#queer anarchists

[radicalgraff]

"Queer, Anti-Caste Anarchist"

Seen in Delhi, India

[baeddelmarx]

How about instead of endless bickering, we actually try to dissolve the systems that oppress us. How about instead of liberal oppression olympics we have some fucking solidarity.

Think. Bigger.

We need to push to abolish gender assignment at birth. We need to stop assimilating into the capitalist systems that exploit us. We. Need. Solidarity. Stop fighting each other and go dismantle the power structure entirely. Stop with the half baked liberal ideas. Queerness is a class component enforced by and for the benefit of strictly dyadic, monogamous, cisgender, heterosexual, AND heteroromantic people. Unless you are all of that, you’re part of this fucking community. We will not get anywhere sitting here tearing at each other. I (Roe) remember when the trans vs intersex discourse was strong and that shit??? POINTLESS. That was my first big experience with this shit, and it! Was! Pointless!!!! The gendered system, the oppression and erasure of a reality outside the construct of a dyadic cisgender binary hurts both ducking communities. The assignment of gender at birth affects both of us, the systemic assumption of dyadic+cisgender bodies hurts us. This same shit applies to the wider community. We are bonded by our shared experiences in the context of oppression. If you are not all of the things listed before, this. System. Hurts. You. Those factors are interlocked. It is a singular axis of oppression within which there is much diversity, but it is still a single axis. Mutulation of intersex children, medicaluzation of our identities, medical failure to address the needs of trans people, psychological torture aimed at us, the enforced expectation of monogamous nuclear family style relationships, the animosity and rejection of people who are not strictly straight, all of these are factors of queer oppression, they are all part of a system of oppression based around social control, the aim of which is ultimately to strip people of identity, to enforce the idea that we need to be paired up and produce children, that we must be a certain way, that deviation, NATURAL deviation by development, by psychology, by chromosomes is unacceptable... the reason behind it all is to make us productive little servants, cogs in the machines that benefit our oppressors, lining their pockets, enforcing their ideologies. It’s meant to tear away our identity and cohesiveness and make our only purpose to sustain their pool of people to exploit and manipulate. If they can’t control us, they loose. We? We have nothing to lose but our chains. Arguing about sex this, spectrum that, beating each other down??? It does nothing to disrupt their system, in fact it adds to and reinforces there system. That is why that shit is reactionary - it only serves the oppressive systems already at play. You cannot abolish gender while forcing dyadicism. You cannot abolish straight centric society without abolishing gender identity and socially enforced monogamy. You CANT. They’re interwoven. We are in this struggle together - we might have different specifics to how the system affects us individually, but that is a red herring. The system does not target us as individuals, it targets us as a class, just like all other social class systems and just like the economic class system.

The system relies on our cooperation. To assimilate in is to abandon all the others and be sympathetic to the oppression in and of itself, it’s reactionary by nature. We aren’t oppressed *because* we aren’t cis, or aren’t straight, or aren’t dyadic, or aren’t monogamous. We are oppressed because the reality of human variety is incompatible with their system that exists for their profit. We are oppressed because our existence is a threat to the overall narrative and control of the groups with the power. That is what unites our struggle, and other socially oppressed groups have similar fights to fight (targets of racist systems, targets of ablist systems, targets of religious persecution), which all tie back to, as a whole, trying to keep us under the heel of economic class dynamics. It doesn’t matter if you’re trans or gnc, if you’re bi or strictly SGA, if you’re pan or not, if you’re binary or not, if you’re dysphoric or not, what kind of intersex you are, whether you’re closed or open poly, split attraction of not, IT. DOESNT. MATTER. Stop. Fucking. Fighting. Each other. Punch up, not down. Punch up, not to the sides.

We’re here. We’re queer. Get used to it. They stand to loose their political supremacy, system of profit, and social control - we have nothing to lose but our chains. Enough already.

(No one is forced to use the label queer if they don’t want it, if they are uncomfortable with it, or anything like this. Queer is referring the the social class dynamic between only the non-queer class and the queer class, the manufactured classes in this power dynamic and system of oppression).

