Using the word “queer” as a verb is the latest exercise in verbal gymnastics that the average person may not have heard of. You might assume that “to queer” something has something or other to do with LGBT issues. But this is not exactly correct. The advocates of “queering” claim they challenge existing norms in order to weaken the established authorities and empower the vulnerable.  

I aim to show that the reality is precisely the opposite. By overturning commonly accepted standards, the advocates of “queering” empower the already powerful. The recent fiasco of the Olympic women’s boxing competition provides a case in point. The sex of Algerian boxer and gold medalist Imane Khelif is hotly disputed. One might think this issue could be readily resolved. But the sex of the body has been thoroughly “queered”: People claim to not know what a woman is. The resulting confusion cripples common sense and benefits the socially privileged. People who are already powerful, influential and wealthy are at a systematic advantage over people who aren’t.  

Before I lay out the facts of the Khelif case as they currently stand, let me clarify the term “to queer” as a verb. An article provocatively titled “What Is Queer Theory? A Rejection of the Received Wisdom of Our Ancestors,” begins this way: “When I first heard about queer theory, I assumed that it had to do with gay rights.”  

(See what I mean? You aren’t alone in making this assumption.) The author explains:  

“The central focus of queer theory is on rejecting the received wisdom of our ancestors. That is: our society has certain things that we consider ‘normal,’ such as monogamy, having a job, or the notion that there are two (and only two) separate and distinct sexes. The central aim of queer theory is to subvert, problematize, and ultimately undo these norms. … For the queer theorist, norms are built from knowledge that is arbitrary and socially constructed, and in turn are constructed only in order to help the ruling class to maintain its power.”  

I believe the Khelif case illustrates that the continuous “queering” of society accomplished precisely the opposite. The “ruling class” benefits from the confusion far more than ordinary folk who are left scratching their heads and having no outlets for their frustration.  

The circumstantial evidence that Khelif is no ordinary female is overwhelming. The world knew something was wrong when Italian boxer Angela Carini left the ring after 46 seconds. Since then, additional testimonies have come to light. An interview with Spanish national coach Rafa Lozano revealed, “Khelif was considered too dangerous to pair with women at a boxing retreat in Madrid ahead of the Olympics.” Likewise, Mexican boxer Brianda Tamara Cruz reported that she “was lucky to escape with her life after sharing a ring with the Algerian at the Golden Belt Series Finals in Guadalajara in 2022.”  

Even more damning is the fact that the International Boxing Association (IBA) disqualified Khelif and Taiwanese boxer Lin Yu-Ting from participating in events in 2022-23. The IBA has not released the results of those tests, citing concerns about medical privacy.  

The plot thickened when one of Khelif’s trainers admitted that “there were problems with the chromosomes.” The International Olympic Committee’s attempt to discredit the IBA simply muddied the waters with irrelevant political considerations. Either they have XY chromosomes, or they don’t. If chromosomes are not the relevant criterion, the world needs to know why.   

But the most decisive bit of circumstantial evidence is the conduct of Team Khelif. These people could easily put an end to the controversy. Khelif and his (yes, his) handlers could authorize the release of the tests the IBA says it can’t release. They could take fresh DNA and testosterone tests right now.  

Instead of doing this, however, Team Khelif has embarked on an expensive public-relations campaign to convince skeptics that he is a woman. This campaign is, no doubt, more expensive than the medical testing would be. Ironically, the only people who will find this campaign decisive are people who define femaleness according to socially accepted stereotypes.   

What does all this have to do with “queer theory” or the “queering” process?  

Standards of truth and evidence are a public good. Any ordinary guy or gal can look at objective evidence and make his or her own judgment.  A person doesn’t need any special vocabulary, training or political connections. Standards of truth and evidence provide a kind of social or moral infrastructure that is available to anyone to use in disputes with others.  

Thanks to the efforts of queer theorists, there are fewer and fewer commonly-agreed-upon standards for everyone to refer to and use. Even when, as in the Algerian boxer case, there are objective grounds for decision-making, people have become fearful about using them. One very well-informed commentator sardonically explained:  

“For political reasons in general, not with respect to Khelif and Lin in particular, the IOC doesn’t want to test athletes for sex because, in its view, it’s ‘impractical’ — meaning expensive in the multiple ways it cares about — and ‘discriminatory’ against XY athletes who identify as women.” 

The person who can shout the loudest and cause the most disruption has an advantage over people who want peace in their lives. The person with access to political power and media connections has an advantage over the people who do not. The person who can pay for a slick ad campaign has an advantage over others. People with money, power and influence have advantages in any society: That is what it means to be wealthy. But operating in a social setting with no standards at all magnifies their relative advantage.  

In other words, contrary to the claims of “queer theorists,” standards of truth, evidence and common decency benefit the poorest members of society. The Khelif case illustrates in miniature that the “Law of the Strongest” reigns in a society that has been totally “queered.” We need to stop letting “queer theorists” get away with their outrageous claim that their campaign of scorched-earth destruction of legal and social norms somehow defends the weak.  

And with respect to the Khelif case in particular, if he submits to objective testing and he turns out to be a she, I will gladly eat crow and repent. Until then, I shall refer to Khelif as “he” without apology. In the name of the weak and the poor everywhere, we must #demandDNA.