Unpacking Queer Politics: A Lesbian Feminist Perspective

by Sheila Jeffreys

Unpacking Queer Politics argues that the strong lesbian feminist movement of the 1970s, which was able to articulate a philosophy and practice that distinguished lesbian politics from gay male politics, was submerged in the 1990s beneath a gay male agenda called queer politics.

The new politics repudiated lesbian feminist ideas and celebrated 'manhood' as a goal for gay men. Practices which construct this 'manhood', such as sadomasochism, cutting and piercing, female-to-male transsexual surgery, and which are promoted in queer politics, need to be understood as forms of self-harm which result from the oppression of lesbians and gay men. The political agenda of queer politics is damaging to the interests of lesbians, women in general, and to marginalized and vulnerable constituencies of gay men.

The book concludes by arguing that precisely the commitment to equality in relationships and sex that has been so important to lesbian feminists, and so excoriated in much of queer theory, should form the basis of a social transformation. In this way lesbians should be seen as the vanguard of social change.

Genres: Feminism, Nonfiction, Lesbian, Queer, LGBT, Sociology, Politics

184 pages, Paperback

First published December 12, 2002

About the author

Sheila Jeffreys writes and teaches in the areas of sexual politics, international gender politics, and lesbian and gay politics. She has written six books on the history and politics of sexuality. Originally from the UK, Sheila moved to Melbourne in 1991 to take up a position at the University of Melbourne. She has been actively involved in feminist and lesbian feminist politics, particularly around the issue of sexual violence, since 1973. She is involved with the international non-government organization, Coalition Against Trafficking in Women, in international organising.

She is the author of The Spinster and Her Enemies: Feminism and Sexuality, 1880-1930 (1985/1997) Anticlimax: A Feminist Perspective on the Sexual Revolution (1990), The Lesbian Heresy: A Feminist Perspective on the Lesbian Sexual Revolution (1993), The Idea of Prostitution (1997), Unpacking Queer Politics: a lesbian feminist perspective (2003) and Beauty and Misogyny: Harmful Cultural Practices in the West (2005).

Reviews

[Doreen · Rating 5 out of 5]

Oh my, transphobic, anti-BDSM, anti-porn, antisex, homophobic, and more narrow minded name calling just pours out. The grade school mud slinging and personal hate speech just shows how right Sheila Jeffreys is. Does anyone bother to really to look at how she works to undermine male hegemony? Does anyone look to her list of activist accomplishments as well as her scholarly work? She has tirelessly put herself out there while the dogmatic, knee jerks try to force her to be quiet. She is kept from speaking at public events or events are cancelled just so she couldn't attend. WTF! As a lifelong lesbian, radical feminist and anarchist, it sickens me that so-called progressives can target one woman so unrelentingly. I know what she does and what she writes come closer to truth any 99.9 percent of what passes as feminism. I guess that's what makes her such a dangerous activist, historian, theorist, speaker, teacher and writer. Even in our little progressive world, might makes right and it makes me weep for us.

[Elizabeth · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is a must read for feminists.

[6655321 · Rating 1 out of 5]

Jefferys work relies on "mis-citing other academics to make them look ridiculous," attributing herself as the only source for a variety of claims, engaging in transphobic rants that sound like they came out of the Westboro baptist church, accusing gay men of being racist without looking (critically or at all) at racism within lesbian communities (and given she loves Mary Daly who was called out for that fairly strongly by WOC feminists). This book represents the anti-achievement of making Transexual Empire looking well researched and well reasoned and contains Jefferys completely bizarre claim that lesbian separatist feminism (which allows straight women to identify as lesbians) will somehow "destroy" gender [by defending the gender binary voraciously?].

this book was frankly, a waste of my time, triggering, poorly written, ignores enormous amounts of critical scholarship to re-iterate points that were contentious in the 1980s as though they are biblical proofs handed down by some hideous transphobic godhead (Dworkin, McKinnon, Daly, & Raymond) while refusing to engage with any current writings against the gender binary (by you know, trans* or intersexed folx) to constantly draw out some weird vendetta that Jefferys has against Judith Halberstram.

