Ironically, as a homosexual female, I consider modern queer culture authoritarian as hell. It's really big on there being one way to interpret the world, one way to build/structure your identity, one set of 'correct' opinions, trying to convince you to cut off people who aren't in the Good People Club(TM), etc. This is just enforced via panopticon/mob surveillance rather than a centralized authority.

If anything, I'd consider modern (post-Obergefell) queer culture to be pretty hostile to hacker culture since hackerdom is partially about understanding systems and working them to whatever purposes you decide, whereas modern queer culture seems to be about finding a system that works for you and pledging allegiance to it.

A lot of my distaste/lack of fitting with queer culture right now stems from the conflicts between the values instilled in me as the child of hackers and the values of queer environments.

They were flagged because the comment was deliberately inflammatory and lacked any nuance - there is no way to spring-board from that comment into any kind of continued discussion. It was a comment that was only meant to virtue signal/push an agenda, not to promote discussion. HN tends to frown on that outside of specific aspects of techno-politics.

Looking at the history of the account that someone else posted, I think their intention was to be quite narrow in their comparison. I imagined they were working with a much more liberal definition of queer, more a synonym of "countercultural". I'd still like to see them flesh out their thoughts.

To steelman what I think the argument would be:

In a postmodern viewpoint (which has heavily influenced the development of queer theory and culture), most concepts are considered to be deeply intertwined with/defined by their social construction. Queerness, meaning same-sex/gender attraction and non-cisness, are defined as 'problems' in society because they subvert social norms. A postmodern/conceptual reading of queerness could state that the subversion is more integral to the concept of queerness than the actual details: For example, male crossdressing is seen as 'queerer' than female crossdressing because it's against the norm for men to wear women's clothing but not for women to wear men's clothing. What is considered queer enough to be 'queer' depends on social constructions. If queerness is defined by 'a lifestyle/way of being that is inherently transgressive of social norms, which are defined ipso facto by authorities (whomever they may be in a given culture)', then hackers' general stubbornness when it comes to doing things their way and refusing to bend to the easy/official way of doing things could be seen as 'queer'. Like a gay person who refuses a lavender marriage despite the social benefits it brings, a hacker may refuse conventional/well paying employment because they believe it violates who they are.

It's just, in my opinion, a stupid argument. I disagree on two key points:

1.) Not everything that is anti-authoritarian and contrary to the norm (and side-eyed for that reason) is 'queer'. All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. The libertarians who want to abolish the age of consent are not 'queer'. The fundies who want there to be no educational oversight so they can break the 'norm' of having their kids learn history/science are not 'queer' even though they're both anti-authoritarian groups working against social norms. (Even most Christians send their children to school, and even most libertarians agree that having sex with 10 year olds is bad and should be illegal.) Hell, by that definition, TERFs would be queer inherently and I'm pretty sure OP wouldn't agree with that.

2.) Being homosexual/non-cis is not inherently against social norms and, in fact, the argument ignores that as the digital age allows for geographically distributed cultures, that the queer community itself propagates social norms for its members. (Many of which I disagree with, hence why I am so aware of them.) This is acknowledged with the term 'homonormativity' (e.g. to be a good gay, you have to be monogamous and married and act just like straight people, etc.). Breaking queer social norms carries the same penalties within the community as breaking greater society's social norms does - detransitioners are an interesting study group here.

Honestly, in my experience, the transgressive nature of queerness depends very much on a.) what type of queer you are [I'm picking up on the OP being trans-femme and they are generally seen as one of the more inherently transgressive types of queer, which likely influences their POV] and b.) what part of society you're in. I would actually consider my homosexuality to be one of the least transgressive aspects of my identity/behavior. My refusal to center romantic relationships/opting to operate in a long term household with a sibling is far more transgressive. My refusal to hide my disability and refusal to participate fully in/invest in my career because of it is far more transgressive. My refusal to care about my gender much and my choice to not pursue any kind of action to change my appearance to match my inner self (because I already have medical conditions and adding hormones/surgeries on top of that is a very unstable system + because as a visually impaired person I don't see why I should have to change how I look so the rest of you can feel more comfy with my gender presentation) is immensely transgressive in queer spaces because it suggests that gender/self validation is not exceptionally important to me/doesn't override other concerns. Etc.

