I.
Queerness is something that is younger, in the manner that it is now, than any sexual and gender representation that we in the modern age would consider not straight, cis or alloromantic, and despite this, Queerness is older, by a great magnitude, than LGBT people and Gender and Sexual Minorities. While this might seem contradictory, as the vulgarness of queer discourse often leads to those three terms, LGBT, GSM and Queer, being considered the same thing, or at the very least extremely overlapping categories of people, these cannot be seen as the same thing, nor tied to some atemporal and individual truth of gender and sex expression.
II.
As gender and sexual expression are social and cultural phenomenons they are tied to overarching cultural perspective on it, so it goes with the labels that we place on that phenomena, the term LGBT in that case was then created and evolved alongside the modern renaissance of open sexual freedom, it grew to categorize and define that growing movement and as that movement grew so too did that term, still in many cases still changing forms depending on the society that is utilizing it, like how in english-speaking countries very rarely is the term “transvestite” part of the expressions represented but in Brazil, for example, transvestite is still used as a term and is part of the acronym, the term begins and ends as a category, a label created to serve as a lens through it to view the new culture that had been emerging since stonewall.
III.
Sexual minority, and later Gender and Sexual minority had similar purpose but different origins than the term LGBT, typically and originally used as an academic and medical descriptor to include those who in any way of their expression, be it sexual, gender or paraphilic were considered a “minority”. Contrary to the term LGBT which mostly grew from within the unified queer movement and culture of the late 20th and of the 21st century the term GSM was an outside categorization by society, mostly clinical in nature in the manner that it identified and classified that class of socially marginalized people. It is an identifying term for those people considered minorities under the view of the allocishet society that uses it, therefore also only being able to, in its purpose as a linguistic device, only identify and portray a specific social configuration that had been born out of that society.
IV.
Both the terms LGBT and GSM pretend to serve as identifiers for a greater, overarching series of identities that human beings can have, a way of being, loving and expressing oneself that is atemporal in its essence of what makes it be, this was more evident when queer discourse still held on to biological arguments in regards to people being “born gay” or “in the wrong body”, where those categories of “Gay” and “Trans” were seen as biological and therefore “natural”. That position was mostly abandoned however, as the discourse evolved and sociological arguments were more often brought up an understanding was reached that although people that would in the modern day fall under these categories always existed, it would be erroneous to correlate than directly to those categories, because gender and sexuality are both social and cultural and so different societies would have different perspectives and definitions as to what's a “man”, “woman”, “sex” and so on and therefore those people weren’t “Gay” or “Trans” but different sexual and gender identities that today would be translated into those categories. This view however, by the act of translation, still places these identities into an universal category by viewing those acts of expression as part of overarching state of being that can be translated into our modern conception of these things, it is not that they are each their unique expression but one type of identity that has accompanied society throughout the ages that now with our social language we can translate them into an identity under the LGBT or GSM umbrella terms. The issue with this however, is that the identities that fall under LGBT and GSM are themselves creations of our current modern sociological conditions, they are themselves only the outside looking in and simply another crafted identity of a cultural era, when looking into the many diverse ways that marginalized sexual and identities have presented themselves we don’t see forms and images of concrete ideas and behaviors that are contextualized by their historical, cultural and social aspects, rather, what we see is like cracks, rips in the social fabric that reveal what was lying under it, under the societal construction and that exists independent of all of it, it is something like a big cosmic ocean, like the primordial ocean of Nu Before it was covered by the sands of Benben, it is a cosmic sea of difference, of that which is not society, it is Queerness.
V.
Queerness cannot be compared to the umbrella terms of LGBT and GSM, because Queerness is not a category, rather it is the absence of it, a word that cannot have a concrete meaning, cannot define and label for what it is, it points towards an Uniqueness instead, the uniqueness made evident in those who do not fall in the impositions of allocishet society. For that reason Queerness is not within society, not a part of it nor defined within its confines, rather existing as an opposing and divergent force to it, it is what that society isn’t, and as such it also requires society to even exist as a necessary word in the first place. Without society and its impositions there is no over encompassing sameness for someone to be queer from, rather, everyone would be Unique in their own way.
VI.