TL;DR: ZERO STARS is a generous review for this book, it literally deserves anti-stars it feels like it has eroded knowledge that i previously held, -1 stars is probably more accurate but impossible to give as a review.

[Rabbit {Paint me like one of your 19th century gothic heroines!} · Rating 1 out of 5]

Sum it up: Sex negative, transphobic (especially towards FTMs), S&M negative, porn-negative (especially towards gay-male porn), straight women appropriating the word "lesbian", and the ideal "lesbian" can only be femme. God forbid anyone be butch.


bitch, please

It was poorly researched, and was sadly written in the early 2000's.

I am so glad feminism has become more intersectional and sex positive.

The best part was my best friend writing snark in the margins.

[M. · Rating 3 out of 5]

I haven't agreed with all I have read here, but her points against pornography, S&M, sexual liberation, queer and gender theory, and transgenderism as well as her critique of Foucault are the reasons that motivated me to read this. I know she's critiquing things no other feminists would dare to, but it still has a long way to go.

Before starting this review, I'd like to make clear that I don't agree with the terms "straight", "gay", "lesbian" and I'd rather use "heterosexual / homosexual male / female" to describe persons with SSA attractions, but I will use them because the definition of the person is political for radical feminists. Nor do I believe in gender theory or I identify as radical feminist or feminist of any sort. These three terms denote, especially a political position, and a critique to the use of such is not a critique to the persons struggling with such temptations.

This is possibly my fourth feminist reading. And my first radical feminist reading. Leaving my stance on homosexuality aside, it's possible to recognize that, in this book, Sheila Jeffreys assumes it's a conscious choice of resistance against what she considers the "heteropatriarchal" scheme to become a homosexual woman.

She also points out the hatred of women within the male homosexual community, especially of self-identified lesbians comparing it to racism because:

"Men and women, whatever their sexual orientation, are raised in a male supremacist society which teaches that women’s bodies are disgusting, whereas penises confer honour and pride."

This is described as "ick factor" as the female body produces repulsion in them. Proceeds to cover the homosexual male pornography issue as well as addresses the inconvenients of the commodification of sex understood as dialectics of domination, and how this would be subjugation to patriarchal values.

Masculinity is the practice of such behaviors, and Jeffreys consider herself to be a gender abolitionist. While recognizing the differences between the sexes at a biological level, she criticizes the current roles.

She talks about the hijacking of lesbian feminism in the 1990s by the introduction of transgenderism.

Feminism has always been a women centered human rights movement, and as such, to declare shapeless things as gender theory or transsexualism as the new core, is to deny what women and men are, essentially different biologically, and when it comes to their interests too.

Gay liberation is born in the late 60s, early 70s as an influence of socialist and feminist movements. In the two previous decades, homophile associations paved the way to end legal penalities. It also aimed to the critique of gay destined businesses and rejected the medical model of homosexuality as sickness. But it wasn't a trouble free situation

"Sexism is also reflected in the roles homosexuals have copied from
straight society. The labels might differ, but it is the same unequal
situation, as long as roles are rigidly defined, as long as one person exercises power over another. For straights it is male-female, master/ mistress. For gays it is butch/femme, aggressive-passive. And the ex­treme, in either case, is sadist-masochist. Human beings become ob­jectified, are treated as property, as if one person could own another."

But the 1990s made of such roleplaying an authentic experience of homosexuality. And this is what Jeffreys rejects.

"Another common current between gay liberation and women’s liberation at this time was the challenge to marriage and the nuclear family. Marriage was considered by both to be a contract of exploit­ation and male dominance, which necessitated precisely the ‘sex roles’ which were seen to be so oppressive. So fundamental was the opposition to marriage that it was emphasized by Jill Tweedie,
an influential Guardian opinion columnist, in a positive piece about gay liberation: ‘Gay Lib does not plead for the right of homosexuals to marry. Gay Lib questions marriage’"

This challenges the assimilation of current queer politics. However this movement did not last much. Because liberalism corrupted it with its agenda and myth of equality. With this, they lost the idea of sexual tendencies as social constructions and made a determinist vision out of them, while making them "acceptable". Jeffreys agrees with D'Emilio that the radicalism of the gay liberation front is what made them fail, because they were "prescriptive" when it came to sexuality, which is the same critique made to radical feminism.

