1. identity, and the primary thing i am skeptical of 2. true but uninteresting (we agree) 3. queerness - basically an implication of 2 not working, and unclear why significant 4. tbh just kinda silly. radfem is kinda dead end 5. feminism. well and good, but unclear why relevant

i see 1-3 as stemming from the same thing: rejection of sexual hegemony and 4-5 as simply feminist analysis (4 masquerades as prescription, but we all know when we get into defining capital M Men, it just lapses back into feminist analysis)

and with 1-3, i'm not sure why we turn rejection into an identity. here's a very short piece that i find insightful and think might be helpful (you haven't read lacan, but you've read stirner, so you'll be mostly fine)

here's a passage i've been thinking about, but mostly for its inapplicability. you say your use of the term is idiosyncratic, and ofc i agree, but i don't think your motivations are idiosyncratic, or detached/isolated at all, and are fairly definite, consistent, and are continuously situated

the opposite in fact - they are consequences of other very dearly held positions (see above). however, rather than clarifying anything, i think the subsumption obfuscates the value and truth in those particularistic analyses

ofc, "clarity" need not be the goal, but see above for my approach to a more enlightening motivational attitude (esp rorty passage)