	“Quare” Studies, on the other hand, examines a more specific manifestation of marginalization within queer communities. Though both texts have a fundamental concern in the ways in which queer politics examines non-white subjects, “Quare” specifies this examination to blackness.

In addition, whereas Cohen examined marginalized identities external to queerness, Johnson limits his study to black people located within queerness. 
	 How might queer theorists respond to these criticisms? To Punks, Bulldaggers and Welfare Queens, queer theorists might argue that, of Cohen's heterosexual subjects, similar and queer subjects exist, further threaten the dominant mode, and are marginalized within spaces heterosexual subjects are not. That, while the material reality exposed within his text is problematic, his implied resolution to incorporate heterosexuality in queerness is not a full solution and focus on non-heterosexual subjects should take precedence in queer politics. Furthermore, a queer theorist critique of “Quare Studies” might argue that attempts to add definition to queer studies by invoking non-whiteness might threaten the degree to which queer functions as an unstable identity category and attempts to destabilize identity categories in general. 
	
	Queer theory, though often a subject of critique, is not without recourse. Even though Punks, Bulldaggers, and Welfare Queens and “Quare Studies” mounted critiques of queer theory founded in its material reality and the means in which it allows whiteness to inform the creation of the queer subject, it has been shown that queer theory still contains successful rejoinders to the arguments proffered by Cohen and Johnson. 
