Justin, I think you raise an important topic, which needs to be thought through.
Whatever the term "resistance genealogy" is being made to mean at this point in time, the word "resistance" suggests that someone is being oppressed and we are taking up on behalf of the oppressed. Many of us would consider that a fine thing to do. But where are the oppressed in this case? Am I or fellow genealogists among the oppressed? We could be, but I'm not sure there's much a genealogy site could do for us. I can create a free-space page entitled "Jack Day's Advocacy on Behalf of Himself and Other Oppressed People" -- but who would read it? It doesn't sound very genealogical, so it's a bad match with this particular audience.
So perhaps the oppressed are other people. We actually already have projects supporting genealogy for and about genealogy for groups of people who have traditionally experienced oppression. That could be considered "resistance genealogy." But genealogy tends to unite people of different persuasions in a common cause, while a label like "resistance genealogy" would tend to divide people. The challenge of genealogy for people with African-American heritage is specifically a challenge related to the oppression their ancestors faced, oppression in terms of deliberate destruction of family cohesion which, as an attack on the family, was also automatically an attack on that family's genealogy. But on this site, it's a challenge of finding records where they exist and putting together connections which have almost become lost, and it calls for people who enjoy detective work and whether they think they are fighting oppression or just enjoying discovery doesn't really matter! .
Or perhaps the oppressed is someone, now dead -- we can't deal with living people given privacy restrictions -- whose ideas were unpopular. One thing genealogy can do is give such people a voice, and to an extent that's a legitimate function of every good profile. Imagine doing a profile for Martin Luther and covering only who his parents and spouse were and not mentioning his ideas or his impact! So writing profiles to give people a voice, one is fighting oppression. But labelling that as "resistance genealogy" could actually retard the process, because it then suggests that if I am supporting giving the person a voice, I am agreeing with him.
A couple of years ago I discovered that the profile for Mao Zedung, the first and primary leader of the Peoples' Republic of China, was orphaned, and I adopted it. I'm all for giving him a voice, and for being able to track and connect his family in our one Family Tree. But as a 9-year old I was a refugee from his country, and if giving him a voice meant that I had to agree with him, he'd be orphaned again in seconds!
So in summary, when you pry apart the concept of "resistance genealogy" there are some things there worth pursuing. But the best of those things are things we already pursue on WikiTree without the label, and using the label might actually make it harder to do the very good that you would like to see done!