Returning to the first point i made, that characteristic is why Queerness only came about when society came about, for beforehand, in that undefinable, unknowable place in time where social structures had not yet formed themselves and humanity was still wild and uncivilized, the constraint to conform had not yet been institutionalized and made into law and so human beings were free to form bonds and express as they saw fit, exactly because there wasn’t any pressure to do anything else but. That said, even if those relationships and gender expressions were to be considered queer today, they weren’t then, because there was nothing to be different from, they just were. The point in which that queerness would truly begin to exist was with the formation of the first societal and civilizational units, the creation of such territories would see humans organized, norms and traditions established and sexual and gender expressions began to be categorized, labeled and given their purpose and place in society, it was if, with the establishment of society the great veil of rules was thrown over the spirited and free mass of humanity, covering what was sincere and egoistic human interaction. The veil wasn’t impenetrable however, and the human will to live would pierce and cut through it, allowing that free spirit to shine through in some of its regions, creating in that space that society found itself on a queer part, a part not was not inside of it but undoubtedly only queer because of it. That Queerness would then emanate and spread, its attractive position as free living gathering many souls under its banner of liberation, society would respond to this but assimilating that queerness, sewing over those different spots with its categories and labels, attempting to fit those liberated identities under its systems, but the labels and categories that emerged from that attempt weren’t Queer, not necessarily, rather they were just societal construction that had no say over whether the individual that falls under that category is Queer or not. Someone being LGBT or a GSM does not make them Queer, nor does someone being allocishet make them not Queer, those categories as social constructions only exist as part of society and can only say and reach what society can, Queerness however, is beyond that, because it is something different and away from society and is represented and felt when that social fabric is torn apart it is the antithesis of society and assimilation, and therefore can not also be found by searching in terms and through the established rules of society, it is the destructive progressive and iconoclastic force itself.
VII.
Queer is the insurrectionary force, it does not exist and cannot exist under any rule from society or under any attempt to systematize and organize, as any attempt to do so would be categorizing and labeling that which is purely different and in all else an infinite multitude. For that reason it cannot revolutionize, for revolution is rapid and violent reform, reform that only brings about a new system, new categories, a new jail, rather Queerness is destructive not to the present system but to the system as a concept itself. Queerness in its insurrection is a lifestyle, it is to constant and willful treading over all that impede on one’s will to live, creating a rupture in the social fabric by the very act of living, Queer people are like living eternal flames upon the social fabric, burning and destroying it at every moment they decide to be the ones living. Yet that characteristic of Queerness does not come to anyone by any socially designated state of being, Queer people are not a different class of people, rather, they are the classless people, those who fall outside the entire organization of allocishet society, because of this Queerness as stemming from a class struggle, that in its dance gives the spectacle of the many classes in conflict and of the person-as-class, rather the potential to be Queer exists within everyone independent of material conditions, as one comes to be a conscious egoist so too can one, by throwing away the impositions of allocishet society, come to be conscious of their Queerness, Non-Queerness is simply the product of societal alienation. And in Queerness lays the potential for the whole burning of society, as in the past where Queer people joined together and lived in their territories of pure queerness, reveling outside of society and in destructive Queer joy, be it in the nightclubs of the 20th and 19th centuries or the different esoteric cults and mysteries of the classical and medieval eras, so too will the self-assertion of Queerness in the present rumble and shake the foundations of society, giving people consciousness of their power of the infinite cosmic depths of their uniqueness and the ways in which society has fought to keep them down, and serving as war rooms in which one planned their own self-assertion against those who shackle them. But those Queer territories are just a spark, just a small image of the heights that Queerness can reach, with radicalization and a determined and organized Queer population that Queer flame can extend over all of society, expanding its territory and using the social veil as fuel for the mighty flame of Queerness, and once it does so, finally will the societal veil disappear, Queerness would be absolute, and as such, nothing. From the ashes of the Queer insurrection there will be no Queerness anymore, only Unique human beings, liberated from what made them same and different. And this, is the only path for the Queer, even as different Queer people struggle and live for their own unique dreams and purposes, the general Queer historic movement is towards this fate, because Queerness is insurrection itself, it is destructive and iconoclastic, and as it seeks to live it can only find that life in the destruction of society.
Queerness sounds like the creative nothing, where queer insurrection burns down everything for the Unique