Their semantic theorizations trade-off with movements and attention to economic inequities.

Because of its recent academic high profile, queer theory has been subjected to extensive criticism. Included in these criticisms is that queer theorists, in their radical nominalism, ignore the material world of actual persons and relationships, preferring instead to focus on grammatical and semantic analysis of texts and on conditions of reception-consumption, thereby drawing attention away from economic inequity and actual relations of exploitation. Critics charge, moreover, that, despite or because of its historicism, queer theory transforms changes in fashion into major shifts in epistemology, thereby obscuring continuity in human experience across time and cultures, thus denying gay men and lesbians the benefit of a history and a universality arguably well grounded in reality. Further, by ignoring politics for other aspects of culture, queer theorists may elevate cross-dressing heavy metal performances, for example, to the same importance as Supreme Court decisions. Queer theory is also criticized for avoiding the reality of core identities by transforming them into mere subjectivities, thereby departing from human experience and intuition. Presentation of queer theory, so another indictment runs, is incestuous in citation, dogmatic in thought, and impenetrable in style and vocabulary. Canonical texts of queer studies by Foucault, Lacan, Derrida, Butler, and Sedgwick are repetitively redescribed with increasing obscurity not required for works already remarkably obscure. Major lacunae in thought are papered over by repetitive assertion of formulary phrases advanced as dogma. Incredibly convoluted sentences are often studded with recondite words, neologisms, and familiar words used unfamiliarly. In the view of some critics, queer theory has produced a series of adverse effects on gay politics, redirecting attention from the materiality of actual social conditions to language, from the disruption of bodies through violence to the disruption of homophobic performance. The claim is made that interest is drawn away from perennial questions in gay politics which truly matter, e.g., assimilation vs. minority group, insider politics vs. confrontation, and contention over issue selection, to questions which have only rarely been asked. More specifically, queer theory erases gay identity, thereby weakening social justice and civil rights movements, creating a sense of futility about achieving amelioration of conditions for sexual minorities and strengthening the sense of division already endemic among gay advocates. In the view of some critics, queer theory enhances misunderstanding between the ivory tower and the street, between academics, who should be among the spokespersons for gay interests, and gay activists and their constituencies. Queer theory is also faulted for failing to recognize that politics is a part of culture, even popular culture, just as much as performance art and sit-coms. Finally, by its emphasis on individualism and on the creation of self through consumption practices, queer theory drains the pool of those who might become committed to achieving a common good.