multiply disordered / disabled, mostly mentally

anti rq, anti consang, anti contact. pronouns

every month i have to fight off suicidal urges, falling into a deep, hopeless depression, because apparently my treatment resistant depression isn't hard enough to deal with by itself, irritability so bad i want to cry when people talk to me, chest so tender just my shirt rubbing against it hurts, gas and bloating, diarrhea or even vomiting if i eat anything too greasy, mood swings, and anhedonia that makes it hard to find anything worth living for.

these are the stupidest takes i've ever seen, so let's break them down really quick. for reference of some of the points i'm about to make, the term radqueer was originally coined in 2021. i frown upon pro-contact individuals, harmful transIDs, and xenosatanists as much as the next guy so i won't really be talking about them here.

1: someone's beliefs do not always define the community they are in; just because they have similar beliefs does not mean that person is part of that community or believes the exact same things. you can believe or support something without engaging with the community associated with it.

2: shipping discourse is older than the radqueer community. according to wikipedia's page on shipping ethics, it began possibly as early as the mid 1990s with it really taking off in the mid-2010s to 2020s. the term antishipper itself began being used in the early 2000s.

grouping in proshippers and profiction folk with real abusers and predators is fucking ridiculous, but i also don't expect antishippers to be able to understand why fictional abuse isn't the same as real abuse. taboo fiction isn't for everyone, but that doesn't mean it's bad for everyone. for some people fiction is harm reduction, but just being a proshipper or whatnot because you enjoy it isn't bad either if you have the mental capacity to be able to separate fiction from reality. (which most people can do, and is arguably "normal" by the way)

3: just because many radqueers are accepting of endogenic systems does not make every endogenic system or their supporters radqueer. the term endogenic was created in 2014 according to pluralpedia, once again, far before the radqueer community existed. to throw in endos and their supporters with genuine predators and abusers is ridiculous, quite frankly.

plurality is a spectrum, and that spectrum includes non-disordered or non-traumagenic plurality. identity alteration and identity confusion have more causes than just CDDs. certain types of therapy such as the IFS model even encourage viewing oneself as multiple voluntarily. many people would actively benefit from the framework of plurality for one reason or another. many people who claim to be endogenic aren't claiming to have a disorder to begin with. some people identify as endogenic then later find out they're traumagenic, or a mix of both. not to mention you can also be a traumagenic system without having a CDD.

besides all of that, acting as though all healthy forms of plurality are impossible when a lot of systems have functional multiplicity as their end goal is contradictory and anti-recovery. there is also evidence of non-traumagenic plurality within research. there's also the below images literally written within the ICD-11 and DSM-5 respectively.

4. i don't know when the pro para movement originated, but i have met anti-radqueer paraphiles and i am one myself, alongside my partner. that being said, paraphilias and kinks aren't inherently radqueer or necessarily queer to begin with. there's also no such thing as a harmful paraphilia as much as there is a harmful subject of attraction, as i like to call it. paraphilias by themselves are not harmful or dangerous. the actions you take in connection to it, however, can be. if you mean disordered paraphiles, you're still ignoring the fact not all disordered paraphiles are a risk to other people. also not sure why zoophilia is the only one directly mentioned, and is kept separate from harmful paraphilias in general...? is there something you're trying to say?

5: putting these groups together and acting as though they're harmful and irredeemable or predator/abuser adjacent only encourages them to bunker down and go further into the radqueer community. people naturally want to be accepted, and the point of being radqueer is radical acceptance. your fatalistic "get out before they get you" ass comment does nothing to actually help anyone and just reinforces the idea that these people are doomed to be shitty people. saying "y'all the same in my eyes" doesn't do anything to help this idea either since you evidently already see them as the same as the big bad radqueers. this is also ignoring the fact most of these (besides being pro-contact or a xenosatanist or supporting harmful transIDs) are... not actually bad.

putting fiction on the same level of abuse is not only ridiculous but so disrespectful to survivors of abuse. abuse is not fictional nor is abuse made up stories and fantasies. please for the love of god use this energy to support victims of real harm, instead of protecting fictional characters who don't even have the capacity to care about what's done to them on the basis that they aren't fucking real.

to also claim that anyone who engages with dark or disturbing fiction is a predator or an abuser themselves is also ridiculous, enforcing purity culture and stigma, and watering down both of the terms. someone is not a predator or an abuser just because of the thoughts they have, the fantasies they have, or the fiction they so happen to enjoy. if that were true, then literally everyone would be an abuser / predator, because thoughts don't have a filter or a limit to them. pushing this idea that even having thoughts about something disturbing or enjoying taboo fiction makes you a bad person is absolutely horrible for folks with OCD, anxiety disorders, paraphilias, and/or trauma.

you can also claim that these types of fiction are "encouraging paraphilias" which... aren't inherently bad, dangerous, or unhealthy to begin with, and are pretty natural, in fact. paraphilic disorders are not the same as paraphilias, and many paraphilias have ways to be acted out between consenting individuals, even the harmful ones. nobody gets this upset over BDSM fiction even though kinks and paraphilias are essentially the exact same, and many BDSM practices are incredibly risky. like, seriously, if you do BDSM wrong you can fucking kill someone, severely injure them, or traumatize them, but you never see anybody whining about BDSM being this terrible awful thing.

there's also the whole "encouraging violence" argument, which is a very slippery slope. if we ban all violence (because trust me, nobody's going to be able to decide on what encouraging violence actually means due to how much the term gets thrown around) then the vast majority of history and modern news will be censored. if witnessing or learning about real violence doesn't make someone violent, then why does fictional violence? stuff like cannibalism and death gets romanticized all the time and nobody bats an eye. people play violent video games all the time, including ones that reward you for being violent, without becoming violent themselves.

"we shouldn't normalize paraphilias" yes we should, actually. paraphilias by themselves are harmless, because attraction does not mean action and not all paraphiles are disordered. that said, those struggling with a paraphilic disorder deserve the same respect as anyone else with a mental illness. paraphiles themselves are not the issue, predators and abusers are. when we say we want to normalize paraphilias, we mean we want the stigma and taboo surrounding them to be dismantled. dismantling the stigma around paraphilias will make it easier for those with paraphilic disorders to get help, and will also hopefully contribute to a more sex positive society. this is also without considering the fact many paraphilias are able to be done completely consensually, and thus, have no reason to not be normalized. the same goes for kink, which, again, is basically the same thing anyways. kink can even be used to help someone act out their paraphilia consensually.

"paraphilias should only apply to attractions that'd be harmful to act on" i understand, and would even say i agree to some extent, but then you also have to accept a lot of kink practices within the BDSM scene as paraphilias due to the harm they can cause. sexual sadism and sexual masochism are already both types of paraphilic disorders. if done wrong, BDSM can be abusive, unhealthy, or even fatal. you can literally die or develop brain damage if someone chokes you the wrong way. you can get nerve damage if you do bondage or impact play wrong. the dynamics associated with certain BDSM relationships can be genuinely abusive if done wrong. it's why people in the kink and BDSM scenes emphasize informed consent and safety so much.

the definition of paraphilia to begin with is, quite frankly, absolute bullshit. normalcy is entirely subjective. homosexuality used to be classified as a paraphilia, or at the time, "sexual deviation" or "disorder of sexual preference." sadomasochism used to be a pathology, too, and to an extent, still is. but as time went on, people realized that you can have healthy, consensual sex as a homosexual or while engaging with sadomasochism. why shouldn't this apply to other paraphilias? there are ways for paraphiles of all sorts to have consensual sex involving their attraction, whether it's through roleplay or consensual engagement.