So a few people have made comments interested in what I mean. I chose boolean logic more or less at random, and while I think there is stuff there it is somewhat difficult to explain in a straight forward way how boolean logic applies to queer theory.
So instead I am going to give a short lesson on what i consider the simplest concept of mathematical logic there is, and why it is vital to understand it to have a good grasp on queer theory.
Squares are Rectangles: A Simple Introduction to the Real World Applications of Mathematical Logic
The first thing you need to understand is that despite how you were taught it, math is highly practical. Math teaches you how to think, you can apply those thinking skills to the real world, and no math is more applicable to the real world than logic.
Today, we are going to learn the simplest possible logical statement, and understand why it is important.
By definition, a square is a shape with 4 equal angles and 4 equal sides. A rectangle is a shape with 4 equal angles. This means that all squares meet the definition of a rectangle. Or, stated plainly:
All squares are rectangles.
From this fact, we can create a logical statement:
If a shape is a square, that means it is also a rectangle.
To talk about logical statements more accurately and to allow us to understand them better, mathematical logic breaks that logical statement down to its essentials in the following way:
Statement A: Shape X is a square.
Statement B: Shape X is a rectangle.
If statement A is true, then that implies statement B is true.
(in this case, implies does not mean suggests, but is instead a hard logical rule.)
(The arrow means implies)
This is the simplest possible logical rule: If A is true, then B is true. Squares are rectangles. People very often come to logical conclusions like this intuitively - you don't need logical training to spot a logical rule. The part where people get tripped up when they don't have proper logical training is that this logical rule does not mean anything else. In particular, there are two major errors that people make.
Logic Error 1: If A is false, that implies B is false.
"Implies" is not a matter of equivalency, unlike "equals". If a shape is not a square, it can still be a rectangle.
Logic Error 2: If A implies B, then B implies A
"Implies" does not work in reverse like "equals". A rectangle is not necessarily a square.
It is very important to note that this does not mean either of those conclusions can't be true, just that they do not logically follow the statement A -> B.
Now, the square and rectangle example is very easy to understand, but you can see how a small child who has just learned all squares are rectangles might make the mistake of thinking that all rectangles are squares.
Once you have really ingrained A -> B into how you think, you will start seeing it everywhere. Because A -> B does not have to be about one thing also qualifying about another thing. It can apply to properties of something as well. For example:
Fact: Squares have 4 sides
Statement A: Shape X is a square
Statement B: Shape X has 4 sides
Now that we understand this simple logical rule, we can apply it to queer theory and start seeing where logical errors 1 and 2 crop up.
Fact: Lesbians experience higher rates of violence than the general population
Statement A: Person X is a lesbian
Statement B: Person X is at a higher risk of violence than the general population
Or, stated how normal people talk, "I am a lesbian, and that means I am more likely to be violently attacked"
Looking at logic error 1 and 2, we can expect to see the logical failures of Not A -> Not B, or "You are not a lesbian, you are not at high risk of violence like I am", and B -> A, or "Only lesbians are at high risk of violence".
or, to combine both logical failures, "Lesbians have it worse than other women. Lesbians have it the worst."
Keep this in mind while we switch gears a bit to a different basic principle.
Neglect, Abuse, and Seeking Help
People who have experienced neglect and abuse often learn very early in their life that if they need help, they will have to earn the consideration of those in a position to help them. Somehow impress on an uncaring individual that the problem they are having cannot be dismissed and force them to act.
Perhaps the most common and effective ways this can be achieved is by convincing them that your problem is particularly bad, unusual, or both. This means the problem is not routine, and therefore much harder to dismiss. Sometimes this is enough to earn the help you need.
This means that every time the neglected or abused person needs help or gets hurt or is sick, every time they need to make it out to be especially severe, more severe than when other people are sick or hurt, and/or unique, something that no one else experiences, or at least is very uncommon. It becomes a vital survival strategy to be able to justify why it is so bad and unusual, and any suggestion it is not as bad or unusual as the person is saying is a genuine threat of violent neglect.
The person who has power over you saying "I don't think its as bad as you are making it out to be" is a punch in the gut. It is panic inducing, and deeply traumatizing. You become defensive of your suffering and pain. It has to be as bad and rare as you say it is, or why would anyone ever help you? If its not as bad as you say it is, then you have not earned the help you desperately need.
Logical Errors Meet Trauma Response: Putting Down Other Minorities to Secure Your Own Safety
Combining these two ideas, we can realize that not only do people have a tendency to accidentally make these logical errors, they have an extremely strong, trauma driven motivator for doing so.
Lesbians have it worse than other women. Lesbians have to have it worst, because you are a lesbian, and you desperately need support and help because you are in unbearable pain because of the discrimination you have suffered as a lesbian. It has to be the worst, because if it isn't, you have not earned the help you need.
But bisexual women are women. Also, trans women are women, and some of them are not lesbians. What about them? What if some of them claim to have experienced the same kind and intensity of violence as lesbians? What if these women, as a group, claim that they are just as much at risk as lesbians?
Well, if you believe lesbians have it worst, if you need for lesbians to have it worst, then these other women are threats. To secure your own safety, you need to dismiss them, shout them down, deny their suffering, exclude them from the group.
This is not the only motivation for exclusionist movements, but it is a common and very strong one.
The best defense against this is understanding A -> B. Deeply integrate it into how you think about the world in general and queer theory in particular. Understand it not just as an abstract math thing, but as a moral principle you adhere to.
Once you do that, you will not just start seeing when people are making these mistakes, you will see why. You can understand the mechanics of the logical and moral failures, virtually always alongside trauma, that lead to exclusionism. If you are disciplined enough, you can see it happening in yourself, and use that to overcome your trauma response so you don't end up hurting people.
I am well known these days for being a very outspoken advocate of trans men and other trans masculine people. The truth is the first time I saw a trans man explaining their issues and using the word transandrophobia it felt like the person writing it was attacking me personally. It felt like being hate crimed. Because of that damn trauma response. Someone else claiming suffering and pain like trans women experience registered as a threat.
But because my moral backbone is rooted in well reasoned general principles, not a small part of which is a firm understanding of logic as a moral discipline, I was able to take a few days and examine my response. Compare it against my previously established moral principles, look for logical failures.
Shortly after that I wrote my first major supportive post of trans men. In that post I said the following:
"I very often talk about how everyone is inevitably going to run up against their own prejudices someday, that everyone is going to hit an issue they just canât understand intuitively and you will find the existence of people unlike yourself a difficulty and an inconvenience. You will never be able to see this in advance because your prejudice is by definition a blind spot. The only way to deal with this is a strong base of well reasoned moral principles.
Well here it is. I may not understand, I may find it inconvenient, but testing the situation against my moral principles it is clear as day what should be done. This is not about me, and it is not about [trans women]."
I firmly believe that a solid basis in logic is irreplaceable as a queer theorist. It is not all you need, but you cannot be a good queer theorist without it.
And, to bring this back to a lighter tone:
