It wasn't until 2003 that the UN's human rights body finally got around to discussing homosexuality for the first time – much to the horror of five predominantly Muslim countries (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt, Libya and Malaysia). They staged a filibuster in order to block a resolution expressing "deep concern at the occurrence of violations of human rights in the world against persons on the grounds of their sexual orientation".

Eight years on, the UN has now gone a step further and produced its first-ever report on LGBT rights. The report explores the types of violence and discrimination that people experience around the world because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. It also discusses the legal obligations of states to address these violations – basically arguing that LGBT rights are an integral part of human rights.

The UN report comes little more than a week after a passionate speech by Hillary Clinton tackling the same issue, and the Obama administration's announcement of "the first US government strategy dedicated to combating human rights abuses against LGBT persons abroad".

This, of course, raises some intriguing questions about what the strategy will actually entail and what impact it might have on US foreign policy, especially taking into account that some of America's allies are among the worst abusers. 

While it's good that LGBT rights are getting more attention internationally, the strategies need to be thought out carefully – otherwise they may simply reinforce claims that homosexuality is a western invention and that promoting gay rights is a form of cultural imperialism. That isn't helped either by the way Israel cynically exploits gay rights in an effort to polish up its image – a tactic known as "pinkwashing".

For good or ill, LGBT rights are moving more and more into international politics, and it's vital to have some sensible debate about that because the issues are complicated. Unfortunately, most of what is written brings obscurity rather than clarity.

Take, for example, this article on the Jadaliyya blog. Having tried to read it several times, I'm still not at all sure what it is saying. This is fairly typical of the genre and the effect is to prevent real debate rather than opening it up. If you attempt to disagree with anything, the writer can always fall back on the excuse that you have misunderstood – which of course is your fault for being stupid, not the writer's for failing to express his or her ideas properly.

The Jadaliyya article also follows what seems to be an obligatory practice in queer studies of italicising words at random or putting parts of them in brackets for no (ap)parent reason. Furthermore, it cites Jasbir Puar's writing on "homonationalism" – another bad sign because her work is often regarded as unintelligible.

A blogger who attended one of Puar's lectures a few years ago wrote:

"What to say about a talk which is only comprehensible to people who have read Deleuze and Guattari, who know when you say 'biopolitics' that you must mean it in the Foucaultian sense?

"... 'Theorists' who use words or phrases most people don't understand simply for the sake of it, who prefer obfuscation, or who have adopted it as their own little dialect, are almost always blowing smoke to cover for the paucity of their ideas. That this can become a habit in academic institutions, that this forms part of the culture of rarefied theory production, really doesn't earn anyone a free pass. Least of all someone speaking about a question of great political importance.

"There was a lot of smoke being blown last night, and hardly a phrase got spoken without pimping it up with the fanciest shmanciest of fifty-dollar-words. So much so that while I think I know what was being said, I certainly don't know I know what was being said. And that, quite obviously, is a problem."

According to Rictor Norton, the gay historian, a lot of the writing in this field is not just bad but intentionally opaque and in that respect it differs from other "difficult" subjects such as philosophy.

Philosophers, he says, often use jargon but they use it precisely and take pains to define their terms: "Strictly speaking, philosophical discourse tends to be difficult rather than unintelligible." Norton continues:

"What many apologists for queer theorising fail to appreciate is that the obscurity of queer theory is not the result of a lack of writing skill, but a deliberate strategy to (A) overcome the opponent by befuddling him or her, (B) to signify one's in-group status and solidarity, and (C) to undermine a faith in linguistic 'meaning' that is said to be a feature of traditional patriarchy. The term 'obscurantist' seems apt: queer theories are not only obscure, but deliberately obscure."