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
