Whitman College 62725470.

doc 7/28/08

1 File Title

Queer Theory K Neg

Queer Theory K Neg...................................................................................................................................................1

Queer Theory K Neg......................................................................................................................1

Queer Theory 1NC 1/3.............................................................................................................................................3

Queer Theory 1NC 1/3................................................................................................................3

Queer Theory 1NC 2/3.............................................................................................................................................4

Queer Theory 1NC 2/3................................................................................................................4

Queer Theory 1NC 3/3.............................................................................................................................................5

Queer Theory 1NC 3/3................................................................................................................5

Gendered Language Shell 1/2.....................................................................................................................................6

Gendered Language Shell 1/2.......................................................................................................6

Gendered Language Shell 2/2.....................................................................................................................................8

Gendered Language Shell 2/2.......................................................................................................8

Uniqueness Being Recreated Now...........................................................................................................................9

Uniqueness Being Recreated Now.............................................................................................9

Link Modernist Epistemology...............................................................................................................................10

Link Modernist Epistemology.................................................................................................10

Link Policy.............................................................................................................................................................11

Link Policy.................................................................................................................................11
Link Woman.......................................................................................................................................................12

Link Woman..........................................................................................................................12
Link Terrorism.......................................................................................................................................................13

Link Terrorism..........................................................................................................................13
Link Terrorism.......................................................................................................................................................14

Link Terrorism..........................................................................................................................14
Alternative Rethinking Queerness.........................................................................................................................15

Alternative Rethinking Queerness..........................................................................................15

Alternative Embrace Eroticism..............................................................................................................................16

Alternative Embrace Eroticism...............................................................................................16

Impact NV2L.........................................................................................................................................................17

Impact NV2L.............................................................................................................................17
AT: Queer is Offensive.......................................................................................................................................18

AT: Queer is Offensive.........................................................................................................18

AT: Perm...................................................................................................................................................................19

AT: Perm......................................................................................................................................19

Whitman College 62725470.doc 7/28/08

2 File Title

Whitman College 62725470.doc 7/28/08

3 File Title

Queer Theory 1NC 1/3

Queerness as sexual deviancy is tied to the monstrous figure of the terrorist as a way to otherize and quarantine subjects classified as terrorists, Jasbir K. Puar and Amit S. Rai Social Text 72, Vol. 20, No. 3, Fall 2002. Copyright 2002 by Duke
University Posters that appeared in midtown Manhattan only days after the attacks show a turbaned caricature of bin Laden being anally penetrated by the Empire State Building. The legend beneath reads, The Empire Strikes Back or So you like skyscrapers, huh, bitch? Or think of the Web site where, with a series of weapons at your disposal, you can torture Osama bin Laden to death, the last torture being sodomy; or another Web site that shows two pictures, one of bin Laden with a beard, and the other without and the photo of him shaven turns out to be O. J. Simpson. 21 What these representations show, we believe, is that queerness as sexual deviancy is tied to the monstrous figure of the terrorist as a way to otherize and quarantine subjects classified as terrorists, but also to normalize and discipline a population through these very monstrous figures. Though much gender-dependent black humor describing the appropriate punishment for bin Laden focuses on the liberation of Afghan women (liberate Afghan women and send them to college or make bin Laden have a sex change operation and live in Afghanistan as a woman deeply racist, sexist, and homophobic suggestions), this portrayal suggests something further still: American retaliation promises to emasculate bin Laden and turn him into a fag. This promise not only suggests that if youre not for the war, youre a fag, it also incites violence against queers and specifically queers of color. And indeed, there have been reports from community-based organizations throughout New York City that violent incidents against queers of color have increased. So on the one hand, the United States is being depicted as feminist and gay-safe by this comparison with Afghanistan, and on the other hand, the U.S. state, having experienced a castration and penetration of its capitalist masculinity, offers up narratives of emasculation as appropriate punishment for bin Laden, brownskinned folks, and men in turbans. It seems to us that what we see happening in America is the active promotion of self-righteous aggression and murderous violence, which have achieved almost holy status in the speeches and comments of our recently enthroned president, George W. Bush (let us not forget the fivetofour Supreme Court decision that gave him the presidency). What all these examples show is that the historical connections between heteronormativity as a process and the monstrous terrorist as an object of knowledge have been obfuscated, and in some cases severed: indeed, aspects of homosexuality have come within the purview of normative patriotism after September 11. In other words, what we see in the deployment of heteronormative patriotism is, on the one hand, the quarantining of the terroristmonster-fag using the bodies and practices of a queered other, and on the other, the incorporation of aspects of queer subjectivity into the body of the normalized nation. This dual process of incorporation and quarantining involves as well the articulation of race with nation. M. Jacqui Alexander has written that the nation disallows queerness, and V. Spike Petersen locates nationalism as heterosexism; yet it is certainly the case that within a national as well as transnational frame, some queers are better than others.22 The dearth of (white) queer progressive/Left voices is perhaps due to safety issues and real fears that many have about offering up dissenting voices; at the same time, racism and unexamined notions of citizenship seem to be operative here also.23

