When Queer Theory Meets the Cradle

Queering Babies and the Academic Void Where Ethics Should Be

So after marrying shrimp, what’s next? Apparently, queering babies.

In part two of the Citation Needed Podcast pilot, Colin Wright and Brad Polumbo wade into even more disturbing territory: a peer-reviewed paper titled Queering Babies: Autoethnographic Reflections from a Gay Parent through Surrogacy.”

Let me start by saying this clearly: I don’t toss around accusations lightly. But this paper is deeply inappropriate. Not because it’s about surrogacy, or unconventional family dynamics. But because it tries to sexualize infants under the guise of academic theory—and then gets published in a reputable journal.


What’s the Paper Arguing?

Yes, you read that right. The author, Balazs Boross, attempts to apply queer theory to infants, claiming that because babies defy adult expectations and are not yet “straight,” they are therefore queer.

In short: that babies are inherently queer.

It’s intellectual nonsense—and worse, it veers into incredibly creepy territory.


Autoethnography or Navel-Gazing?

As the podcast explains, the method used here is “autoethnography.” Sounds academic, right? But in practice, it’s just the author journaling his personal feelings and labeling them research.

He reflects on moments like his newborn daughter’s instinctual attempt to nurse from him—an entirely non-sexual, biological behavior—and describes it as “animalistic and perverse.” He says there wasn’t “much intimacy or innocence there.”

Frankly, that’s horrifying. That’s not academic analysis. That’s projecting adult notions of sexuality onto infants, and then publishing it as research.


When Theory Becomes Dangerous

The problem here isn’t just the lack of scholarly rigor. It’s the loss of moral grounding.

Queer theory, as used here, is obsessed with destabilizing boundaries: between man and woman, adult and child, even decency and indecency. In this framework, nothing is off-limits—not even babies.

Colin and Brad hit the nail on the head: this paper doesn’t just explore taboo topics. It removes the taboos entirely, all in the name of challenging “oppressive norms.” That includes norms like age-appropriate sexual boundaries.

If you’re not disturbed by that, you should be.


Why Are Journals Publishing This?

That’s the million-dollar question. Like the brine shrimp paper, this one was published by Springer Nature—a giant in the academic world. The journal? Psychoanalysis, Culture, and Society.

So again, this isn’t fringe. This isn’t some Tumblr blog. It’s the academic mainstream.

And as the hosts rightly point out, when peer-reviewed journals accept “research” that cannot be independently evaluated (because it’s just someone’s diary), the entire peer-review process becomes meaningless.


This Is Why People Don’t Trust Academia

When academic journals become playgrounds for ideology and personal confession, they lose their authority.

We’re told to trust experts. But what happens when the experts are publishing manifestos about shrimp weddings and breastfeeding selfies with psychoanalytic commentary? Public trust collapses—and deservedly so.

These aren’t just isolated flukes. They’re symptoms of a deeper sickness in academia: the prioritization of political ideology over empirical evidence, clarity, and basic ethical boundaries.


Where Do We Go from Here?

We need brave voices like Colin Wright and Brad Polumbo to keep pulling back the curtain.

We need academics who are willing to say: No, this isn’t scholarship. No, this doesn’t help anyone understand gender, sexuality, or ecology. No, you don’t get to sexualize infants and call it “research.”

And we need the rest of us—students, readers, citizens—to stop being afraid to say the emperor has no clothes.

[Citation needed podcast]

Check it out for yourself.

+++

Stay Human

Brine Shrimp, Queer Theory, and the Collapse of Academic Credibility

Have you ever read something so absurd, so off-the-rails bizarre, that you had to double-check whether it was satire?

Well, welcome to the first episode of the Citation Needed Podcast, where Colin Wright and Brad Polumbo do us all the public service of diving headfirst into the bizarre fringes of modern academia. Their pilot episode focuses on a real, peer-reviewed academic paper—published by a major journal, no less—about a queer feminist cyber-wedding between humans and brine shrimp.

No, I’m not making that up. And yes, it’s every bit as surreal as it sounds.


The Paper That Launched a Thousand Facepalms

The paper is titled Loving the Brine Shrimp: Exploring Queer Feminist Blue Post-Humanities to Reimagine America’s Dead Sea.” Try saying that five times fast. Or once, honestly. It’s the kind of academic Mad Lib that only makes sense in the postmodern humanities world, where ideological signaling has completely replaced intellectual clarity.

Colin calls it “a surrealist love letter to brine shrimp,” which is both hilarious and disturbingly accurate. The author, Ewelina Jarosz (self-described “hydrosexual cyber nymph”—also not satire), writes from within a framework of “blue post-humanities.” If that phrase doesn’t mean anything to you, don’t worry: it was likely invented by the author herself and seems to center on the erotic potential of water.