The gay liberation front thought the change was much easier than it is. And so the sexual politics reduced to a campaign against prohibitions. Such ideas had no mass appeal.

Since lesbians had always been a minority, they entered into lesbian feminism because of the discrimination they suffered within the homosexual subculture, which was not erased by the gay liberation movement, and sexual practice was seen as the core objective.

But transgenderism also played its role: the imitation of feminine traits offended lesbians because it affected women's spaces, though transsexuals attempted to destroy masculinity by the adoption of such behaviors, while reinforcing a cult of masculinity instead.

"Lesbian feminism starts from the understanding that the interests of lesbians and gay men are in many respects very different, because lesbians are members of the political class of women. Lesbian liber­ation thus requires the destruction of men’s power over women."

The difference with queer politics, once again reside in a political choice of lesbianism: "woman-loving; separatist organization, community and ideas; the idea that lesbianism is about choice and resistance; the idea that the personal is political; a rejection of hierarchy in the form of role-playing and sadomasochism; a critique of the sexuality of male supremacy which eroticizes inequality".

The role of sexual activity is also important

"Sex was not absent, but it did not have the significance that it has for ‘queer’ lesbians who excoriate lesbian feminists for being ‘anti-sex’."

In the following pages, Jeffreys express each one of these principles and the coining of specific feminist desigend terms for them as well as their implications and did not only reduce it to the sexual but the friendship plane, while comparing it to the male plane and assuming a inherent hostility in the latter: lesbian feminism is reactionary against such inclinations of a male dominated culture.

And lesbianism is the only way out of such culture. Men and women are not eager to understand each other, and cannot do so. This also includes the rejection of Freudian politics and the Foucaultian thought which endorsed sadism. In certain kinds of separatism, Jeffreys argues, there can be isolation from the world.

"Raymond recommends a different kind of separatism, in which the ‘inside outsider’ manages to live in the world men have made, whilst working to change it from a separate base in women’s friendship and culture."


"Lesbian feminist theorists extended the understanding that the
personal is political into a critique, not just of some oppressive
aspects of heterosexuality, but of heterosexuality itself. They argued that heterosexuality is a political institution rather than the result of biology or individual preference. Adrienne Rich, for instance, says that heterosexuality needs to be analysed as a political system which is as influential as capitalism and the caste system"

Sexology constructed the eroticization of women under women's subordination. Feminist groups had debates in the late 70s and early 80s over the nature of pornography, which liberal feminists considered freedom of speech.

"The wars or debates constituted a politically crucial watershed in the history of this wave of feminism. The ‘debates’ halted real progress towards creating a sexuality of equality, and set in train a backward march in which the sexual and gender practices that feminist theorists and activists had challenged as hostile to women’s interests came to be promoted as ‘freedom’, or even ‘transgressive’, and politically revolutionary in themselves. The
power difference between men and women was eroticized in sadomasochism, for instance, rather than dismantled."

"Protecting this sexu­ality [lesbianism] required the reprivatization of sexuality. In order to make sexual response and practice off limits for political analysis, they had to be separated out from the political, and made private once again.

Transgenderism is born from a hatred women are made feel because of queer politics, which are male dominated.

"Where practices that gay liberationists had analysed as resulting
from oppression were commodified by business interests, as in bath­
houses and transsexual surgery, they were celebrated in the new
queer politics instead of criticized. A powerful new gay economic
sector was now making serious profits from a gay sex industry of
pornography and prostitution. Its interests were defended and given
theoretical legitimacy within queer politics."

Following Shane Phelan, the factors that helped to the creation of queer politics were the departure of many lesbians, the demanding of recognition that bisexuals did, and the apparition of AIDS, which created an alliance between gay men and lesbians.

Queer politics took Sade as a base, because it's following a traditionally masculine notion of sexual freedom.