Whitman College 62725470.doc 7/28/08

4 File Title

Queer Theory 1NC 2/3

We must pose questions that allow us to construct practical solidarities with domestic and international communities and movements. Jasbir K. Puar and Amit S. Rai Social Text 72, Vol. 20, No. 3, Fall 2002. Copyright 2002 by Duke
University Queer Left voices have also pointed out that the treatment of women by the Taliban extends to homosexuality, which is punishable by public stoning in Afghanistan.24 When a U.S. Navy bomb aboard the U.S.S. Enterprise had scrawled upon it Hijack This Fags, national gay and lesbian rights organizers objected to the homophobia of this kind of nationalist rhetoric, but not to the broader racist war itself.25 Clearly, a hegemonic struggle is being waged through the exclusionary and normative idioms of patriotism, humanitarianism, and, yes, even feminism. In this context, we see how the dominant media are using the figure of the burkha-ed woman in what are often racist and certainly chauvinistic representations of the Middle East. These representations, we should remember, have a very old colonial legacy, one that Gayatri Spivak once characterized as, White men saving brown women from brown men.26 Furthermore, the continuities between Bushs agenda and queer Left, feminist, and South Asian diasporic and even South Asian queer diasporic positions are rather stunning, especially in the use of culture and cultural norms to obscure economic and political histories, much in the way that terrorism studies positions the relationship of the psyche to the terrorist. Now suddenly condemning the Taliban for their treatment of women, Bushs administration has in essence occupied the space of default global feminists in an uncanny continuity with Western liberal feminists, who also have been using Afghan women as an easy icon in need of feminist rescue (as the successor to female genital surgery). The Feminist Majority (headed by Eleanor Smeal), along with first lady Laura Bush and the former duchess of York Sarah Ferguson, represent liberal feminist human rights practices that are complicit with U.S. nationalism as well as older forms of colonialist missionary feminist projects.27 While initially Afghan women were completely absent from media representation and discussion, now RAWA (Revolutionary Afghan Womens Association) is being propped up as the saved/savior other: on a speaking tour throughout the United States, fully sponsored and paid for by the National Organization of Women, led by Executive Director Patricia Ireland. (This is not to minimize the work of RAWA, but to point out that the fetishizing of RAWA erases other womens groups in the region, ignores the relative privilege and access of resources that RAWAs members have in relation to the majority of women in Afghanistan, and obscures the network of regional and international political and economic interests that govern such organizations as NOW or even RAWA.)28 Another historical memory must organize our practice. As we begin to unearth these historical and discursive reticulations, we must not lose sight of the shared histories of the Wests abnormals. All of these examples, and more, function to delimit and contain the kinds of responses that LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer) communities can articulate in response to September 11. If we are to resist practically the war effort and the Us/Them and youre either with us or against us rhetoric, we must disarticulate the ties between patriotism and cultural and sexual identity. We must pose questions that allow us to construct practical solidarities with domestic and international communities and movements. If Western feminism has been complicit with certain forms of imperial and nationalist domination, how can feminists of color in the United States as well as Third World feminists (such as RAWA) undermine and displace these dominant agendas? If certain forms of queer and progressive organizing remain tied to forms of nationalist and imperial domination, how can queers of color both here and across the globe disrupt the neat folding in of queerness into narratives of modernity, patriotism, and nationalism? In the contemporary discourse and practice of the war on terrorism, freedom, democracy, and humanity have come to frame the possibility of thinking and acting within and beyond the nation-state.

Whitman College 62725470.doc 7/28/08

5 File Title

Queer Theory 1NC 3/3

Heteronormativity destroys value to life and marks queers as less than human David A.J. Richards, prof. of Law at NYU, 1998 (Women, Gays and the Constitution, pg. 348-349)
A way of making this point is to observe that homophobic prejudice, like racism and sexism, unjustly distorts the idea of human rights applicable to both public and private life. The political evil of racism expressed itself in a contemptuous interpretation of black family life (enforced by antimiscegenation laws that confined blacks, as a separate species, to an inferior sphere).283 The political evil of sexism expressed itself in a morally degraded interpretation of private life to which women, as morally inferior, were confined as, in effect, a different species. In similar fashion, the evil of homophobic prejudice is its degradation of homosexual love to the unspeakably private and secretive not only politically and socially, but intrapsychically in the person whose sexuality is homosexual; the intellectual reign of terror that once aimed to impose racism and anti-Semitism on the larger society and even on these stigmatized minorities themselves today aims to enforce homophobia at large and self-hating homophobia in particular on homosexuals as weU.2 Its vehicle is the denigration of gay and lesbian identity as a devalued form of conscience with which no one, under pain of ascribed membership in such a devalued species, can or should identify. Such degradation constructs not, as in the case of gender, merely a morally inferior sphere, but an unspeakably and inhumanly evil sphere, a culturally constructed and imagined diabolic hell to which gays and lesbians must be compulsively exiled on the same irrationalist mythological terms to which societies we condemn as primitive exiled devils and witches and werewolves; homosexuals, self-consciously demonized (as devils) as they are by contemporary sectarian groups, must be kept in the sphere consistent with their inhumanity. 287 Gays and lesbians are thus culturally dehumanized as a nonhuman or inhuman species whose moral interests in love and friendship and nurturing care are, in their nature, radically discontinuous with anything recognizably human. The culture of such degradation is pervasive and deep, legitimating the uncritically irrationalist outrage at the very idea of gay and lesbian marriage,8 which unjustly constructs the inhumanity of homosexual identity on the basis of exactly the same kind of vicious circle of cultural degradation unjustly imposed on African Americans through antimiscegenation laws.289 Groups, thus marked off as ineligible for the central institutions of intimate life and cultural transmission, are deemed subculturally nonhuman or inhuman: an alien species incapable of the humane forms of culture that express and sustain our inexhaustibly varied search, as free moral persons, for enduring personal and ethical meaning and value in living.

