>>2764802You can't make a political movement based on something as vague as the "queer" the regular movement is already collapsing upon itself because in the end, people attracted to the same sex, transsexual people and the vaguely defined "queer" leftovers have nothing in common concretly. How can a gay man being homeless for his sexuality even remotly related to a teenager calling herself a "genderfluid" what even is the link between the two, especially since the first one likely regards "queer" as an insult, or at most an old fashioned word for "odd"
I would also add, that even if "queer" was a clearly defined community, it still wouldn't be a good basis for a large scale political movement. How does queer theory awnser the question of organising society ? How does it concretly, how is medecine, food, water, ressources going to be distributed to those in needs ? How exacly is society to be organised around "queerness".
Even then, its premise that "queer" people can only be liberated trought anarchism is naive and ahistorical, capitalism has never hesitated to free people from their oppression if it benefitted it, the Cagots surely must have felt that their oppression was fundamental to their lives, but nowadays even historians don't know why people hated them so much. Had Cagot anarchism existed back then, it simply would have had been a failure, as the oppression of the Cagots was never inherent to capitalism. The same can be said for "queer" people. There is no oppression inherent to capitalism bar the ones of class.