The only way the article can be truly “transgressive” is for her to argue that our love for animals is already sexual or should become sexual. After all, Rudy seems uncertain as to whether she is sexually attracted to her own dogs:

“I know I love my dogs with all my heart, but I can’t figure out if that love is sexually motivated.” For some reason, I’ve never grappled with this problem, but then again, I’m not versed in Queer theory. As Rudy explains:

“Queer theory has schooled me in ways that make the question of what counts as sex seem rather unintelligible. How do we cordon off sexual desire from all the other desires that move our lives? What does sex mean? Do I think I'm having sex with my dogs when they kiss my face? How do we know beforehand what sex is?” Indeed, what is the difference between inserting a piece of bread into a toaster and penetrative sex? According to postmodernism, nothing at all! As Rudy explains:

“The widespread social ban on bestiality rests on a solid notion of what sex is, and queer theory persuasively argues we simply don't have such a thing. The interdict against bestiality can only be maintained if we think we always/already know what sex is. And, according to queer theory, we don’t.” Despite earlier claiming that she is not advocating for sex with animals, Rudy has just provided us with an indirect argument for it. She states that we can only maintain a ban on sex with animals if we know what sex is. She next states that queer theory has proven that we don’t know what sex is. Therefore, we cannot ban sex with animals. She suggests her indirect argument again at the end of the article by masking it in the form of a question:

“But without a coherent and agreed upon definition of sex (which queer theory persuasively argues is impossible), the line between ‘animal lover’ and zoophile is not only thin, it is nonexistent. How do we know beforehand whether loving them constitutes ‘sex,’ and how can such sex be so dangerous if it so nebulous and undefined?” Not only is it false that we have no idea what sex is, but it is also false to say that we require a taxonomy of every kind of sexual feeling before we can forbid certain acts (such as coitus) with animals (or children and the cognitively disabled, such as Chris Chan’s mother with dementia).

This is bananas. So queer theory is just an argument that since sex can't be "defined" we can't set boundaries? Since we don't know where the line is, cuddling your dog is exactly the same as full-blown intercourse? The fact that people pretend to be blind to the end result of this for the sake of "open-mindedness" is so disturbing.

This is how queer theory ended up endorsing paedophilia. If you can’t define sex, then you can’t define consensual sex. And consent ends up going out the window.

Bestiality and paedophilia are wrong because it is people in positions of greater power (ie adults) imposing their will on somebody who can’t consent to the act. Sometimes it’s okay to make children and animals do what they don’t want: eat their greens, have a bath etc because you are doing these things both for the child or animal’s good and for wider societal benefit. Having sex with children or animals is not done for the benefit for anybody but the adult human doing the thing.

Also incest taboo due to possibility of offspring born with birth defects. HORRIFYING BIRTH DEFECTS.