"Men’s sexual rights, renamed as the release of repression and claimed to be biologically necessary by the science of sexology,
were enshrined in a new regime of sexual liberalism. Gay men’s version of men’s ‘sexual freedom’ is celebrated by queer theorists such as Michael Warner as the end goal of queer politics".

Problematization of queer theory: created by a man who has nothing to say about women or lesbians. The terms homosexual, queer and gay are seen as generic by Jeffreys, with this, the acceptance of paedophilia came hand in hand.

"Both bisexuality and transsexualism are forms of behaviour which have been criticized by lesbian feminists as being contrary to lesbian interests rather than consonant with them."

"Janice Raymond has argued convincingly that transsexual surgery is about social control. The medical industry that has grown up to profit from transsexualism pushes those who do not feel comfortable with politically con­structed categories of gender and sexuality to mutilate their bodies to fit in. I have argued that transsexual surgery needs to be understood as a harmful cultural practice and a violation of human rights."

Queer politics rejoice in the minority status of their advocacy, while lesbian feminism aims for massive appeal.

"From post-structuralism queer theory takes the celebration of lack
of theoretical certainty about identity, or anything else, and the
celebration of ‘difference’ for its own sake."

"The deconstruction of identity in queer theory has been criticized for making political action difficult, since people determinedly unsure of who and what they are do not make a powerful revolutionary force."

Criticism of queer theorists:

Judith Butler (written off as unoriginal and as having chosen her lifestyle on the basis of not being able to renounce to S&M practices, and not wanting to get rid of gender as performance)

Sedgwick (written off as heterosexual woman fascinated with homosexual male practices in borderline fetishism and violent sexual fantasies, rejection of womanhood).

Sexual liberalism contributed to the AIDS epidemic and as well, the defense of pornography allows prostitution and other human right violations which are male dominated to go on. There's a self destructive tendency in these practices. Commercialization of human beings and their sexual behaviors can be done thanks to a lack of maturity, means of selling transgression as politics, while it's just a quest for hedonism.

Queer theory often defends practices that imply violence such as pederasty and sadomasochism.

There's a chapter on "Gay male pornography" and its defensors and detractors. A defense of aggressive masculinity is what pro-pornography groups do, while feminist critiques aim to abolish this domination of masculinity in every area of life. Jeffreys includes testomonies of abuse and what pornography stars have to endure.

The next chapter covers sadomasochistic practices, the endangering behaviors are becoming norm and putting lives at risk. All of this was done to prove masculinity in some level or another, and could have devastating results for victims of domestic abuse.

Jeffrey's theory debunks sadomasochism advocates as they make of it a new age cult to prove masculinity, there's an involvement in pornography and sadomasochism that aims to prove worth within an abusive mindset. Some lesbians used these practices to acquire temporary power. One of the reasons why pornography and sadomasochism might be attractive to some people is because of stories of child abuse, according to the author.

Criticism of piercing and self mutilation in general. Transsexualism FTM (female to male) as endangering and mutilation for lesbians, while challenging those who don't accept transsexuals as their partners. Blurry differences between butch lesbians and FTM transition. Damage provoked by transition surgeries. Transsexualism as self hatred, self mutiliation, a way of escaping child abuse. Sadomasochism would be an antecedent and a part of this suicidal scheme. Transsexualism is also done out of a fear of aging, a worship of the male sex.

Criticism of surrogacy as ownership of women's bodies and exploitation of poor women, as well as baby selling, for the interests of gay men "to participate in oppressive institutions as marriage".

There's a final chapter on how lesbianism is the alternative because it includes no exploitation and it doesn't need to imitate the heterosexual society.

What’s completely left off in Jeffreys’ book though, is how the species will continue if a) the only way to escape male dominance is becoming a lesbian and b) surrogacy is strictly forbidden: even if women used men as tools of reproduction, there’s a chance that men still will be born out of their own wombs, and since men are beings who cannot coexist with women, as long as masculinity and feminity exist, then we’re in a problem. Besides, that’d be explotation of men because of their sexual “roles”. But it’s obvious she’d never support a pro-family / marriage vision.

