tdw/motherfuckers

A norm in the social sense is a system that assigns value to traits and to those who possess these traits, writes and distributes roles, and punishes for deviating from these roles.

A deviant is someone who does not have traits that are considered valuable from the point of view of the norm, who feels or presents in a way that is rejected by their environment.

The principles by which something is considered normal or deviant are connected to historical and cultural backgrounds of each particular society and humanity as a whole and do not correspond with humane ethics. A large amount of deviant features or behaviors are quite benign. There exist important exceptions, such as taking someone's life, destroying or stealing personal property, or sexual assault. However, even in case of these behaviors, the amount of punishment the deviant receives depends more on other sorts of deviance exhibited than on severity of harm. And the society can and will use these behaviors as a means of punishment of other types of deviance.

The first and the most important thing that is expected from a deviant is to reject their deviance and strive to be normal. If that is impossible, the next expectation is to accept their inferior position in the society and be as quiet about their deviance as possible. And the last resort, for those who refuse to be quiet, is to be spectacularly punished and serve as a cautionary tale.

The norm has some degree of flexibility and may conditionally accept certain forms of deviance - such as some kinds of gay relationships, gender non-conformity. The condition on which they are accepted is typically more severe self-policing and active participation in oppression of other deviants. Deviants who reached this conditional acceptance often value it a lot and are willing to create obstacles against liberation. 

Actual deviant liberation would require destruction of the norm. That includes deconstructing the entire system of what is considered desirable versus undesirable, both when it comes to taboo traits such as the most stigmatized paraphilias, and traits very few people consider serious, like incoherent speech and poor reading comprehension. As an outcome of this change, it still will be possible to condemn nonconsensual acts against others' autonomy, but their existence will be approached as a flaw of the system, not a character trait of particular individuals.

But I really don't think that transID antis would exist if oppression of minorities didn't exist

Which is super ironic because transID antis literally only create more of a divide.

It's like they really want to keep minorities inside of the boxes that make them minorities, not letting anyone in or out, thus enforcing the oppression and making sure that the minorities stay minorities

Theyre victimizing themselves by saying this.

Also heres the proof of the ban

He labeled himself as queer and was transrace. Now he hates queer people and trace people, says they're all the same mob of horribleness, and thrashes trans people because he's now christian and doesn't identify with those "beliefs".

Do you really think he was right? If yes, you're just a bigot, congratulations, but if not, where do you draw the line? At hating "actual queer people"? At hating "an actual minority"? Because I've never seen a non-queer radqueer. I've never seen a radqueer who's never been oppressed in any way. And with the amount of hate we've gotten, you can bet (and I know it's true) that a lot of antis are bigoted. I've seen antis be so straight up ableist while "fighting against ableism", I've seen them call radqueers the r slur and say horrible shit. And you can't say that's not a majority, I've never seen an anti who isn't conservative-coded and doesn't spew bigoted bullshit.

Because the nature of antis is segregation between binaries that don't exist as a binary. Disabled vs abled is not a binary, yet I've seen antis say that people can never become disabled, which is just stupid. As a white latino, POC vs white is not a binary I fall into, yet they really want to separate those and say people can never ever identify as something other than what they're born and perceived as.

They want to separate them because it's less confusing and less problematic. They want to maintain the status quo of never letting minorities become privileged as an identity (e.g. transwhiteness and nullabledness), and of never letting privileged people identify with minorities. Privilege or minority status will likely never leave us and we're not saying it will, but muddying the waters will never be something less than good. Because that only empowers.

In my humble opinion, saying disability and other minority status is desirable and inherently neutral or good, is not harmful. Because the other option is saying disability and other minority status is inherently undesirable regardless of how the disabled person or minority feels about it.

I would like to say, if you're leaving the community and becoming 100% an anti, you're just like detransitioners who shit on trans people. You were one of us once, don't act like we're a cult just because it didn't work out for you.

(if antis find this and say I'm transphobic because I'm comparing radqueers to the trans community, oh for fucks sake give me a break. Are you proud of yourself for not doing anything for trans people and shitting on a trans person for their choices?)