Whitman College 62725470.doc 7/28/08

6 File Title

Gendered Language Shell 1/2

The He/man rhetoric of the affirmative makes women invisible and inscribes the boundaries of debate as a heteronormative and exclusive space Dale Spender is the editor of The Education Papers, Man Made Language second edition, 1985, pg. 154-157
It is not just that women do not see themselves encompassed in the symbol he/man: men do not see them either. (It is unlikely that any male, not just those in Martynas sample, would have an image of female to accompany the symbol he/man.) The introduction of he/man into the structure of the language has helped to ensure that neither sex has a proliferation of female images: by such means is the invisibility of the female constructed and sustained in our thought systems and our reality. That males do not see females in the symbol he/man is an hypothesis that has been put to the test and has been supported. Muriel Schulz (1978) examined the writings of many leading sociologists past and present who ostensibly included females in their analyses of mankind and she found that in many instances there was a consistent image in language, thought and reality and it was a male-only image. If female imagery impinged at all upon the thought processes of the following lecturer who was delivering a lecture entitled The Images of Man he would not have been able to make the statements that he did (1978:1): How does Man see himself? As a salesman? A doctor? A dentist? (So far the speaker could be using Man generically, referring to women as well as to men.) As far as sexuality goes, he continued, the Kinsey reports on the activities of the American male surely affect his self-image in this regard ... (It becomes clear that the reference has been masculine all along.) It is these unintentional disclosures which are an index to the imagery which is operating, for few writers/speakers who are concerned with mankind would make specific statements that they do not include women; on the contrary, my experience has been that of being patronizingly informed on many occasions that Of course I mean women as well when I say men: its just a figure of speech. Everyone knows that man embraces woman. Everyone might be told that man embraces woman but everyone certainly does not operate this rule, as many examples can illustrate. 4The effect of this rule that means woman is to put women on the defensive not just because they are required to glean additional information, but also because in the process of gathering that information for example, Are you including women in your discussion of mankind? they are frequently treated as unreasonable. Given the ambiguity of the symbols he/man for women, it is most reasonable to clarify the context, but their efforts are not always viewed in this light and on more than one occasion I have been treated as stupid when I made the reasonable request to determine whether I was included in a reference. The slips where speakers reveal that it is male and male-only imagery which accompanies he/man are not isolated and rare. As Muriel Schulz indicates, examples abound in almost any collection of reputable writings. Alma Graham has also done research in this area and indicates that many males give themselves away, for even while they are protesting that they are including females their usage reveals quite the opposite (975:62): In practice, the sexist assumption that man is a species of males becomes the fact. Erich Fromm certainly seemed to think so when he wrote that mans vital interests were life, food, access to females etc. Loren Eisley implied it when he wrote of man that his back aches, he ruptures easily, his women have difficulties in childbirth ... If these writers had been using man in the sense of the human species rather than males, they would have written that mans vital interests are life, food and access to the opposite sex, and that man suffers backaches, ruptures easily and has difficulties in giving birth. It is because man evokes male imagery that the very statement of Grahams that man has difficulties in giving birth strikes us as unusual. Like the statement from Elaine Morgan that the first ancestor of the human race had not yet developed her mighty brain when she descended from the trees, we encounter this clash of images. If man did encompass female imagery, there would be no such clash. This provides another means for testing the validity of the assertion that man includes woman. Theoretically, if man does represent the species then the symbol should be applicable to the activities of all human beings. On the other hand if man does mean male then there will be a violation of the semantic rules when the term is applied to activities that are uniquely female. This test is not difficult to undertake and it yields some interesting data. We can say that man makes wars and that man plays football and that he is an aggressive animal without there being any clash of images even though we recognize that such statements generally only apply to half the population. But the human species does a great deal more than make wars and play football, and half the population, at least in our society, has been labelled passive rather than aggressive. The human species also produces children and cares for them, yet what happens ,when.~we use man to refer to these equally human activities? Can we say without a clash of images that man devotes more than forty hours a week to housework or that

