.769 --> 00:15:56.970 I want to pass on to you, the listener, to mull 00:15:56.970 --> 00:16:00.559 over. If a single anonymously published, highly 00:16:00.559 --> 00:16:03.379 polarizing four page pamphlet handed out on the 00:16:03.379 --> 00:16:06.519 street in 1990 could radically shift the trajectory 00:16:06.519 --> 00:16:09.460 of an entire social movement's vocabulary and 00:16:09.460 --> 00:16:12.080 lay the foundation for a whole field of academic 00:16:12.080 --> 00:16:14.919 theory. Right. How might the ephemeral, deeply 00:16:14.919 --> 00:16:18.080 controversial and anonymous digital manifestos 00:16:18.080 --> 00:16:21.120 circulating on the Internet today be unknowingly 00:16:21.120 --> 00:16:23.820 drafting the academic theories of tomorrow? That 00:16:23.820 --> 00:16:25.519 is definitely something to think about the next 00:16:25.519 --> 00:16:29.759 time you are scrolling through an intense. Thank 00:16:29.759 --> 00:16:31.940 you so much for joining us on this deep dive 00:16:31.940 --> 00:16:34.559 into the history, the controversy, and the legacy 00:16:34.559 --> 00:16:38.440 of Queers Read This. We appreciate you taking 00:16:38.440 --> 00:16:40.820 the time to unpack this complex piece of history 00:16:40.820 --> 00:16:43.360 with us. Until next time, keep diving deep.