Yes, really.


What Is This Even About?

As Brad and Colin explain, the paper supposedly critiques ecological damage done to Utah’s Great Salt Lake. But rather than laying out a clear ecological argument, it veers into performance art, eco-sexual activism, and bizarre theoretical jargon.

The central claim? Brine shrimp symbolize queer resilience. Water is a “non-binary, transitional, life-giving substance.” And by marrying shrimp and bathing in the lake, participants in this “cyber wedding” are resisting “settler colonial science” and capitalist commodification.

How is this considered science? That’s the million-dollar question—and the heart of what the podcast is trying to expose.


From Method to Madness

One of the most damning critiques Colin offers is how these papers completely abandon the rigorous structure of scientific research. No hypotheses. No data. No results. Just jargon, performance, and subjective “lived experience.”

This isn’t science. It’s ideological storytelling masquerading as research.

And it’s not harmless. When prestigious journals like Journal of Agriculture and Environmental Ethics—owned by publishing giant Springer Nature—give this stuff a platform, it dilutes the credibility of every legitimate paper they publish.


Why This Matters

We’re living in an age where we’re told to “trust the science.” But when “science” includes cyber weddings to shrimp and eco-sexual manifestos, that trust becomes increasingly fragile. If you want the public to believe in the legitimacy of scientific research, you can’t keep publishing ideological fan-fiction in academic journals.

This paper isn’t just laughable. It’s symptomatic of a broader rot in academia, where political signaling trumps coherence, and where the pretense of progressivism serves as a shield against critique.


The Takeaway

So no, you’re not crazy if you think this is nuts. It is. And thankfully, Colin Wright and Brad Polumbo are calling it out with equal parts humor and clarity.

Their podcast doesn’t just entertain—it shines a much-needed spotlight on how far some corners of academia have drifted from reality. And if we want to restore intellectual seriousness and public trust in research, exposing this madness is the first step.


[Citation needed podcast]

Check it out for yourself.

+++

Stay Human

Biological Sex and DSD’s

Sex is ordinarily determined at fertilization. Our genetic code, either the presence of an XX or XY chromosomal composition, determines our sexed body. With extremely rare disordered exceptions the human organism begins down a road of male or female bodily differentiation.

Back to our Gender Unicorn for a moment.

You will notice under the section “Sex Assigned at Birth” a blue dot for “other/intersex.” In the past, what used to be called a “disorder” is now called by many a “difference.” In our decidedly ‘post-modern’ moment, a moment designed to disrupt the very concept of normal or the fact that a natural order exists, we are told by Gender Identity Ideologues that there are a variety of ways that humans can develop. Normal and abnormal categories are obsolete and quite frankly hurtful to those who have developed differently.

Of course any sensitive person is going to treat someone who has one of these rare disorders with love and respect. But we should not ignore the obvious for the purpose of advancing a gender fluid philosophical agenda. Christians can’t do that.

Also, it’s bad science.

Clinics are being pressured to reclassify “Disorders of Sexual Development” as “Differences of Sexual Development.” Some have adopted the new terminology over a concern about stigmatizing people.

But the distinction between order and disorder is operative everywhere in science and medicine. These categories are indispensable for understanding and directing treatments toward human well-being.

Disorders of sexual development (DSDs) occur in roughly one out of every 5,000 births. These disorders can result in ambiguous external genitalia and the incomplete development of reproductive organs. Chromosomal or hormonal defects produce these abnormalities. They are rightly regarded by most medical experts as pathologies in the development and formation of the male and female body. They are exceedingly rare.

But Gender Identity Ideologues use the fact of these rare disorders as a reason for positing a “third sex” “fourth sex” etc., along a spectrum of possibilities. They argue that because of these “differences” the old-fashioned male-female sex binary is obsolete. Some people are just non-binary, they say. As I wrote in a previous post this move is nothing more than the normalization of disorder for the purpose of pushing a gender expansive ideology. (At root this irrationality emanates from an ideology called Queer Theory.)

Remember the staff trainer, Elly Barnes? Here’s the graph from my post about Rev Randall :

In 2018 Rev Randall attended a staff seminar at Trent College, entitled “Educate and Celebrate.”  He raised an objection when the leader, Elly Barnes, instructed the staff to chant ‘smash heteronormativity.’  For his anti-celebratory concerns he became a marked man at the college.

Barnes’ ideological, dare I say religious, fervor leaves little wiggle room for those like Reverend Randall and myself who believe God made us “male and female.” We don’t believe heteronormativity is oppressive and something to be “smashed.”

***

If you haven’t already added your email to my list, do so and I’ll let you know when the blog is updated. 

Email: blog@blueridgemountain.life