Whitman College 62725470.doc 7/28/08

7 File Title

man lives an isolated life when engaged in child rearing in our society? A note of discord is struck by these statements and it is because man despite the assurance of male grammarians most definitely means

Whitman College 62725470.doc 7/28/08

8 File Title

Gendered Language Shell 2/2

male and evokes male imagery. (Miller and Swift, 1976: 256): One may be saddened but not surprised at the statement man is the only primate that commits rape. Although as commonly understood it can apply to only half the human population, it is nevertheless semantically acceptable. But man being a mammal breastfeeds his young is taken as a joke. The joke is the incongruity which is inherent in man performing a specifically female task. There would be no joke at all if man were a genuine generic and included the female instead of being a pseudo- generic. Unfortunately, the joke is on women who have been systematically eliminated from language, and consequently from thought and reality. I would suggest that if it were ordinarily possible to make statements such as man has been engaged in a constant search to control his fertility, we would have a very different language and a very different reality. We would have one where females were visible and audible and we would not be able to divide the sexes into dominant/ muted groups. effects of he/man language are considerable though different for both sexes. This is literally a man-made product which serves to construct and reinforce the divisions between the dominant and muted groups. Such a small device, such a little tampering with the language but with what enormous ramifications for the inequality of the sexes! Through the introduction of he/man, males were able to take another step in ensuring that in the thought and reality of our society it is the males who become the foreground while females become the blurred and often indecipherable background. He/man makes males linguistically visible and females linguistically invisible. It promotes male imagery in everyday life at the expense of female imagery so that it seems reasonable to assume the world is male until proven otherwise. It reinforces the belief of the dominant group, that they, males, are the universal, the central, important category so that even those who are not members of the dominant group learn to accept this reality. It predisposes us to see more male in the world we inhabit, so that we can, for example, project male images on to our past and allow females to go unnoticed; we can construct our theories of the past, including evolutionary ones, formulating explanations that are consistent only with male experience. (Elaine Morgan, 1972, shows just what different knowledge is constructed when a female image is kept in the foreground.) He/man also makes women outsiders, and not just metaphorically. Through the use of he/man women cannot take their existence for granted: they must constantly seek confirmation that they are included in the human species.

Whitman College 62725470.doc 7/28/08

9 File Title

Uniqueness Being Recreated Now

Monster-terrorist-fag is reticulated with discourses and practices of heteronormative patriotism Jasbir K. Puar and Amit S. Rai Social Text 72, Vol. 20, No. 3, Fall 2002. Copyright 2002 by Duke
University We have sought to show how the uncanny monster-terrorist-fag is both a product of the anxieties of heteronormative civilization and a marker of the noncivilizedin fact, the anxiety and the monster are born of the same modernity. We have argued that the monster-terrorist-fag is reticulated with discourses and practices of heteronormative patriotism but also in the resistant strategies of feminist groups, queer communities, and communities of color. We suggest that all such strategies must confront the network of complicities that structure the possibilities of resistance: we have seen how docile patriots, even as they refuse a certain racist positioning, contribute to their own normalization and the quarantining of those they narrate themselves against. This genealogy takes on a particular urgency given the present disarray of the antiwar Left, as well as the lack of communication, debate, and connections between white progressives and communities of color, especially those implicated by changing immigration laws, new border hysteria, the Patriot Act, and the widespread detention of noncitizens.43 Moreover, these questions of discipline and normalization serve to foreclose the possibilities of solidarities among and within communities of color; for instance, between Sikhs and Muslims or among Sikhs who inhabit different class locations. So that even if the long-time surveillance of African American and Caribbean American communities might have let up a bit after September 11, what we see is the legitimation and expansion of techniques of racial profiling that were in fact perfected on black bodies. If contemporary counterterrorism discourses deploy tropes and technologies with very old histories rooted in the Wests own anxieties of otherness and normality, what transformations are we witnessing in the construction of the terrorist-monster? What innovations and reelaborations open new vistas to dominant and emergent forces in the hegemonic politics of the war on/of terrorism? The return of the monster today has enabled a multiform power to reinvest and reinvent the fag, the citizen, the turban, and even the nation itself in the interests of another, more docile modernity.