[midwestdissent-blog]

A submission about Bash Back! formed in the midwest. July 2018 issue of Anathema.

[queerlives-queerpolitics]

Group Vs. Individual Identity, Family, and "Belonging"

In her article on anarchy and the construction of sexuality, Portwood-Stacer asserts “there is power in identity” (491). Throughout her article, she discusses this notion of boxing in one’s identity based upon a single-story or the group that one is trying to assimilate into. She uses the anarchist framework to speak to this through the idea that sexual anarchists are often pressured into identifying themselves as queer in order to be more “radical,” rather than it being a part of their actual identity. Identity is often a strong motivator. This is seen especially in the idea of family. Children often hinge their identities on their parents’ and family’s identity. For example, young people often choose the same religion or political views as their parents because those things have always been a part of their family identity.  In his piece, Jacobs uses the framework of Glee to discuss the role of family in sexual identity and the limits that families have on the individual. He asks what the importance of family is, why we look at family as a determining factor of identity, and why these things can be harmful and limiting.  

Both authors in their pieces are talking about how different facets and constructions of identities affect each person’s individual perception and reality. The community in which Portwood-Stacer discusses is something that you belong to, as is a family. Belonging to a certain group often constructs a person’s identity, even if their self-identification isn’t aligned. Oftentimes, that person then can choose to move away from that identity, and therefore, that group, or continue to live with that false-identity. I think it’s important to think about how society looks at group identity, and how often people are roped into becoming something based on a group dynamic. This can be two-fold, as Jacobs asserts in his piece. As Kurt moves away from the identity of his Midwestern family, he latches onto a very specific cultural gay identity and isn’t seen throughout most of the show as an individual, but the token gay kid.

So, what is so inherently powerful about identity? Portwood-Stacer would say it’s an agent of change when people “mobilize their shared political identities toward radical political projects” (491). But, is this identity that is so powerful the same as the identity that Jacobs speaks to in his Glee piece? The short answer is yes, and the long answer is yes, contextually, as it usually is. Kurt’s identity is powerful and an agent of change throughout the show. He does fight social conformity; while, he often reinforces and perpetuates other negative stereotypes. Yet, Kurt’s identity says something; it makes a statement, just as anarchists ban together to do.

In this way, is a community of sexual anarchists, or even anarchists in general, some sort of family of choice?  It depends on how you look and conceptualize family. Is family simply something you belong to, or is it a more specific, limiting structure, as Jacobs insists. If we look at all communities and groups as “families of choice” are we reconstructing these limitations in a queer context, and then perpetuating these norms further? I’d say absolutely, and this is seen in Portwood-Stacer’s article. By creating a groupthink dynamic, anarchists are directly contradicting many of what is traditionally seen as anarchists. They are pressuring those around them to identify themselves a certain way and be a certain thing, and therefore are deconstructing those people’s individual agency and identity. By grouping themselves off to accomplish something, anarchists are inherently less anarchist, as strange as that may seem.

It comes down to this idea of the power of individual identity versus group identity. Both articles speak to the limitations of group identity, and yet, groups are the agents that are used to change things. Groupthink and other harmful things can come from group identity; yet, many cultural and political changes are thanks to grouping off. On a basic level, individual identity is most powerful and has the least limitations, yet, lacks staying power. If operating on an island, the individual would be most powerful; however, because society is in play as well as many different social constructions, the group becomes the most important agent of change. Identity, therefore, while powerful, is often limited by others and what is constructed around you.

[gayflames]

Distribuidora Peligrosidad Social

Check out this project! Spanish translations of lots of the queer zines you've seen floating around over the years: Destruir la Sexualidad (To Destroy Sexuality), Espacios Peligrosos (Dangerous Spaces), Hacia la insurrección más queer (Towards the Queerest Insurrection), Hacia un transfeminismo insurreccional (Towards an Insurrectionary Transfeminism), Queers leed esto (Queers Read This).