"Queer theory, as a body of ethics, values and ideas, has no truck with the essentialist argument. A queer theorist would not argue that "Sexuality X is natural (and so normal) because it is an inherent, essential characteristic of an organism". This, ironically, would put said theorist at odds with some queers who "explain" their queerness by recourse to exactly such an essentialist argument. Sometimes in comments I have posted on social media I have had one or two gay people angrily remonstrating with me if I have said that gayness (I would say the same of transness) is not an inherent biological characteristic of a human being (or, in fact, of anything else). I myself tend towards more social (although not entirely social) answers. These people seem to find an all-consuming value in the idea that they are gay (or trans) simply because they were born gay (or trans) where "gay" (or "trans") is a built-in biological feature they can do nothing about in the same way as they can do nothing about the chromosomes they received either. Essentially, they are saying they are gay and/or trans robots who cannot defeat their genetic pre-programming much like most others are heterosexual and cis robots in exactly the same "locked in" situation.
People like me, however, see all this as a fiction - even if some see it as a necessary fiction - and there are obviously people in the world who do not like to be told that they are
believing a useful story - because they don't like the idea that what they are believing is a "story" in the first place. Instead, they want to believe that other most useful of stories that the story they believe in is real, material, part of the fabric of matter itself. But this is
not queer. This is simply an appeal to nature as authority. It is what Alan Moore has called "Nazi science" in that all eugenicists anywhere ever have thought that people just were things essentially and so that, therefore, what we need to do is eradicate the ones we don't like and keep the ones we do. When you make people into a thing, in their very fabric, you condemn them to a fate (nature) complete with a past and a future and a set of its meanings and values. This is nature as a determinative script. But is that something we should want to do? Should we want to naturalise and essentialise sexuality and gender into things? Or is the queer thing to do in the context of a wild, feral nature of experience something else entirely, something more "natureculture" as (theorist) Donna Haraway puts it?"
(From "Queer" in my book "Black Seeds" - see pinned)