Whitman College 62725470.doc 7/28/08

10 File Title

Link Modernist Epistemology

The affirmative functions within a matrix of heteronormativity that produces a violent form of subjectivity. We must challenge this epistemology to avoid zones of uninhabitability Judith Butler is Professor of Comparative Literature and Rhetoric at the University of California at Berkeley, Introduction to Bodies that Matter, 1993 in Women, Autobiography, Theory: A Reader, ed. Sidonie Smith and
Julia Watson, pg. 368, 1998 At stake in such a reformulation of the materiality of bodies will be the following: (1) the recasting of the matter of bodies as the effect of a dynamic of power, such that the matter of bodies will be indissociable from the regulatory norms that govern their materializaiton and the signification of those material effects; (2) the understanding of performativity not as the act by which a subject brings into being what she/he names, but, rather, as that reiterative power of discourse to produce the phenomena that it regulates and constrains; (3) the construal of sex no longer as a bodily given on which the construct of gender is artificially imposed, but as a cultural norm which governs the materialization of bodies; (4) a rethinking of the process by which a bodily norm is assumed, appropriated, taken on as not, strictly speaking, undergone by a subject, but rather that the subject the speaking I, is formed by virtue of having gone through such a process of assuming a sex; and (5) a linking of this process of assuming a sex with the question of identification, and with the discursive means by which the heterosexual imperative enables certain sexed identifications and forecloses and/or disavows other identifications. This exclusionary matrix by which subjects are formed thus requires the simultaneous production of a domain of abject beings, those who are not yet subjects, but who form the constitutive outside to the domain of the subject. The abject designates here precisely those unlivable and uninhabitable zones of social life which are nevertheless densely populated by those who do not enjoy the status of the subject, but whose living under the sign of the unlivable is required to circumscribe the domain of the subject. This zone of uninhabitability will constitute the defining limits of the subjects domain, it will constitute that site of dreaded identification against which and by virtue of which the domain of the subject will circumscribe its own claim to autonomy and to life. In this sense, then, the subject is constituted through the force of exclusion and abjection, one which produces a constitutive outside to the subject, an abjected outside, which is, after all, inside the subject as its own founding repudiation.

Whitman College 62725470.doc 7/28/08

11 File Title

Link Policy
The notion of the pregiven subject embodied by the affirmative is a dangerous and violent political strategy. We must trace the operations of our construction as subjects Judith Butler is a professor of Gender Studies at UC Berkeley, Contingent Foundations: Feminism and the Question of Postmodern, in Feminists Theorize the Political, ed. Butler and Scott, pg. 13-14; 1992
For the subject to be a pregiven point of departure for politics is to defer the question of the political construction and regulation of the subject itself; for it is important to remember that subjects are constituted through exclusion, that is, through the creation of a domain of deauthorized subjects, presubjects, figures of abjection, populations erased from view. This becomes clear, for instance, within the law when certain qualifications must first be met in order to be, quite literally, a claimant in sex discrimination or rape cases. Here it becomes quite urgent to ask, who qualifies as a who, what systematic structures of disempowerment make it impossible for certain injured parties to invoke the I effectively within a court of law? Or less overtly, in a social theory like Albert Memmi's The Colonizer and the Colonized, an otherwise compelling call for radical enfranchisement, the category of women falls into neither category, the oppressor or the oppressed.' How do we theorize the exclusion of women from the category of the oppressed? Here the construction of subject positions works to exclude women from the description of oppression, and this constitutes a different kind of oppression, one that is effected by the very erasure that grounds the articulation of the emancipatory subject. As Joan Scott makes clear in Gender and the Politics of History, once it is understood that subjects are formed through exclusionary operations, it becomes politically necessary to trace the operations of that construction and erasure.

Whitman College 62725470.doc 7/28/08

12 File Title

Link Woman
This politics destroys feminism as a political movement and inevitably excludes subjectivities that feminism purports to liberate Judith Butler teaches Gender Studies at UC Berkeley, Contingent Foundations: Feminism and the Question of Postmodern, in Feminists Theorize the Political, ed. Butler and Scott, pg. 15-16; 1992
Within feminism, it seems as if there is some political necessity to speak as and for women, and I would not contest that necessity. Surely, that is the way in which representational politics operates, and in this country, lobbying efforts are virtually impossible without recourse to identity politics. So we agree that demonstrations and legislative efforts and radical movements need to make claims in the name of women. But this necessity needs to be reconciled with another. The minute that the category of women is invoked as describing the constituency for which feminism speaks, an internal debate invariably begins over what the descriptive content of that term will be. There are those who claim that there is an ontological specificity to women as childbearers that forms the basis of a specific legal and political interest in representation, and then there are others who understand maternity to be a social relation that is, under current social circumstances, the specific and cross cultural situation of women. And there are those who seek recourse to Gilligan and others to establish a feminine specificity that makes itself clear in women's communities or ways of knowing. But every time that specificity is articulated, there is resistance and factionalization within the very constituency that is supposed to be unified by the articulation of its common element. In the early 1980s, the feminist "we" rightly came under attack by women of color who claimed that the "we" was invariably white, and that that "we" that was meant to solidify the movement was the very source of a painful factionalization. The effort to characterize a feminine specificity through recourse to maternity, whether biological or social, produced a similar factionalization and even a disavowal of feminism altogether. For surely all women are not mothers; some cannot be, some are too young or too old to be, some choose not to be, and for some who are mothers, that is not necessarily the rallying point of their politicization in feminism. I would argue that any effort to give universal or specific content to the category of women, presuming that that guarantee of solidarity is required in advance, will necessarily produce factionalization, and that "identity" as a point of departure can never hold as the solidifying ground of a feminist political movement. Identity categories are never merely descriptive, but always normative, and as such, exclusionary.

