	Through a strong analysis of all forces of interpellation, race and capital in addition to sexuality, gender, and the dimensions typically held by lesbian and gay studies, “Dinge” and “Dude Sex” challenge typical understandings of lesbian and gay studies, creating stronger analyses and accounting for those identities and functions historical lesbian and gay studies have struggled with. 
Queer activism and queer politics have been inexorably tangled with the labyrinthine and cyclical structure of queer theory. Queer theory gives a space for queer thought, allowing deconstruction of norms and structures of power and challenging impulses of oppression and violence against queer people. Queer politics gives a roadmap for queer habituation and interactions, while queer activism designates a system to mount resistances against those anti-queer forces exposed by queer theory. However, in the borderlands between queer activism and queer politics, managing identity and positionality and providing spaces for specificity have become integral to mounting queer activism. “’Quare Studies’” and “What Can Queer Theory Do For Intersex”, works by E. Johnson and Iain Morland, both attest to this. The two texts, though separated in what specific elements of identities they explore, take a similar opinion of the role of identity in queer activism and politics. Morland’s text examines exclusive benefits queer theory may provide to intersex issues and politics, while “’Quare Studies’” bemoans queer theory’s failure to live to its radical potential and allow black queer to articulate specificities beyond both non-whiteness and queerness. However, both texts advocate an integration of race, class, and intersex conditions to traditional means of advocacy and politics for effective resistance. 
	Both the Morland and Johnson text are united in their criticisms of traditional queer advocacy; Morland, through Gloria Anzaldúa, argues it acts as a ‘false unifying umbrella’, homogenizing queers towards whiteness and erasing the possibilities for queer resistance and queer experiences to be grounded in ethnicity and race. The introduction of ‘quare studies’ provides leverage to acknowledge racial and ethnic differences, even in markedly non-white spaces, and to reach race-based knowledge traditional queer spaces have shunned.  Morland’s text provides a similar, though more general solution to its constituent problems. Though it begins with a general censure of queer theory for focusing on pleasure, to the seclusion of those bodies, intersex and not, who are unable to achieve pleasure due to post-surgical complications, it ends with a reminder of the possibilities embedded within queer theory, of its ability to separate the terminal effects of touching, pleasure, which may be inaccessible from intersex bodies, to the critical intention of touch, the communication of desire. In other words, touching becomes reaching, and reaching becomes an erogenous zone in its own right. 
	Despite their differences, the two texts provide stunning similarities in their approaches towards politics and activism; both texts affirm that queer theory provides a unique opportunity to help populations typically ignored or subsumed into typical forms of activism and politics. Both texts, even, argue working with these populations is absolutely required to mount an effective and worthwhile activism and politics. 
