The Problematic Nerd

1- do radqueers inherently support pro-c paraphiles?

2- do radqueers support transitioning transharmful and transhateful people?

3- do radqueers have to *like* every label or just leave ppl alone when they don't like a label?

1- No, there's no inherent contact stance to radqueer, and the community is majority not pro-c from my findings, I mostly encounter people with more complex/'in the middle' stances

2- There's no inherent stance to this either, and most do not support actually (nonconsensually) harming anybody in the name of transition, I'm yet to see any that support that! The closest I've really seen is transharmful and transharmed people almost 'pairing up', but this is consensual Pro-transid can seem like it means supporting every transition method ever considered, but transgender allyship for example never meant supporting trans men going around and spreading toxic masculinity as a part of transitioning to a 'real man' The basic definition of it is just believing that people can feel as if they should be something or experience atypical dysphoria, and supporting the use of an identity label for that experience!

Who can take it? people who are plural due to anything other than trauma (regardless of individual headmate origins)

What is it about? how non-traumagenic plurals are formed and how they present/work

What will happen with the data? it's public to view and the link is in the survey description!

Who can take it? anyone who identifies with transids besides transgender

What is it about? how transid folks define their transids, whether they think they're inherently queer, and how they define 'queer'

What will happen with the data? it's public to view and the link is in the survey description! I may also make a post on the results here or talk about the results on my Notion, it won't be used to make the transid community 'look bad' or anything like that, I think that's just mean

This is absolutely okay, radqueer does not specify a contact stance

Some stances are louder on Tumblr or more talked about, and the community gets labelled as pro-contact all the time, but most I meet are in the complex contact range

I do like that the community is more open to different contact stances now because there was a time where if you even dared to have complicated or nuanced views on the topic then you were heavily disliked, but it's swung a lot in the other direction

In light of my recent survey on transID transitioning, I also wanted to throw out some of my favourite times people who are supposedly rampantly anti-radqueer have been blatantly pro-transid and pro-transition

I call these guys anonymously pro-transid, they fit the definition but they're convinced that they don't because they mischaracterise it for a variety of reasons - there's more support out there for the concept of transids than you think!

In my hunt for anti-transid arguments I was actually finding a lot of stuff like this:

Chronosian - the first variant of an accidentally pro-transid term I know of and it's still being used/coined for despite it literally being transage with a 'disconnection from the community/term

'The making of an atypical dysphoria awareness flag

Arissomei - whilst claiming to be anti-transition and anti-transid, the coiner also states that "if your "transition" doesn't hurt others, yourself, appropriate, glorify, fetishize, or romanticize anything, you're fine!" and they include amputation as acceptable transitioning. The term lists some of the most common reasons for transidentification

Arriso- Subterms - these have started covering everything from transage and transabled to things like transvoice and transnationality. In my view there really isn't a distinction between these anymore especially as more radqueers are considering themselves non-community radqueers

More acceptance towards transitioning methods deemed harmless, especially social transitioning and self-disabling transitioning

Generally, I think anti-radqueers have moved past their weaker arguments about the trans- prefix and how atypical dysphoria isn't real (remember when that was an argument? wow how times have changed) have moved on to stretching assumptions about the community being pro-c, romanticising/fetishising their identities, pro-all types of transitioning, pro-every term ever coined that's been tagged as radqueer, so on.

In reality, they don't understand that these things are huge discourse starters in the community, which is exactly why lots rq spaces don't talk about them, because they don't want to fragment their already-small and widely harassed community any further

They also don't see that you can be pro- these identities and experiences without being pro- the community they deem as so harmful based on anecdotal negative experiences, and that plenty of radqueers have actually moved past identifying with the community

61.6% of the 112 responses my TransID-only survey has gained so far consider themselves just 'radqueer'. 15.2% are non-community radqueers, 13.4% are pro-transid and pro-para but don't use radqueer, and around 5% either consider themselves not pro-para, not pro-transid, or neither

arrizomei isn't the same as transid because transid mfs support blackface and disorder faking. bodily autonomy includes getting limbs amputated. bodily autonomy does not include skin painting which is heavily supported by pro-transid mfs as a way to transition if you're trace. bodily autonomy does not include disorder faking which is heavily supported by pro-transid mfs as a way to transition if you're transabled. also arrizomei doesn't allow for fun ids which is why half of the radqueer community identifies with transids

pro-transid mfs also support transbigot. none of the above points to us supporting anything like that.

I'll also once again quote Arrosomei's coiner: "if your "transition" doesn't hurt others, yourself, appropriate, glorify, fetishize, or romanticize anything, you're fine!"

This is the opinion of several transid folk and pro-transid folk. What makes transitioning 'harmful' is always a topic of debate, there will never be a proper community consensus, and so being for all types of transition isn't a necessary part of being pro-transid

People are making sweeping generalisations about what "transid mfs support" or why they identify how they do without knowing anything about the diversity of opinions in community

There is no evidence I've seen during my years in the space or in any of my surveys on the community that imply that they 'mostly' support blackface, skin painting, faking disorders, or deceiving people into thinking they're 'cis'id. Nor that 'half of them only identify for fun'. Nor that they all support 'transbigot' identities and transitioning to them. You'll find a variety of opinions like you will in the radinclus community etc

If it's not in the pro-transid definition, it's not a given, and even then any new transids coined aren't automatically supported by everyone, it's more about supporting the concept of there being other forms of dysphoria and terminology for those identities

first poll was 30% yes and 29% unsure on skin painting which is already bad enough.

