Aww, will miss you. 
No. "Identity politics" is not something we need to discuss at all, because it's a framing invented and used by awful people.
-
-
Then what is the right take? If someone publicly says they've been abused by straight people, what is it, if not categorization by identity? I don't feel *threatened* by it, but I don't think it's *right*; am I wrong about this, and why?
-
You're probably wrong about it.
-
If someone says this, it doesn't mean all straight people are abusive. It means they've been hurt sufficiently badly, or sufficiently many times, by things individual straight people have done, intentionally or unknowningly, in a context of heteronormativity, that...
-
...the pattern is relevant to their self-care/self-defense. And, being in a context of heteronormativity, stating the pattern is not creating any side-effect of disadvantage/harm/threat-of-safety to other straight people who were not the ones responsible for the harm.
-
With the roles reversed (but still the heteronormative context), there would be no systemic/normalized harm, at most very individualized acts of harm, and trying to state that as a pattern would further systemic disadvantage/harm/threats to the group as a whole.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.