 Even if there were a consensus on what feature of normative facts is queer, there we would still be the question of what exactly the queerness consists in. What it is about this feature that is supposed to be objectionable? And what exactly is the objection supposed to be? For instance, what exactly is objectionable about irreducibly normative favoring relations? Not everything irreducible is queer, presumably. Further, what exactly is the nature of the objection? What is the objection being signaled by calling irreducibly normative favoring relations queer? What exactly is it to be queer? This is the second main issue for the  first premise  of the argument from queerness, which we identified above. The answer is not entirely clear. Here are a few things that could be meant.