He's right about "Queer Theory" but conflating two different things (or you unwittingly are). Gay /=/ Queer. It isn't the foundation of the gay rights movement and it couldn't be, considering QT came about around four decades later. This was the foundation of the former, as you're somewhat vaguely familiar with.
As far as "queer theory", I ordinarily wouldn't cite a blog but make an exception here because it's an astoundingly informative post that includes several of the 'characters'
@DOPEFIEND85 mentioned.
https://onthewomanquestion.com/2020...cisco-the-enduring-roots-of-queer-theory/amp/
Some Excerpts:
The founding document of Queer Theory is widely recognised as Gayle Rubin’s 1984 essay "Thinking Sex: Notes For A Radical Theory of the Politics of Sexuality" (which can be read here). Rubin had arrived in San Francisco in 1978 a lesbian feminist, but soon after studying gay male leather S&M culture, Gayle gaily donned a pair of leather trousers herself, and took up the persona and mantle of ‘butch leather daddy dom’.
Almost half of "Thinking Sex" is dedicated to arguing for adult sexual contact with children and children being exposed to sexual imagery in schools. Rubin says opposition to this is misguided and exists only as an attack on both homosexuality and ‘other’ forms of historically marginalised sexualities. She creates a ‘respectability’ pyramid of sexually othered groups, with long-term gay and lesbian couples at the top, fetishists and BDSM practitioners in the middle, and at the bottom people ‘whose eroticism transgresses generational boundaries’.
Rubin quotes a passage of [Michel] Foucault from "A History of Sexuality" where he categorises cruel husbands with children he conceives of as sexually ambivalent. Foucault’s categories of ‘precocious schoolgirls’ and ‘ambiguous schoolboys’ as ‘perverts’ are surely identifiable as a thread of 
phile culture. The ‘solitary collectors’ and ‘ramblers’ as perverts is anyone’s guess; this surely depends what you’re collecting and whether clothed whilst rambling!
Rubin claims in Thinking Sex that opposition to the sexualisation of children is ‘erotic hysteria’, a kind of libidinally invested moral panic. We might recognise that as the classic notion that sex-critical feminists who support sexual boundaries are just repressed prudes. The idea that we are unconsciously excited precisely by that which we disavow, leads seamlessly to the classic line: ‘feminists just need a good shagging’.
. . .
Queer from the beginning has been characterised primarily, not by anti-normativity, but by the removal of boundaries of any kind. That sexual boundlessness is how lesbian and gay people end up categorised alongside straight demisexual femdoms who call themselves ‘queer’. The Left adopts Queer Theory at its peril. Not only because of its foundations in apologism for philia, but because its trajectory has not strayed far from those roots. We are now faced with the sexualization of children in the form of ‘drag queen storytime’ and the demonization of feminists who consider BDSM and prostitution forms of sexual violence against women.
Today, Queer Theory arrives usually in one form; Judith Butler and the theory of gender performativity. A young Butler orbited San Franciso in the late 1970s, arriving as a lesbian feminist — even writing an essay criticising Foucault entitled "Lesbian S&M: The Politics of Dis-illusion" (1980) — then transforming into a proponent of gender ideology by 1990.