Whitman College 62725470.doc 7/28/08

13 File Title

Link Terrorism
The Affs discourse about terrorism is a form of structural violence Natalie Oswin. Critical geographies and the uses of sexuality: deconstructing queer space, progress in human geography 32, no. 1, (2008) 0:89-103
In Monster, terrorist, fag, Puar and Rai (2002) adopt a queer approach that goes beyond a narrow focus on homosexual subjects to consider the construction of normative and non-normative identities and practices. They argue that the racialized figure of the Muslim terrorist is simultaneously sexualized such that queerness as sexual deviancy is tied to the monstrous figure of the terrorist as a way to otherize and quarantine subjects classified as terrorists (2002: 126). At the same time, this sexually perverse, racialized fi gure has been a tool for the normalization and disciplining of domestic gay and lesbian politics. Thus while emasculation is offered up as appropriate punishment for bin Laden, the USA is depicted as a feminist and gay-friendly safe-haven against an uncivilized Taliban that persecutes womenand homosexuals. Puar and Rai powerfully argue that the monster-terrorist-fag is reticulated with discourses and practices of heteronormative patriotism but also in the resistant strategies of feminist groups, queer communities, and communities of color (2002: 140). In their follow-up article, The remaking of a model minority, Puar and Rai (2004) continue their analysis of the network of complicities that structure the possibilities of resistance (2002: 140) and challenge the facile invocation of a false unity (2004: 86) that too often characterize strategies of solidarity across difference. As an alternative to this fl awed identity politics, they suggest that the communication of singularities that must be the new thought of solidarity (2004: 88). In other words, careful attention to the specific racialized, sexualized constructions through which the war on terror functions is required in place of declarations of unity based on presumptions that they are just like us

Whitman College 62725470.doc 7/28/08

14 File Title

Link Terrorism
People become terrorists because they fail to normalize, the very notion of normalized psyche is the West's heterosexual family romance narrative space Jasbir K. Puar and Amit S. Rai Social Text 72, Vol. 20, No. 3, Fall 2002. Copyright 2002 by Duke
University University Press. As a leading light in the constellation of terrorism experts, Jerrold Post has proposed that terrorists suffer from pathological personalities that emerge from negative childhood experiences and a damaged sense of self.15 Post argues for two terrorist personality types, depending on the specific quality of those childhood experiences. First, Post suggests, there is the anarchic-ideologue. This is the terrorist who has experienced serious family dysfunction and maladjustment, which lead to rebellion against parents, especially against the father. Anarchic-ideologues fight against the society of their parents . . . an act of dissent against parents loyal to the regime. Second, there is the terrorist personality type known as the nationalist-secessionist apparently the name indicates a sense of loyalty to authority and rebellion against external enemies. During childhood, a terrorist of this personality type experienced a sense of compassion or loyalty toward his or her parents. According to Post, nationalistsecessionists have pathologically failed to differentiate between themselves and the other (parental object). Consequently, they rebel against society for the hurt done to their parents . . . an act of loyalty to parents damaged by the regime. Both the anarchic-ideologue and nationalist-secessionist find comfort in joining a terrorist group of rebels with similar experiences. 16 The personality defect model views terrorists as suffering from personality defects that result from excessively negative childhood experiences, giving the individual a poor sense of self and a resentment of authority. As Ruby notes, Its supporters differ in whether they propose one (Kaplan), two (Post and Jones & Fong), or three (Strentz) personality types.17 What all these models and theories aim to show is how an otherwise normal individual becomes a murderous terrorist, and that process time and again is tied to the failure of the normal(ized) psyche. Indeed, an implicit but foundational supposition structures this entire discourse: the very notion of the normal psyche, which is in fact part of the Wests own heterosexual family romance a narrative space that relies on the normalized, even if perverse, domestic space of desire supposedly common in the West. Terrorism, in this discourse, is a symptom of the deviant psyche, the psyche gone awry, or the failed psyche; the terrorist enters this discourse as an absolute violation. So when Billy Collins (the 2001 poet laureate) asserted on National Public Radio immediately after September 11: Now the U.S. has lost its virginity, he was underscoring this fraught relationship between (hetero)sexuality, normality, the nation, and the violations of terrorism.

