queer community ≠ lgbt(+) community: these are not synonyms. neither is queer community synonymous with lgbtq(+) community, despite the "q." saying "queer community" designates only people who actively identify into it as queer. being able to say "queer community" without being accused of coercively misidentifying people with a slur is fundamentally important, especially given regional and experiential differences with the word. context is vital, as is good faith.
in general, good faith is essential to productive, respectful discussion.
inclusion strengthens us and weakens our opposition. more people identifying as trans/nb/non-cis does not weaken trans-ness; it weakens cis-ness, and it weakens cisnormativity. more people identifying as queer does not weaken queerness; it weakens straightness, and it weakens heteronormativity. making room for questioning people, unsure people, makes us strong.
the idea there are not enough resources to go around so we should kick out those [whose identities are] too-privileged/not-struggling-enough forgets both that those with energy/privilege will bring their own resources and contributions, and that allocation of funding/resources is (like libraries) granted based on the number that use the resources, so anyone walking into a center is a positive tally. scarcity of resources generally occurs on a larger scale such as public (not lgbtq+-targeted) homeless shelters or domestic violence assistance, whereas when these are aimed at serving a specific population (here, lgbtq+), they may indeed have limited slots but simultaneously they risk defunding if not used or shown to be needed, and they also have the agency to determine priority of providing service such that, no, someone with less need [and identity less central to the resource's mission] will not "take away" the place of someone with more need [and an identity more central to the resource's mission].
butch/femme have always been used by trans, nb, bi, and queer people, especially since butch/femme were coined/popularized before the latter identity words. attempting to restrict them to lesbians-only is exclusionist. (similarly, stone/lith/akoi.)
"cishet" was once a way to highlight cis straight people as opposed to trans straight-identified people. its current usage has become extremely hostile to trans and especially nb people, as it is leveraged even at non-cis aroaces (usually alleging they are pretending to be non-cis to escape their privilege), and is primarily now a dogwhistle for exclusionists who paint all asexuals as cishet.
attraction ≠ behavior. behavior ≠ identity. this is a fundamental concept that underpins so much. self-determination is an inalienable right. wanting a label and model to be easily understood with one simple definition is a losing battle that hurts people at the margins and turns into respectability politics far too often. words are tools that should be used to find like-minded (but never quite exactly-same, because variation) people, as a basis from which to begin a conversation. having to expand into sentences on what the word means to you should be expected. that's not dilution, that's not "words should mean things!", that's communication.
furthermore, fantasy ≠ behavior. and relationship to intrusive thoughts or to sexuality ≠ indicative of relationship to real-world behavior. one should not have to perform abhorring one's thoughts, attractions, fantasies, kinks, etc in order to somehow prove one would not commit atrocities. coming to peace with violent intrusive thoughts, or "weird" kinks, etc, does not mean becoming somehow complacent and more likely to commit atrocities and needing to be kept away from people for their safety. that's the opposite of effective OCD recovery and what it teaches us.
and again, behavior ≠ identity. the most visible of a group, especially a niche group, tends to be the worst-behaved. sometimes the group is in fact based around that behavior/politic, as in a political grouping, and generalizing behavior can be appropriate, ala "radfems believe x and tend to act y"; however, if it is an identity group, more akin to unchangeable selfhoods and spirituality, this is extremely limited and quickly leads to prejudice. the distinction between "identity group" and "political group" can be a tricky one, yes, and i'm not sure how best to explain/define it, other than to point to stereotyping of asexuals and otherkin from "cringe posts" in contrast to, say, antis and anti-antis, as an example. though political identities like libertarian or anarchoqueer may be very meaningful and dear, they still feel different to me, more like movements, than identities like orientation, alterhumanity, gender, and descriptions of one's experience of self, rather than descriptions of one's beliefs about how to approach the world (which...tend to more closely correlate to behavior, as a result, yes?)
i believe all of these principles and points make sense, are compassionate, and are internally consistent. i realize they are not held by everyone, even people with whom i have very similar politics and common causes, and i am interested in and open to good faith discussions. mostly i have been feeling the urge to articulate these, so, here they are.
