#pro-endogenic

What's a Radqueer?

Well, if we input that question into a search engine:

The fact that the fucking MAP Wiki pops up as the third result is already concerning!

This is what the Radqueer Wiki states:

Radqueer is the term used to refer to a radical political movement that advocates for paraphiles, transids, and other ostracized identities to be accepted in mainstream queer spaces. The term was originally coined in late 2021 by now deactivated Tumblr user foucault-divine-mephisto as a response to "the puritanism, hypocrisy and general rejection in the Queer community regarding a range of marginalized and stigmatized Queersexualities (paraphilias), internal identities (transage, transabled, transill/transnoso, transpecies, alterhumans/transnonhuman etc) and behaviours (social, sexual eccentricity etc). " Since its original coinage in 2021, the community made a steady increase in popularity, though never branching out of obscurity.

Oh? Paraphilias? You mean... as the National Library of Medicine defines it:

Paraphilias are persistent and recurrent sexual interests, urges, fantasies, or behaviors of marked intensity involving objects, activities, or even situations that are atypical in nature. Although not innately pathological, a paraphilic disorder can evolve if paraphilia invokes harm, distress, or functional impairment on the lives of the affected individual or others. A total of eight Paraphilias are listed in the DSM V and include pedophilia, exhibitionism, voyeurism, sexual sadism, sexual masochism, frotteurism, fetishism, and transvestic fetishism.[1]

If you thought zoophilia was missing, don't worry, it's under "Other specified paraphilic disorder," as stated in this Advances in Psychiatric Treatment paper.

Oh. Yeah, including those paraphilias. So... why are we wanting to allow people with conditions that makes them far more likely to hurt children and animals into queer spaces? And if you think the Radqueer Wiki isn't also including paraphilic disorders in the definition, well, here's one of the definitions from the good ol' MAP Wiki:

RadQueer is unconditionally inclusive of: ALL trans-x/transid identities (and supports all their social and medical transitions) ALL paraphilias and the multiplicity of their related contact stances (anti-contact, complex-contact, neutral-contact, restricted-contact, pro-contact). — Pro-c’s on “potentially harmful paraphilias” (if acted upon) are completely welcomed in the RadQueer community if they stay behaviorally non-offending/non-active. Ex-offenders are welcomed too! Debating on contact stances is totally acceptable as long as it doesn’t directly incites to committing offenses ~

Oh? You're skeptical because that's from the goddamn MAP Wiki? Fair enough. This one's from Radqueer Info's carrd:

Here's more elaboration from their FAQ:

So, to summarize: a radqueer is someone who is accepting of ALL paraphilias, including paraphilic disorders, and other "controversial" identities. There's other things they accept that are eyebrow-raising at minimum, but let's stay on topic.

Why is This Bad?

Let me make it clear, as the National Library of Medicine stated, paraphilias are not inherently harmful. It's paraphilic disorders like pedophilia and zoophilia where it leads to the harm of others or the person with the disorder is when it becomes an issue. Being accepting of paraphilic disorders can normalize these behaviors and also convince the person with the disorder that they don't need help. This is like MAPs saying fucking pedophilia belongs under the queer umbrella, and hopefully, you all know why that is a massive fucking NOPE.

Conflating queerness with literal disorders that compel a person to harm children, animals, and/or non-consenting adults is quite frankly, fucking insulting. Being queer does NOT make you more likely to harm others, it does NOT urge you to harm others. A grown dude consensually having sex with another consenting grown dude is NOT the same as a grown man violating a child, period, I can't believe I have to fucking state this.

And just to draw back to my original statement, this is also NOT the fucking same as being pro-endogenic. Endogenic systems, like queer people, are NOT more likely to harm others because they're endogenic. Does me having five Dragons in my head make me more likely to torture some non-consenting person for sexual gratification? No. But if I'm sexually attracted to such a prospect, then yes, that makes it more likely for me to do it.

Notice the language I've used throughout this post, I'm saying having these disorders makes you more likely to engage in harmful behaviors, it does NOT guarantee someone with these disorders WILL do these horrible things. Experiencing attraction is not a crime, nor do thought crimes exist, but acting on this attraction is. A pedophile is not an inherently evil person, but they become one when they act on their attraction and ruin a child's life for good. Same goes with other paraphilic disorders.

