Here’s our very first prompt, yippee: What’s a choice of words used when talking about TransIDs/Paraphilias/Radqueers (either outside of the community or how we refer to ourselves) that just sort of bugs you, or doesn’t sit right? Now, for the positivity; How do you think this could be changed to be more appropriate, or how would you rather people talk about said thing? Or do you think it’s unacceptable, and shouldn’t be rephrased at all?

  • Violet Rose (she/it)
    6•1 year ago

    @frank@rqd2.net I don’t like the term “paraphilia” or the use of “paraphilia” names as primary/“official” terminology - they carry too many medicalist and/or pathologizing overtones in my opinion. I’m ok with people using the labels - I use them for myself - but I treat them as chosen labels rather than classifications that are inclusive and neutral enough to be official.

    My preference would be to just refer to everything as attractions and attracted people, unify the terminology into something that isn’t specific to sexual, romantic, or aesthetic attraction, or whether something is an inherent orientation or an acquired kink - all of those judgements can exclude some people’s experiences, so the top level umbrella should be as inclusive and neutral as possible, and everything we’re discussing with that is some kind of attraction.

    • FRANKOPMEnglish
      4•1 year ago

      Oh for sure. RCTA is kind of a different community entirely anyways… Like with trace folks skin whitening is common but not “if you dont do it you’re not really xyz” (because if you dare tell a RCTA person that not all asians are pale and it isnt bad to want to keep your skin tan/dark/brown, etc, they lose it. Never seen a trace person do it tho…)