I would never support surrogacy, but if she expected women to take her position, there’d be no more children and we’d die out.

[✩☽ · Rating 2 out of 5]

this book really epitomizes the main issue i have with radical feminist theory: its utter and complete inability to recognize lesbianism for what it is: exclusive same sex attraction to women. instead lesbianism is treated as an idealized position of "resistance to the patriarchy" while actual lesbians are disparaged for not living up to whatever feminist ideal these theorists have projected on us. there's little nuance or empathy for lesbians as real human beings oppressed for both sex and sexual orientation, who have neither role models nor positive social messaging and are forced to survive in the best way they know how.

like, let's be clear: i absolutely do not think lesbians are exempt from internalizing heterosexual mores or ways or relating + fully agree that eroticization of dominance + submission has shaped collective social understanding around sexuality. jeffreys like most radical feminist writers has insightful things to say about pornography but it's also obvious lesbian sexuality is being viewed through the same lens as male sexuality.

its a wonder to behold that these theorists do not recognize what hypocritical clown behavior it is to rage against men for identifying into the lived reality of women for political/philosophical reasons while simultaneously insisting non-lesbian women are allowed to identify into the lived reality of lesbianism for political/philosophical reasons. and this double standard renders so many of her arguments against queer theory incoherent.

anyway: lesbians are not your resistance project or an idea in your head. abstaining from sex with men does not make a woman a lesbian. you can absolutely advocate for women separating from men and critique the institutionalization of heterosexuality without using the term lesbian. it's already taken.

everyone loves lesbianism as pawns or rhetorical devices to prop up their political ideologies or arguments, but nobody cares to actually listen to what we have to say about our lives.

[Jaclynn (JackieReadsAlot) · Rating 4 out of 5]

A feminist dismantling of so-called queer/postmodernist theory. I'd recommend this to everyone, not just lesbian feminists, to read. Addressed compulsory heterosexuality, the adoration of masculinity in queer theory, the subjugation and purchase of the female body through surrogacy and prostitution. How reproducing the masculine and feminine binary is neither transgressive nor is does it aid in dismantling or analyzing the system of oppression that keeps women subordinate. Queer theory (porn loving, male adoring, womanface wearing, female body appropriating), lacks a material or structural analysis of oppression, and therefore, is incapable of ever liberating the people it claims to serve.

[Heather · Rating 5 out of 5]

An interesting account of how the gay liberation movement was hijacked by neoliberalism. Jeffreys argues pretty convincingly that it's current iteration, Queer politics, lacks a material or structural analysis of oppression, and therefore, is incapable of ever liberating the people it claims to serve.

[C. · Rating 3 out of 5]

Maybe four stars, I don't know.

[J. Rogue · Rating 1 out of 5]

Ugh, soooooo transphobic. Yuck.

[aleks ᵕ̈ · Rating 5 out of 5]

Really good but I got tired of reading about men, then I remembered this is a critique on “queer politics” and obviously women have no place in that, no matter how much they try to convince us we do

[Selva · Rating 1 out of 5]

o terf

[Jorge Villarruel · Rating 4 out of 5]

Cada día estoy más convencido de que el feminismo radical es la verdadera izquierda y el único motor de cambio real en el mundo, y en la importancia de apoyar este movimiento.

Últimamente, se ha atacado a las feministas con arguentos absurdos que si la tercera ola, que si feminazis, que no son como las feministas verdaderas de antes, cuando la realidad objetiva es que las "feministas de antes" son las mismas de ahora, las radicales, las que luchan hoy por las mismas cosas por que lucharon las mujeres hace dos siglos, hace un siglo y hace medio siglo: reconocer el derecho de las mujeres a la vida y a la libertad. En dos siglos, poco ha cambiado. Sí, desde hace varias décadas, tienen derecho a votar y a estudiar y a trabajar, pero no tienen derecho a no ser acosadas, golpeadas, violadas o asesinadas. Tienen derecho a vivir una sexualidad activa y promiscua, pero no a no tenerla. Tienen derecho a ser "trabajadoras sexuales", no a señalar que la prostitución es una forma de violación legal. Tienen derecho a una relación sexual (y encontrar excitación sexual en ella) sadomasoquista sin puritanismo, de mujer sumisa y hombre dominante, pero no tienen derecho a señalar la violencia latente en este tipo de relaciones de poder, donde ellas siguen representando el papel que la sociedad heteropatriarcal les ha asignado: servir al hombre, ser una posesión de un hombre. Tienen derecho a cualquier orientación sexual disidente que quieran, pero no a identificarse como mujeres para no ofender a las "verdaderes mujeres" (las que nacieron con pene).