I consider the main point of differentiation between queer culture and hacker culture to be about validation and interaction with broader society. Queer culture cares what society thinks: people in it want validation and acceptance and in fact, a lot of queer spaces now primarily function as validation/hugbox chambers, and I see a distressing lack of self-actualization and agency. Hackers overcorrect in the other direction: they're actively hostile to (at worst) or indifferent to (at best) the concerns of greater society. A hacker is generally expected to have a decent sense of self-worth/self-esteem, and going into hacking spaces and being asked to validate someone wouldn't be taken well. (It's really common to see 'am I really queer/trans enough? Am I really a lesbian? Please call me girl/boy things to help me experience gender euphoria' etc. in queer spaces, whereas 'I ran a script on someone's computer, please tell me I'm a 1337 haxxor so I don't get depressed' in hacker spaces would go over like a lead balloon). I'm not really claiming one is better than the other: I prefer hacker spaces ironically because I'm a fairly masculine woman and I despise being used as a validation/vent/therapy machine, but it also has its issues. Like since you're expected to have a rock solid sense of self, people slinging gross insults at you based on parts of your identity is something you're supposed to shake off or you're the sensitive one. I'm totally chill at being called a moron/flamed for stupid questions and suggestions, but as someone who was once a teenaged lesbian, things like the corrective rape threats were over the line.

Unfortunately, it's unlikely we'll know exactly what they meant. The comment was constructed like a Tweet or Tumblr post meant to rally the troops/get 'yaaas queen slay' type responses. An actual desire to discuss would have included things like their reasoning, where they got their information, and/or indications of how sure they were about different parts. And they would have tailored their response to their audience. (I certainly write differently here than I do elsewhere - I would not call myself a 'homosexual female' elsewhere, but HN has a strong preference for technically descriptive terms and doesn't generally ascribe as many inferences to them, so I used those words here.) Instead, it was just blanket 'X is true and I will not elaborate I'm so smrt' type posting.

*edited 'associate' to 'ascribe' because MS aphasia is a bitch and I mix up words now

And you said that comment couldn't be a spring-board for continued discussion :)

That was chewy. I can't give it the reply it deserves (not least because I haven't walked in those shoes), but I think "transgressive" is absolutely the key word here. Thank you for surfacing it. I, personally, do not believe hacking is transgressive. For evidence I point to how easily "hackers" slip into corporate roles.

> A postmodern/conceptual reading of queerness could state that the subversion is more integral to the concept of queerness than the actual details

I think I instinctively lean towards this definition. It reminds me of maximalist vs minimalist definitions of religion. Choose a maximalist definition and you end up including things like philosophies and political ideologies. Choose a minimalist defintion, and you end up missing out some things that are self-evidently religions. Truth is, religion is one of those "you know it when you see it" things, and maybe Queerness is too?

I'm glad it was chewy! My personal 0th law is that everyone is entitled to the best version of arguments/information possible, so I do try to be able to steelman/articulate the arguments of people I disagree with as faithfully as possible.

I can't agree with transgression being a key component of queerness, but there's an asterisk to my disagreement: I think that could be a plausible reading if we split the gay community from the queer community, but I also think that's both unlikely to happen and a terrible idea.

The reason that I disagree is because it leads to situations where a bisexual woman who's only had relationships with men is 'queerer' than a lesbian if the lesbian lives somewhere that isn't homophobic or the bisexual woman has the 'right' politics. There are also logistical problems/concerns with defining the queer community based on transgression that would prohibit the community from performing what I see as key functions of the queer community:

* Support for young queer people and queer elders, as well as disabled queer people. There are many, many issues with queer elders, for example. Transgression is often limited to people with time and independence to transgress (or for whom the trade offs aren't as severe). A community defined on transgression is necessarily one that won't support its members throughout their entire lives and will be overly weighed with the concerns of adolescents and young adults. Adolescents and young adults definitely have a place: As a group, they're the best at raising hell about things we've all accepted that actually aren't okay, and the best at reminding us that change is possible. However, they aren't the only people who have a place. I knew I was gay when I was 6 and started hanging out in queer spaces online at about that age. How transgressive could I be at six? On the flipside, how transgressive can an 84 year old man who was put in a nursing home by his homophobic kids and now can't see his lover of 30 years be if he lacks the independence to leave? Likewise, many disabled people can't work and can only collect SSI, which usually means they have to live with relatives. Sometimes those relatives are homophobic/transphobic and they can't be transgressive without risking literal death (homelessness and severe disability are not a good combination).

* The queer community has a practical role for homosexuals and trans people: Facilitating places where we can meet prospective partners is one example. As a gay woman, it's really hard to find partners out and about because...well, most people are straight. Do boring lesbians or gay men not deserve places to meet partners? Likewise, trans people deserve places they can go where they know people won't be transphobic dicks and can meet potential dates that both aren't chasers and that are respectful of their gender identity. A passing trans man with a good, boring job still needs to find a partner that won't flip at the fact that he's not cis, and disclosure in non-queer specific settings is dicey at best and dangerous at worst.

