Doug:
> Why is it so important to you to defend this
concept?
> What's at stake?
I agree that Charles should not cling to the notion of a "natural" heterosexuality.
By the by, a friend of mine, one of *the* Foucault experts in the radical left "scene" published a scathing critique of Butler for her unwillingness to subject homosexuality to the same stringent criticism that she subjects gender identity to.
Ruthlessly criticizing "gay" and "lesbian" identity I think is of paramount importance today, since the mainstream queer movement has become a willing tool of humanitarian war-mongering, offering its services for the liberation of supposed "homosexual" communities in Palestine and Iran where this deviant sexual category has historically been imported from the west.
When Ahmadinejad says that there are no homosexuals in Iran, he is expressing a *real historical truth* that should be apparent to Foucault readers.
Butler can offer no convincing reason why her critique of gender roles should not be extended to queer identity.