# Queer State
To elude our local barbaric structure, we can appeal to a more ever-present and fully-encompassing state. The limits of perception are not solved by improving focus on low level analyses, but on absolutely formalizing ever aspect of possible design. By being the only entity which promises to get into every facet of life, this allows some of us to have a means to defining structure without the barbaric oppression formerly associated with a nation state. At least, this is the mentality embodied by those who would otherwise occupy the analogous positions for a nation state. And so the Dialectic continues?

How does one come to support the idea of Queering the child? First, one might imagine that the caretaker is someone who is interested in participating in perverse or otherwise sexual activities with the child, and there must be some element of that, but that does not explain the need to make such an endeavour so public. The next is to assume that the caretaker suspects that this is the direction in which the culture has shifted, and simply feels threatened at the prospect of being excluded from society, but this better explains those who are no so ardent and passionate about the effort. There are still parents, however, that are strong advocates for insisting on a developmental infrastructure which maximizes the prospect that their child will discover or come to believe themselves as being Queer. How does this play out across time?

One of the primary effects is: *Less expectation surrounding marriage and reproduction.*
For many, this is the pivotal milestone which denotes success of upbringing, and is the standard for measuring health of the family unit. With this being supplanted, we move from future potential for failure to a form of immediate success. Given that the LGBTQ community is extremely adapted towards positive reinforcement to affirm decisions and positions which further the pursuit of LGBTQ goals. These goals purport to be centered around the needs of children, but without defining them, we can already recognize that the affirming of an identity which is not compatible with historically common identities allows for the formulation of an approach to criticize. Any normative structure can work in one's favour if one wishes to suggest that their course of development and anything which influences the process by which they've come to situate themselves was damaging. This is a fine strategy to deny that one had the power to make demands on the surrounding structure and is also a demand for labour to your own benefit. Ironic that asking for new debts to be paid is always done on the basis of some labour claim, but that making the demand also requests labour to be performed for you in service of you and your ideas.

Some say that biases and choice can be understood in terms of such cost, and the refutation would suggest that each side of a disagreement holds each its forms of sunk costs. In the case of wanting one's child to be transformed into a destabilized tool for political indoctrination, however, it is a peculiar scenario; what are its sunk costs?

## Sunk Costs (Pro)
How might one have sunk costs into the process which champions queering of children? Queering a child is insisting that any traversal away from what might be considered normal or accepted is a moral good, and evidence of one's ethics, intelligence and selflessness. But this assumes that anything which is considered normal is only or mostly due to oppressive forces by the superstructure of society. This completely disregards any possibility that things are made to be normal or obvious because of an inherent nature -> because of there being an objective component to reality. Though one might believe that knowing abou t objective truth is impossible within the structure of oppression, this is firstly an admission about the belief of one's own limits of reason and perception, and secondly an expression of absurdity in light of taking the belief and implying that there is no objective truth which influences the world around us. Obviously, we have all burned ourselves or cut ourselves, so to act as though objectivity is not already a significant factor lends the deducible realization that one is wiling to disregard what they know as verifiably true in order to pursue something of interest.

So, are they merely avoiding reality? Are we not all avoiding it?

## Simplifying Reality
It is natural for the neurocognitive system to simplify operations such as to improve outcomes involving the most significant threats. Yes, we aren't being chased by lions, but material/fatal threats still occur to our person and, thus, that which we are calibrated towards is not as different as one might imagine, at least at the level of cognition.

The prospect of being unsuccessful in propagating one's genetic signature is coplex and multifaceted, and not something which can simply be evaluated on the basis of romantic and/or sexual stimulation and experience. The question of whether one can participate in a mating process is dreadful as it calls into question the very essence of reality and interpreting the rationale for one's presence in it. There are a sleugh of factors to enumerate:
- Evolution, attractiveness, confidence, physical development, acceptance, acknowledgment, health and vitality, sexual viability, virility, competition/performance, the social environment, expectation for the future, resources, avaiability, mode of operation, loneliness, death, aging, safety net, the right to exist, etc.

Quite simply, Queer Theory enables rationale to further insist upon any subjective belief for it already insists on making human comparison to nature inadmissible. One might fail to realize this on the basis that everyone, to some degree, assumes that physics are real and that we are subjected to material consequences that are, to some degree, beyond our control, but this disregards the powerful rationale Post-Modernism gives one to avoid critiquing themselves. In short, if there is a possibility of imagining an outcome whereby someone or some group might be excluded, or maliciously references through a subject, attribute or otherwise enumerable event, then there is fulfillment of the capacity to disrergard the validity of any related language.

If our declarations and definitions cannot unequivocally be the absolute source level construct, then there is always some degree of fuzziness whose lack of absolute detail provides that potential to misunderstand, whether delierate or not, thus this affords all the rationale an individual has to ignore factors that could otherwise be considered as being the most consequential, even if they are the only reasonble factor.

Assuming the definitive overarching factor as being something in particular allows for the instant dismissal of any and all other factors.

One might say that we ignore factors until they cause harm and that conditions can be artificially altered such that the elements which always harm in the wild are not producing discernible harm; that is, elements which most certainly cause harm will now appear to cause no harm in the short, but even that is a question of scale and temporality.