Whitman College 62725470.doc 7/28/08

15 File Title

Alternative Rethinking Queerness

These assumptions can be destroyed by reexamining our thoughts on queer theory Oswin, Natalie. Critical geographies and the uses of sexuality: deconstructing queer space, progress in human geography 32, no. 1, (2008) 0:89-103
The experiences of non-heterosexuals are no longer excluded within critical geographical work. This important change is undoubtedly the result of various disciplinary engagements with queer theory. And for as long as non-heterosexuals are discriminated against, queer spaces will remain something that, to borrow Spivaks phrase, queers cannot not want. So there is certainly a need for the recent geographical readings of queer spaces that help us understand queer cultural politics as contested sites in which racializations, genderings and classed processes take place. There are also other geographical uses for queer theory. Much of the work that I have highlighted adopts a queer approach to such issues as transnational labour flows, diaspora, immigration, public health, globalization, domesticity, geopolitics and poverty. It demonstrates the use of queer theory to these central concerns of critical geography far beyond analysis of their relationship to gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered lives. Once we dismiss the presumption that queer theory offers only a focus on queer lives and an abstract critique of the heterosexualization of space, we can utilize it to deconstruct the hetero/homo binary and examine sexualitys deployments in concert with racialized, classed and gendered processes. Queering our analysis thus helps us to position sexuality within multifaceted constellations of power. As critical geographers seek to understand these constellations, the advancement of a queer approach alongside postcolonial, feminist, critical race and materialist approaches will most certainly help to ask new questions and illuminate a broader range of critical possibilities.

Whitman College 62725470.doc 7/28/08

16 File Title

Alternative Embrace Eroticism

Queering citizenship requires an embracement of the eroticism that is always already present in politics Shane Phelan, Prof. Pol. Sci. UNM, 2001 (Sexual Strangers: Gays Lesbians and Dilemmas of Citizenship, p. 161162) The hidden links among kinship, citizenship, and bodies reside in our conceptions of what passions are appropriate in which areas of Our lives. Queering citizenship will require a refocusing of the passions of citizenship. Currently the passions of adhesion-love (whether homosocial, familial, Sexual, or all of these), empathy, desire-are slotted into compartments that hide their force in the construction of a common world. They arc not absent, as liberals might hope and their critics might charge, but they are manipulated and interlaced with fear, anger, arrogance, and other "masculine" passions. Rather than building a foundation for republican government, the adhesive passions are reserved for the "private" world unless they can be marshaled to inspire unthinking support for government policy. And it is precisely their inevitable visibility in lesbian and gay politics that makes that politics so viscerally unnerving for so many. While all social movements must build on adhesive passions to form circles of solidarity, most movements continue to deny the bodily and sexual components of those passions. The love of co-protesters, we might say, Is purely Platonic. But the rallying cry of lesbian and gay demonstrations-"an army of lovers cannot fail" belies this sublimation/denial. Not only are gays and lesbians marked by their eroticism; queers who avow this eroticism in public (and not just the sanitized or regulated kinship forms through which the flow of eroticism Is authorized) begin to demonstrate the presence of this eroticism in all collective endeavors. This does not mean that queers "don't do" anger, fear, or other "masculine" passions, but rather that they combine them in ways that do not disavow their links to adhesive passions. Queer citizenship must make room not only for a spectrum of bodies and comportments, but also for new arrangements of passions. The masculine republican citizen must give way to a citizen neither infantile nor stereotypically feminine, but capable of acknowledging and thriving on the adhesive passions, using them to overcorne fears and angers that have been the signature passions of our times. The democratizing force of "emotions" described by Nicholson must be combined with an "ethos of pluralization" to foster not only attention and respect for emotions in others, but a new receptiveness to the play of unruly passions in Ourselves. Rather than becoming "virtually normal," Americans must seek out the strange and the unexpected in themselves and others.

Whitman College 62725470.doc 7/28/08

17 File Title

Impact NV2L
Heteronormativity destroys value to life and marks queers as less than human
David A.J. Richards, prof. of Law at NYU, 1998 (Women, Gays and the Constitution, pg. 348-349) A way of making this point is to observe that homophobic prejudice, like racism and sexism, unjustly distorts the idea of human rights applicable to both public and private life. The political evil of racism expressed itself in a contemptuous interpretation of black family life (enforced by antimiscegenation laws that confined blacks, as a separate species, to an inferior sphere).283 The political evil of sexism expressed itself in a morally degraded interpretation of private life to which women, as morally inferior, were confined as, in effect, a different species. In similar fashion, the evil of homophobic prejudice is its degradation of homosexual love to the unspeakably private and secretive not only politically and socially, but intrapsychically in the person whose sexuality is homosexual; the intellectual reign of terror that once aimed to impose racism and anti-Semitism on the larger society and even on these stigmatized minorities themselves today aims to enforce homophobia at large and self-hating homophobia in particular on homosexuals as weU.2 Its vehicle is the denigration of gay and lesbian identity as a devalued form of conscience with which no one, under pain of ascribed membership in such a devalued species, can or should identify. Such degradation constructs not, as in the case of gender, merely a morally inferior sphere, but an unspeakably and inhumanly evil sphere, a culturally constructed and imagined diabolic hell to which gays and lesbians must be compulsively exiled on the same irrationalist mythological terms to which societies we condemn as primitive exiled devils and witches and werewolves; homosexuals, self-consciously demonized (as devils) as they are by contemporary sectarian groups, must be kept in the sphere consistent with their inhumanity. 287 Gays and lesbians are thus culturally dehumanized as a nonhuman or inhuman species whose moral interests in love and friendship and nurturing care are, in their nature, radically discontinuous with anything recognizably human. The culture of such degradation is pervasive and deep, legitimating the uncritically irrationalist outrage at the very idea of gay and lesbian marriage,8 which unjustly constructs the inhumanity of homosexual identity on the basis of exactly the same kind of vicious circle of cultural degradation unjustly imposed on African Americans through antimiscegenation laws.289 Groups, thus marked off as ineligible for the central institutions of intimate life and cultural transmission, are deemed subculturally nonhuman or inhuman: an alien species incapable of the humane forms of culture that express and sustain our inexhaustibly varied search, as free moral persons, for enduring personal and ethical meaning and value in living.

