Ok good – looks like I’ve stepped in the river that’s been flowing for a long time before I got here.
[it’s all new to me]
I’m all for changing the conversation, keeping the name, or changing the name and changing the conversation or whatever anybody chooses.
Now that I know it’s a “hot button issue”, I’ll step out of it and identify with none-of-the-above. I’m interested in Conflict Theory. I’ll stick with that.
I didn’t notice the boxing gloves on my hands and apologize for any punches unknowingly thrown. It’s not my fight and I’ll stay on the sidelines.
[older thing I wrote]
Ok. Found one that works for me. Equalism. I’d happily identify with Equalism. Convincing argument (for me, not necessarily for anybody else) is from that site and this individual mirrors some of my thinking from before:
” Equalism is minimalist and catchy. I think equality is needed for various people, let’s take examples:
People who fall out of the gender binary, genderless people, genderfluid, asexual, semisexual, transgender, transexual, intersexual, pansexual and all kinds of sexualities, gender identities or their absences, all kinds of unique self-perceptions.
People who identify themselves as women or men, have no problem with their identity and sex in terms of documentation but people who fall out of the gender binary are forced to choose one sex. That is an example of a lack of equality. Why is gender and apparel which is linked to biological sex so important? Just to tick one.
Back to the point: Equalism covers everybody. In each and every aspect. It covers people, and that is what unites us.”
But honestly, a group can name itself whatever the heck it wants to.