Instead of being allowed into the queer community and offered the same acceptance as non-disordered identities, these people should be redirected into getting treatment and help before they do end up causing irreversible harm. However, if they haven't done any harm, they shouldn't be demonized and harassed. Harassing and demonizing these people just causes them to recede further into harmful thinking and behaviors, and it will cause them to seek solace with other people who will encourage that thinking (Think of the "MAP Pride" movement as reference).

And especially with "accepting" these paraphilic disorders, it allows communities based around them to form, which allows echo chambers to form that can make someone with a paraphilic disorder even MORE likely to become a perpetrator. It's like being around a bunch of binge drinkers. If you're around a bunch of binge drinkers for long enough, you're far more likely to start binge drinking yourself.

So yeah! You can absolutely be pro-endogenic and anti-radqueer. I'm anti, "Allowing people who are at higher risk for harming people on the same level as queer people." Like, do you not see how harmful of a connotation that is? It's equating queerness to literal disorders, harmful disorders at that. And after all the queer community's done to prove we AREN'T disordered/inherently harmful, conflating that with paraphilic disorders that are defined by harm is such a slap to the face.

Conclusion

There's other issues with the radqueer label that I could bring up, but this post is long enough as it is, and I hope the stuff I have listed is enough reason already to not like this label. It is important to be inclusive, but not inclusive to the point where innocent people are harmed because of it. Now that I know what radqueer actually is, I'm definitely concerned by their presence in the endogenic tags, and I don't think it's a good idea to welcome them with open arms.

If we happen to have any radqueer followers, I really hope you read this post in full and see where I'm coming from. If you still don't agree, you're free to unfollow! I don't want people who are fine with allowing people with paraphilic disorders in queer spaces instead of encouraging them to get help following this blog.

Let’s start at the basics: the criteria for DID according to the DSM-5. According to webmd.com, to diagnose DID, the patient must have:

“Two or more distinct identities or personality states are present, each with its own relatively enduring pattern of perceiving, relating to, and thinking about the environment and self.

Amnesia must occur, defined as gaps in the recall of everyday events, important personal information, and/or traumatic events.

The person must be distressed by the disorder or have trouble functioning in one or more major life areas because of the disorder.

The disturbance is not part of normal cultural or religious practices.

The symptoms cannot be due to the direct physiological effects of a substance (such as blackouts or chaotic behavior during alcohol intoxication) or a general medical condition (such as complex partial seizures).”

Points 4 and 5 focus on religion and drug use, which are going to be ignored for the sake of this analysis. It’s the first three points that play a key role in the diagnosis of DID, OSDD-1, and DDNOS. 

Working backwards: point 3 says that the system’s plurality must be disordered to have the diagnosis. Therefore, any form of functional plurality is excluded from the diagnosis; despite this, functional multiplicity is often the goal of extensive therapy when diagnosed with a dissociative disorder. The reversing of the third point of the diagnosis is often the goal of treatment. However, when people state they want to reach full integration to obtain functional multiplicity, it’s often misunderstood. Integration is the process by which the amnesiac barriers between system members lower and communication between members strengthens, whereas fusion is the process where system members merge into one whole piece, essentially turning a system into a singlet over time (source 1, source 2, source 3). You may be able to tell that by achieving functional multiplicity, amnesia is lessened, following the reversing of point 2. 

If we break up the previous paragraph, we can come up with a diagnostic criteria and treatment for plurality using the first three criteria: 

DID is diagnosed when a person shows multiple identity states[1] that suffer with amnesia between them[2], resulting in heavy distress in their life[3]. 

Functional Multiplicity, which is achieved through integration (the lowering of amnesia barriers[2]), can lead to less distress[3] in a system’s life as their identity states work in better harmony[1]. 

Comically, none of the criteria itself uses the word “dissociative”, though the avenue of it will be pursued due to being in the name of the disorder. In traumagenic systems, yes, the dissociation is brought on by severe trauma. But what about endogenic systems who are diagnosed with DID? In these cases, it’s more likely that their system started spontaneously, naturally, or from some other cause; however it came about, originally, they were not distressed. A severe stressor happened later in life for these diagnosed endogenic systems: while that could be them encountering trauma, it could also be the stress of any natural disaster (or, in recent times, a certain pandemic). Dissociation could also happen as a result of anxiety or another mental illness. Dissociation itself is a coping mechanism for any stressor, and it’s important to know that, while trauma counts as a stressor, not all stressors equate to trauma.