Adult education for social change can occur within social movements, and the fight for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered and Queer (LGBTQ) rights has included educational strategies designed to challenge heterosexist and homophobic systems of power. This article explores how the Queer Nation movement of the early 1990s deployed a Foucauldian (1976/1990) reading of power-relations to create educational interventions that allowed relatively small numbers of activists to affect powerful social change. By analyzing how power functioned within American society, queer activists designed specific interventions, which, while often humorous, sarcastic, and lighthearted, were nonetheless effective in disrupting prejudices because they demonstrated the absurdity of heterosexist beliefs. In making the theoretical move from object of hatred to subject who resists oppression, activists in the Queer Nation movement changed American culture and contributed to the social and legal gains made by LGBTQ people over the next two decades. Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered (LGBT) people are one group that has faced profound legal and social discrimination and exclusion in the United States. This oppression is based upon the politics of disgust and contagion (Eskridge, 2008) and homophobic discourse that positions heterosexuality as the “central gender and sexual category in the generation of power, authority, and social domination” (Hill, 1996, p. 275). As LGBT people we have adopted “a trajectory of active and passive resistance to the dominant group’s attempts to colonise their lifeworlds” (Hill, 1996, p. 256); we have resisted by answering questions about group identity and our place in society. We created the queer, “taking back” a term historically used to denigrate us and adding a “Q” to the LGBT acronym. When asked who we are, some of us now say that we are queer. The term “queer” is intentionally ambiguous. It has been “employed as an umbrella term for the indeterminate array of identities and differences that characterize persons in relation to sex, sexuality, gender, desire and expression” (Grace & Hill, 2004, p. 167). But the word can be used both as a single signifier for the entire LGBT movement and as a signifier for some inherent indeterminacy. When a person refuses to be positioned within the heterosexual/homosexual binary but maintains “identities [that] are always multiple, fluid, mobile, contingent, unstable (labile), and fragmented” (Hill, 2006, p. 4), that person is properly understood as queer. Today the term has become accepted in some academic discourse and has been expanded to encompass an entire theoretical perspective, Queer Theory (Dilley, 1999; Sullivan, 2003). In adult