I want to share my stance on Radqueer and the topics connected to it.
I believe that any identity that doesn’t cause harm is valid. This differs from the Radqueer stance of “good faith identities.” I don’t think it’s right to hate on Radqueers or transids because I genuinely believe most don’t intend to cause harm, but the reality is that some of the radqueers do with how they comunicate and name certain things and I’d like to explain how.
When it comes to concepts like "transabled," I don’t think feeling a disconnect between how you experience yourself and how you physically are is inherently bad, not at all.
However, the issue lies in labeling these experiences as "trans." People who identify as "transabled" often say they feel like they were supposed to be disabled. This is controversial because it can dismiss or trivialize the struggles disabled people face. I do believe there’s a way to describe and express these feelings without causing harm, but calling it “transabled” is not that way. I also believe that those who call themselves "transabled" experience some kind of struggles and should be supported to feel comfortable in non harmful ways.
Same goes for the concept of "transracial." There is nothing inherent in our identities that ties us to a specific ethnicity. Ethnicity is primarily based on physical characteristics, and when we place too much emphasis on these features, we risk perpetuating harmful stereotypes and racism. While it's important to acknowledge ethnic identities and the concept of race in order to combat racism and address historical inequalities, the idea of "transracial" suggests that ethnicity is a definite and personal identity in the same way that gender identity is. This isn't the case.
It’s absolutely okay to feel a connection to a culture outside of the one you grew up in. It’s also okay to wish you looked different or identify with aspects of a culture that isn't your own. However, these experiences should not be conflated with being "transracial." Being trans is about being a gender different from what you were assigned at birth, whereas ethnicity is tied to ancestral and cultural heritage, which cannot be different in the same way.
Beyond that, calling a feeling of wanting or believing you were meant to be something you are not “trans” is transphobic. Trans people don’t feel like they were “supposed” to be another gender, they ARE that gender. Many transid identities reduce conditions that aren’t social constructs to being solely identity-based, they are not.
I believe it’s fine to feel this kind of disconnection, and even dysphoria, and I don’t think we should police identities. However, it’s crucial to be mindful of how we name, communicate, and express certain identities, especially when they intersect with marginalized experiences.
I do believe that the feelings behind these identities are real. I support these feelings and identities, but I do not support the terms used in radqueer spaces to describe them. They misunderstand and misuse what being transgender is and dismiss the lived experiences of disabled people, racial minorities, and age-based struggles. Language matters, and using "trans-" in these contexts is both harmful and misleading. Being transgender is not about transitioning to something, being meant to be something, or relating to something, it is who you are.
I know that dysphoria can be more than gender dysphoria, I know things like age dysphoria exist and they definately are valid but having dysphoria is not the same as being trans, those are two different things. These feelings are valid, but the words used to describe them should not invalidate or appropriate marginalized identities. There are already alternative terms that avoid harm. For example, "Chronosian" describes the experience some "transage" individuals feel without misusing the term "trans." Finding new, respectful language is possible, and I think it’s an important step forward.
Another topic is being alterhuman or nonhuman. I fully support any alterhuman and nonhuman identities I myself am alterhuman, I know species dysphoria and phantom limbs are real as I do experience them myself. I don't think that alterhumanity itself is LGBTQIA+ but I do believe they belong to pride since I view pride as more than LGBTQIA+ pride but more on that later.
Now about paraphilias. As my username implies and my bio shows I am an anti-abuse paraphilic, I coined the term anti-abuse and it is linked here. Paraphilias are not something a person chooses, and simply having one does not make someone a bad person. However, what truly matters is how a person acts on their paraphilia.
For example, it is a wrong but widely spread stand that all pedophiles are monsters, which isn't true. They did not ask for or choose their attraction, what does matter is how they handle their attraction. It is never okay to engage with children on a sexual level because they don't understand the full meaning and consequences of sexuality plus adults have a certain power over kids which makes that an unhealthy power dynamic, either way: children can't consent.
But many people with minor-related paraphilias hate themselves for their attraction, struggling with deep shame, depression, or even suicidal thoughts because on the one side they know that acting on their attraction would cause harm and on the other side society calling them predators and monsters for just having attraction they didn't ask for. I believe that, as a society, we should work on destigmatizing paraphilias themselves while maintaining clear boundaries that acting in ways that cause harm is unacceptable. People cannot control what they are attracted to, but they can control their actions.
Currently, the term "pedophilia" is often used as a catch-all for attraction to minors, but technically, it refers only to prepubescent children. Other terms like Infantophilia (attraction towards babies), Nepiophilia (attraction towards toddlers), hebephilia (attraction to early pubescent minors) and ephebophilia (attraction to mid-to-late adolescents) exist, but there isn't a widely used neutral term to describe all paraphilias related to minors. Because of this, I propose the term "minophilia" (I will maybe make a seperate post about it and if I did I will link it here) as an umbrella term to describe these attractions in a neutral way since the connotations of "MAP" can be seen as wanting to get rid of the paraphilia label or even glorifying attraction towards minors. Rather than doing that Paraphilias should be destigmatised and there should be a lot mor of education, we need to have open, informed discussions about these topics to prevent harm rather than driving people into isolation and self-hatred. Education and support for non-abusive individuals can reduce risks and help ensure that no one is harmed.
Paraphilias should not be included under LGBTQIA+, however they should be recognised as a marginalised group and do belong (under certain conditions) at pride in the same way as kink belongs at pride.
In conclusion, my stance is that we should focus on supporting people with non-harmful identities and attractions, while also making it clear that harmful behaviors, such as abusing or exploiting others, trivializing others struggles or misu´sing certain language in ways that cause harm, are never acceptable. Destigmatizing these topics and creating open, empathetic conversations is essential for promoting education, understanding, and mental well-being. Let’s work together to build a society that addresses these sensitive issues with care and responsibility, while ensuring the safety and dignity of all people. The "Radqueer" movement is not the answer. It is an attempt to talk about real experiences but does so in a way that causes mor harm than good.
I am open to any opinion and I will read all answers. I hope what I wrote is clear and doesn't offend anyone but rather gives a new perspective on how names and actions affect others.