You also don't need to support the 'dominant views' of a community to support the identity it also supports, which was the main point of my post

Not sure who conducted these surveys but it wasn't me, and I was talking about my experiences not yours. I wouldn't just refuse to accept trace people if they were mostly pro-skin painting, just like how I wouldn't refuse to accept someone's religion if its followers were mostly homophobic.

A flag for anyone who is both pro-para and pro-transid! You do not have to identify as radqueer or anything else to use it

We love a selfish coin, I've been hanging in the general radqueer vicinity for a few years now but have never once felt connected to the label or felt like a part of the community despite the things I've done within the community

I believe that the diverse experiences I've heard about are real and deserve acknowledgement, I'd be a hypocrite to say I'm not therefore 'pro' the existence of these identities as much as I'm aware of the criticism pro-transids especially get

In light of my recent survey on transID transitioning, I also wanted to throw out some of my favourite times people who are supposedly rampantly anti-radqueer have been blatantly pro-transid and pro-transition

I call these guys anonymously pro-transid, they fit the definition but they're convinced that they don't because they mischaracterise it for a variety of reasons - there's more support out there for the concept of transids than you think!

In my hunt for anti-transid arguments I was actually finding a lot of stuff like this:

Chronosian - the first variant of an accidentally pro-transid term I know of and it's still being used/coined for despite it literally being transage with a 'disconnection from the community/term

'The making of an atypical dysphoria awareness flag

Arissomei - whilst claiming to be anti-transition and anti-transid, the coiner also states that "if your "transition" doesn't hurt others, yourself, appropriate, glorify, fetishize, or romanticize anything, you're fine!" and they include amputation as acceptable transitioning. The term lists some of the most common reasons for transidentification

Arriso- Subterms - these have started covering everything from transage and transabled to things like transvoice and transnationality. In my view there really isn't a distinction between these anymore especially as more radqueers are considering themselves non-community radqueers

More acceptance towards transitioning methods deemed harmless, especially social transitioning and self-disabling transitioning

Generally, I think anti-radqueers have moved past their weaker arguments about the trans- prefix and how atypical dysphoria isn't real (remember when that was an argument? wow how times have changed) have moved on to stretching assumptions about the community being pro-c, romanticising/fetishising their identities, pro-all types of transitioning, pro-every term ever coined that's been tagged as radqueer, so on.

In reality, they don't understand that these things are huge discourse starters in the community, which is exactly why lots rq spaces don't talk about them, because they don't want to fragment their already-small and widely harassed community any further

They also don't see that you can be pro- these identities and experiences without being pro- the community they deem as so harmful based on anecdotal negative experiences, and that plenty of radqueers have actually moved past identifying with the community

61.6% of the 112 responses my TransID-only survey has gained so far consider themselves just 'radqueer'. 15.2% are non-community radqueers, 13.4% are pro-transid and pro-para but don't use radqueer, and around 5% either consider themselves not pro-para, not pro-transid, or neither

Who can take it? anyone who identifies with transids besides transgender

What is it about? the transid community's views on transitioning, highlighting transabled and trace especially

What will happen with the data? it's public to view and the link is in the survey description! I may also make a post on the results here or talk about the results on my Notion, it won't be used to make the transid community 'look bad' or anything like that, I think that's just mean

# HYPERSPECIFQUEER

Hyperspecifqueer is when the stances you have are too specific/can change depending on various things so it can be hard to put into [ neu / pro / anti ect ] terms

* it can also be because you feel the need to explain your hyper specific views even when it is not necessary

You do not have to allow people with 'all types of different views' into your personal space to be radqueer, you can have an opinion

Your account, your server, your space is your own and you have the right to make a DNI or to voice that you don't want certain views represented in your space. You are not 'less inclusive' for having opinions and personal boundaries and you don't have to ignore this rise in pro (noncon) abuse labels being coined and used

A lot of the community may be uncomfortable right now and cautious about following accounts that don't specify a stance - you saying that you don't support pro-abuse movements is making your account a more comfortable space for those who agree with you

You don't have to be silent in the name of being inclusive of non-consent and abuse. You don't have to stand in solidarity with someone just because they also call themselves radqueer. If you want a change to be made in your community, voice that opinion

DO NOT let people who intimidate and bully you into silence take over your space over supposed non-inclusiveness.

This is extremely important. They will take advantage of your lack of boundaries. You are not "not rxdqueer" for having boundaries and not associating with people who believe in supposed "neutrality" or pro rxpe or non cxnsensual abuse.

Be wary of this in real life as well for other things. For example, if you're monogamous in a relationship with a polygamous person, you are NOT polyphobic for having boundaries and making it clear that you want to be exclusive. There are so many things where boundaries are crossed in our lives.

For one, I don't actually consider myself radqueer and I am not 'stuck' in the community, my research of it is part of a special interest of mine. I mostly just don't feel connected to using radqueer but part of it is because of these types of assumptions too

You can't outsmart me on this because I've been there and done that when it comes to researching radqueer. Not only can labels grow beyond their original coining, but most radqueers now follow the recoined version or don't even know about the original. The recoin got way more popular, you'll notice this is the flag radqueers almost always use. The coiner is also anti-abuse and has pro-contact dni

Here's the original coining, you'll notice it mentions contact nowhere. This is not an explicit contact stance, so even if people did still regularly refer to and follow this definition, it says nothing about their contact stance.

In the link that mentions the coiner's personal pro-contact opinions, there's the one from a few days before except it seems to be literally just one day newer than your link, it's clear they had a hard time keeping this one up and did a few rewrites. This is a good point, but I wouldn't say that makes the term inherently anti or neutral on contact since its more-used recoined version specifies nothing and the first coiner would be excluding themselves from radqueer if that were the case