i think a big problem in the radq is an issue of labels . in a few ways . . . bear with me . this is smth ive been tginking abt for a while.
for one thing , labels are misused out of convenience . for example , ideological nazis are not " cis " nazis . cis ≠ ideological . cis / tris / trans do not dictate ideology . the issue in the community is IDEOLOGICAL bigots , not cis - bigots . huge difference . you shouldnt be judging others PURELY by their labels . not just with transids , but ANY label . labels can have different meanings to different people . labels ≠ behavior or beliefs
theres also the issue of placing labels above actions . merely labeling yourself as radical or progressive does not MAKE you radical or progressive . a lot of you are not as radical as you ' d like to claim . radqueer means BEING radically accepting , radically outspoken , radically queer . not just liking the idea of being radical . calling yourself radqueer or an adjacent label while not calling out bigotry , not standing up for other radicals , and just picking fights over petty discourse does not MAKE you radqueer . it makes you a poser . a huge fucking poser .
in the same vein , a lot of creatures who label themselves liberal or leftist or , in this case , radically queer , try TOO HARD to fit into their stereotyped idea of that label . you dont HAVE to share the ideals of whatever 100+ note post is floating around the radq community right now . you dont have to agree with every radqueer . trying to do that is counterproductive . HAVE YOUR OWN IDEALS . you cant do any genuine activism for this community if you dont even know YOUR beliefs . im sure i do LOTS of things in my day to day life that the average radq tumblr user would not approve of . it doesnt make me less radqueer . it makes me an INDIVIDUAL . be ur own individual !!! being radq is not a personality trait or a behavior or something . its a set of BELIEFS . you can have OTHER BELIEFS !!!
bottom line , this community needs to work more on using labels based on their meaning , not based on the response it will get you . dont push labels on others , especially transid labels . dont label urself in a way that doesnt actually align with ur beliefs or behavior .
This community seems entirely incapable of understanding nuance. It is either that, or that they deliberately choose to ignore the nuance because nuance is harder to digest and requires them deconstruct their own internal biases rather than pointing the blame at a completely morally/ethically neutral party out of a desire for convenience.
" But words have meaning— " Exclusionists use the same rhetoric. TERFs use that same rhetoric. You are spouting exclusionist bullshit and you very likely don't even notice. (Or maybe you do. That's arguably worse.)
Anyways, that's my two cents on the ID discourse. Nuance is existent and will always be, no matter how much someone might wish it didn't. If you cannot handle the existence of nuance and things you're personally uncomfortable with, you should not be debating these topics whatsoever. You cannot cry your feelings out in a debate room, you'll look fucking idiotic. (And you are, if you do that.)
Now, the reason I even typed this out was a reblog speaking on contact stances. I agree, these terms get watered down to where they mean absolutely fucking nothing. I don't exactly remember the entire gist behind contact stances but I do believe they were originally created for MAP/YAP.
Pro-Contact does not inherently mean Pro-Nonconsensual Contact. In fact, a good portion of those who are Pro-C (that I have seen) are Pro Consensual Contact.
Anti-C's do have a small (?) portion that are extremely reactive and exclusionary (I should know — I used to be one but have unlearned my biases since.)
Anyways, TLDR - Please just accept that it DOES depend, in both of these cases. You cannot generalize an experience for your own comfort without being exclusionary. Point, blank, period.