* Personally, I've noticed that communities based on transgression often turn into cults of personality, because whomever is the coolest/most outspoken/most brash sets the temperature, and anyone who objects isn't cool/punk/transgressive enough. This makes it REALLY easy for bad people to get away with things because there's no principle behind the transgression, and that means that a lot of Chesterton's fences are torn down. I'm extremely anti-authoritarian and I still agree there are certain social mores that exist for a reason: for example, the more that you shouldn't involve unconsenting people in your kinks/sex life. Have all the kinks you want, but forcing them into spaces in the name of 'transgression' without consent is bad. Or that erotic conversations shouldn't happen between minors and adults several years older than them. (I phrase it that way because obviously it's fine if a 17 year old and an 18 year old cyber, and I also, because of my 0th law, believe it's fine to provide dry, factual sexual information to minors. I specify erotic for a reason.)

Splitting the communities would solve those problems but introduce new ones:

* Splitting the gay and queer communities would put trans people who value passing and blending in into a very difficult spot. It would suck for them and I don't want things to suck for them.

* It'd create a huge logistical hurdle for trans/queer rights, since a lot of the activist infrastructure was built for the LGB and if you take out the 'let people marry who they love/have families with who they love/live with who they love' aspect of queer activism, straight cis people will relate way less and be less supportive. Most straight people can understand 'I love this person and can't be with them and that makes me sad' more than they can 'I feel a deep seated need to have a vagina/penis'. Unfortunately, relatability is a key aspect in gathering support, tactically speaking. It would be tactical/strategic suicide for the trans and queer community to decouple from the gay community.

I fully agree that hacking isn't ipso facto transgressive. It's people exploiting systems for their own purposes. Those purposes vary widely. I'm sure there are plenty of hacker types in the three letter agencies, which is about as non transgressive as you can get in that they're literally a secret authoritarian arm of the state.

You really need to work all this up into an essay and chuck it on Medium or somewhere. Honestly.

I think I'm about to present as the traditional logical-to-the-point-of absurdity HN nerd here, but:

> I think that could be a plausible reading if we split the gay community from the queer community, but I also think that's both unlikely to happen and a terrible idea.

If "Queer community" and "Gay community" are different, it is possible to separate them. Or rather belong to just one, the other, or both.

Is the difference between Q and G not, essentially, one of politics?

(Not my communities, not my country, looking in from the outside, "politics" in a very broad sense, all those caveats. I'm picking up on that one sentence because I don't think there's anything else I can disagree with - I either agree, or I don't know enough to disagree).

BTW, have you ever run across the concept of a purity spiral? I'm not a fan of the source, but I think the concept is a good spanner to add to the mental toolkit. I think it would appeal to you: https://unherd.com/2020/01/cast-out-how-knitting-fell-into-a...

I've considered writing publicly, but most of the things I have to say would resulting in doxxing/harassment at best and more severe pushback at worst. (I want to say some things that all 'sides' of American power holders wouldn't like). I currently lack the emotional resilience and financial resources to withstand that, so I need to build those first. I have every intention of entering the arena somehow, but since nobody knows I exist, I have the benefit of getting to prepare myself first.

> I think I'm about to present as the traditional logical-to-the-point-of absurdity HN nerd here...

An overreliance on logic in my HN? It's more likely than you think! ;)

Logically, you would be correct, but there's specific social history and context that makes the break a very bad idea. I'd compare it to the feasibility of a nationally competitive third party in the US: It's possible in theory but in practice, extremely unlikely. (I apologize that most of my analogies rely on US specific cases; there are a few other countries I could use instead but I don't know which one you're from so I'm not sure how to adapt my content to your situation.)

In this case, the problem is that the people who are currently agitating for a separation of the two are mostly homosexuals (and a smattering of bisexuals) who are actively hostile to trans peoples' issues. This results in a situation where there can be no neutral discussion of the separation. In addition, since the queer community runs on vibes, that means that the leaders of each 'side' tend to be the loudest and most extreme, because they care the most and have the most time to devote to these feuds. Plus, pretty much all decisions/opinions in left-leaning American spaces tend to be viewed from solely a moral lens: Discussion of action from a strategic lens is almost seen as immoral. (For instance, my objection to bisexual women who are mostly attracted to women claiming the lesbian label + my objection to neopronouns are seen as moral judgements rather than a reflection of my Linguistics background meaning I prefer us to adapt our terms to what we know of how language works. This is from people who both agree and disagree with me.) Interestingly, I do see this changing slowly and I feel hopeful about that - the moral shaming and self righteousness is very online-Millennial coded and we're (I'm 36) aging out of youth culture, which means the kids are starting to push back on our stupid ideas. We seem more like busybodies than people speaking truth to power. Good.

