However the idea of phantom wings being more queer than queer theory is fascinating.
Hm--what I was trying to say is that if this is about a general queering of theory (rather than "queer theory", even if the author is applying the queering of the theory to queer theory in the below example), then phantom wings might not be necessarily more queer in a queer-theory-gendered sense, but queer in a queered-theory sense.
Actually here: The gist is that rather than drag being an embodied man taking on a female presentation in some gendered matrix of understanding, it's a particular enactment of the non-inherently-bodied-vector "becoming-woman."
And here is where I think maybe therianthropy fits in--there is this non-inherently-bodied vector "becoming-animal," which can be *enacted* in the sense of a play, and that enactment can be...performed by individual bodies, but that vector in and of itself can't be bodied--just the enactment, the performance, of the vector can be bodied. There is something about that vector that has to stay necessarily in the realm of non-inherently-bodied ideas for it to be played, enacted, performed as a role by individuals. That seems to be really queering the idea of theory as a whole.
Maybe this is the case with other ideas, too, but that was the one that immediately sprang to mind for me. Then again, it would.
no subject
Hm--what I was trying to say is that if this is about a general queering of theory (rather than "queer theory", even if the author is applying the queering of the theory to queer theory in the below example), then phantom wings might not be necessarily more queer in a queer-theory-gendered sense, but queer in a queered-theory sense.
Actually here: The gist is that rather than drag being an embodied man taking on a female presentation in some gendered matrix of understanding, it's a particular enactment of the non-inherently-bodied-vector "becoming-woman."
And here is where I think maybe therianthropy fits in--there is this non-inherently-bodied vector "becoming-animal," which can be *enacted* in the sense of a play, and that enactment can be...performed by individual bodies, but that vector in and of itself can't be bodied--just the enactment, the performance, of the vector can be bodied. There is something about that vector that has to stay necessarily in the realm of non-inherently-bodied ideas for it to be played, enacted, performed as a role by individuals. That seems to be really queering the idea of theory as a whole.
Maybe this is the case with other ideas, too, but that was the one that immediately sprang to mind for me. Then again, it would.