De todos modos, Sheila Jeffreys lo hace en este libro, que pone en evidencia cómo la comunidad queer y la teoría queer son la vanguardia del heteropatriarcado actual, enemigas del feminismo y de las mujeres en general.

[Corey]

The implications of a lot of the conclusions Jeffries reaches here make for a grim reality, but, as a professor of mine likes to ask, "what if she's right?"

[Unholy Meat Obelisk · Rating 4 out of 5]

Such a revelatory, important read for anyone remotely interested in the liberation of women and a more peaceful world for everybody. It's well-researched and dense, to the extent that you'll be reading quotes from external authors every other page, but the message is clear: queer politics has been a Trojan Horse in feminism for way too long. It has exacerbated women's hard-earned rights by replicating centuries old power structures of male domination. Not to mention this is also detrimental for gay men and gender-non-conforming people. This book is over 20 years old, but quite relevant today... I'm afraid even more so.

It's possible Jeffreys might reccur to the fallacy of origin at times, stating that piercings or tattoos (at present) are a sign of a sadomasochist mindset simply because they were part of SM gay culture in the 70's; or that marriage is necessarily a patriarchal institution because it was that way for a large part of history. Perhaps I should reflect on my own biases. 🤔

In any case, essential radfem literature. Here's to the abolition of gender. 🍷

[Ross Williamson]

[02192020] reason stricken: sheila jeffreys is a terf.

[Bryan Glovetsky · Rating 5 out of 5]

I'm a bisexual man, lifelong political lefty, Bernie Sanders supporter, and former ACORN organizer - and I bow down and thank Sheila Jeffreys in ten dead languages for her timely takedown of the New Queer Movement/Alphabet Mafia's blitzkrieg of postmodern woke pseudo-progressive drivel. LGB people, women, and all political lefties need to read it.

[andrea · Rating 4 out of 5]

Jeffreys has a way with words that is spot-on, refreshing, and funny and sarcastic in the right amount. Her writing style is always delightful to read, and it definitely encourages me to cultivate some ideas of my own.

[Ingrid Frank · Rating 5 out of 5]

Amazing book for women to discuss seriously about how queer politics (LGBT) cause damage to women and to the women's liberation movement (feminism).

[Ale Canales · Rating 5 out of 5]

One of the best books ever!!

[Fernanda · Rating 5 out of 5]

Wow! Si quieren adentrarse a la polémica Cuir/transactivista y feminismo, este es el libro indicado. Este libro es crucial para el estudio feminista.

[Jade Cahoon]

Dropped @ 39 pages. I was hoping for more of a history of queer politics since the 90s and less of whatever this is.

[Helén · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fantastisk genomgång av den engelskspråkiga delen av världens "gay rights activism", dess historia och förgreningar i jämförelse med de feministiska (och allmänna) stömningarna i samhället.
Jeffreys pekar ut hur det manliga perspektivet och sättet att vara haft företräde under stora delar av denna samhällsrörelse och hur detta har påverkat kvinnorna och särskilt de lesbiska.
Fantastisk bok med många aha-upplevelser och intressanta analyser.

[Rachel Godin · Rating 5 out of 5]

If you want a lesbian philosopher to guide you through the current queer landscape with a nuanced; truly radical and progressive outlook, then this book is for you. Viva Jeffrey’s!

[Mayryott · Rating 5 out of 5]

保持锐利度

[Jessica]

Thought provoking, but extremely disagreeable.