Because of the social context behind who is leading both the 'LGB drop the T' movement as well as their enemies, instead of a clean break, we'd get a messy circular firing squad that likely would greatly damage both sides in the eyes of larger society. It would also result in both sides being used as proxies in political disputes, whereas together we're a strong enough band to stand on our own merit/advocate for our own interests. It's kind of similar to how Black Americans will never break away from the Democrats despite having a substantial religious, socially conservative contingent: There's too much benefit in getting to exercise power as a voting bloc and it's more advantageous to play along in public while socially policing/arguing among themselves in more private arenas.

tl;dr: Separating would be a Pyrrhic victory for everyone involved. So nobody will do it.

> BTW, have you ever run across the concept of a purity spiral? I'm not a fan of the source, but I think the concept is a good spanner to add to the mental toolkit. I think it would appeal to you: https://unherd.com/2020/01/cast-out-how-knitting-fell-into-a...

I'm very familiar. One of my more feminine traits is that I'm an irredeemably nosey gossip. I'm an aficionado of stupid Internet drama. I think purity spirals are a huge problem because they strip all resilience and principles away from people, which makes them fragile and vulnerable to outside influence and disruption. I'd much rather have a community where everybody can defend their principles rather than one that crumples upon first contact with someone who disagrees. Not to mention other types of values and moral rankings. I can make most of my arguments from a place of practicality, religious morality, tolerance/diversity, and social stability. Knowing what different audiences value is key to effective communication and defense of ideas and principles, and good Lord do most people fail on that point, right and left.

Interestingly, one of the things I greatly object to is the American-centric viewpoint/America specific social situations being extrapolated to other regions of the world and other countries. (I mention this because you said you aren't American). It's deeply offputting to me to see people who go on and on about how they're standing up for the marginalized but who also enforce American norms/ideas everywhere - it's deeply revealing of a lack of actual thought/principle and I find empty parroting repulsive.

You're almost certainly not (wrong age group) but man if you don't sound like an ex-MeFite.

IMO the kids are shaping up to be more like GenX than anything. (The kids are alright).

America's the navel of the world, culturally, militarily, financially. The rest of us just kinda have to roll downhill. It's not good or bad, it just is. And I'll take The Mouse over Pooh Jinping any day. (UK BTW). What does annoy me is that because we share a language, we get the overspill from US-targeted propaganda. We've even developed our own Sovereign Citizen movement.

> In this case, the problem is that the people who are currently agitating for a separation of the two are mostly homosexuals (and a smattering of bisexuals) who are actively hostile to trans peoples' issues.

Reminds me of the Mens' Rights, movement. Ok, yeah, in theory it's a great idea. But who wants to hang out with the kind of guys Mens Rights attracts?

I did read a lot of MeFi, actually. I'm an edge case: I'm a third generation programmer/nerd. (Maternal grandmother did punch card and C programming, paternal grandfather was a television repairman/gadget dude, both parents were hackers/programmers). So I got internet access at home extremely young: When I was 4/5. I am probably one of the youngest people to have any first-hand memories of External September, and I remember the Gen X era of the Internet pretty fondly. (It had its issues, of course, but every era does). I actually find it really amusing to watch other Millennials freak out about not being the center of the Internet anymore because none of them have experienced not being the default whereas I did, as a baby Millennial on Gen X's/the Boomers' playground.

> What does annoy me is that because we share a language, we get the overspill from US-targeted propaganda. We've even developed our own Sovereign Citizen movement.

Yeah, the Canadians are dealing with this shit too.

One thing I'm hopeful for is that as more and more politics becomes entwined with the digital world is that things might be able to balance out a bit on that front. Prior to instant communication, geography was a hurdle, but now we can have more cooperation between all the areas of the world that are overshadowed by America/neglected in online discussions. As more and more Africans, South Americans, Central Asians, etc. join the party, they can start calling us out on our self-centeredness more. Hopefully.

> Reminds me of the Mens' Rights, movement. Ok, yeah, in theory it's a great idea. But who wants to hang out with the kind of guys Mens Rights attracts?

Basically. And, like with the Men's Rights guys, both 'sides' attract people who like righteous anger and complaining more than anything tedious like 'work' or 'learning'.

Wow. That is an impressive reply. If you can write like that now, I wish I could see you before aphasia.

It's amazing how easy writing is when you're procrastinating responding to somebody you really don't like. ;)

I appreciate the compliment and glad it was helpful!