Whitman College 62725470.doc 7/28/08

18 File Title

AT: Queer is Offensive

Our use of the term queer is consistent with a just and transgressive politics
Rachel Alsop, et. al., Gender Studies Professor @ Hull University, 2002 (Theorizing Gender, Pg. 95-96) The term queer was/is a hate word in everyday speech. It was/is used as a derogatory term for homosexual people. Its contemporary use within political activism and consequently academic theory is therefore a conscious reclaiming and resignification of the term to put it to use in a positive and productive way. Within the norms which govern our everyday notions of femininity and masculinity, heterosexuality occupies pride of place (see chapter 6). So, first, the public visibility of gay and lesbian desire serves to undermine the supposed naturalness of heterosexual gender. For those activists that reappropriated the concept queer, however, more was required than to make visible same-sex desire. There were strands of thinking about sexuality and identity within parts of the gay and lesbian movement which were themselves problematic. One such strand (compare LeVay in chapter 1) was to suggest that homosexuality was itself a natural category, given with biology and therefore deserving of the political recognition and respect attaching to heterosexuality. Another problematic strand of thinking was found in parts of the lesbian community, who in response to a psychoanalytic tendency to identify lesbians as mannish women, were insisting on women loving women as a key manifestation of feminism, a celebration of what it was to be a woman. However, such a view could often render invisible experiences within other parts of the lesbian community, for example of those who adopted butch/femme identifications and roles within erotic encounters. This was an invisibility which was also marked in class and race terms, political lesbianism being predominantly white and middle class (see the discussion in chapter 5). For those activists who have reappropriated the term queer, both naturalizing accounts of homosexuality and overtly feminist identifications within the lesbian movement excluded the experiences of large numbers of people wh0 equally failed to fit within the dominant norms of heterosexuality. They therefore argue for the breaking down of both sexual and gender categories, the maintenance of which creates boundaries which need to be policed. The debates within the womens movement concerning whether transsexual women were really women (see chapter 9) and within gay and lesbian conferences concerning whether bisexual people were gay or straight were examples of such policing in operation. Queer politics therefore works to visibly challenge norms, to show their lack of naturalness and inevitability and to celebrate transgressions from them. This can take the form of ostentatious displays of same-sex desire, juxtapositions of supposedly distinct masculine and feminine characteristics (macho men in tutus). The goal is to open up possibilities which our dominant discourses on sex and gender foreclose and which have also been missing from a gay and lesbian movement concerned to delimit its boundaries.

Whitman College 62725470.doc 7/28/08

19 File Title

AT: Perm
The perm is an attempt to further separate queers from citizenship. We must queer citizenship rather than citizenshipping queerness in order to achieve a just politics
Shane Phelan, Prof. Pol. Sci. UNM, 2001 (Sexual Strangers: Gays Lesbians and Dilemmas of Citizenship, p. 152153) I have argued throughout this book that these recent developments are not simply matters of progress, nor are they evidence of failure. Rather, they are part of the process by which sexual strangers have come to seek entry and end their status as strangers. This quest, I have suggested, is fundamentally flawed. It is flawed not because rights are not important, not because acknowledgment is not vital or because citizenship is an unworthy goal, but because the current structures of citizenship are inextricably bound with the generation of strangers. Attempts to acquire citizenship without changing the construction of citizenship that prevails in the United States will fail, and they will harm our most vulnerable members in the process. The question to ask of state-centered strategies right now is not whether to engage the state, but what sort of citizenship is worth fighting for. That is, rather than starting by asking what the state can give to queers, we need to start by asking how citizenship needs to be queered if strangers are to find a home. The demand that heterosexuals learn about themselves by enlarging their perspective to include us must be accompanied by a willingness to show our queerness, to them and to one another. Of course, those gays and lesbians who feel themselves to be just like (which?) heterosexuals will not want to participate in such a project; but those of us who don't fit the new image, who are too butch or too femme or too confusing or too "wrong" somehow, need them. Just as sexual minorities in general need the solidarity of heterosexuals to create change, the queers among sexual minorities need the model citizens to understand and defend those differences,. This is not a matter of identity politics simpliciter, of saying to some that they are really queer and so their interests lie with the queerest among them; it is a matter of principled support for sexual and gender variance. As conduits between the queerest and the heterosexuals, model citizens should challenge rather than emphasize their difference from bisexuals, transgendered people, or flaming queers.