The Right to Have an Exclusionary Identity

[Purple Knight]

Question for Debate: Is it immoral to have an exclusionary identity?

Let's start with the premise that woman and man are (at least primarily) self-labeling identities which people should have a right to choose for themselves.

We've now established that people may self-identify.

Now, can I have an identity that is gatekept, either by myself or someone else? Is that permissible?

At first glance it seems mean to be so exclusionary, but the fact that Suzie is allowed to gatekeep the group identity of "people who are friends of Suzie" and this is accepted as valid by our entire social consciousness, suggests that yes, people may have exclusionary identities that are gatekept, either by themselves or others.

This may be confusing because words are not anyone's personal property and although I may identify as a gorp, and I may define that to exclude others, I can't stop someone else from identifying as a gorp and having it mean something completely different. But if I define gorp as "member of a group of people Purple Knight believes are gods" then as far as this describes my identity, it is just as wrong to impose on me to force me to acknowledge someone else as a gorp, as it is to force Suzie to acknowledge someone she does not like as a member of the group of people Suzie considers to be friends.

In other words, I can identify as a bat, and you can't stop me, but as far as other bats, if their identity includes themselves and not me, this isn't wrong either. I can't force other bats to accept me as a bat, because when they define that identity, for them, it means what they want it to mean and not what I want it to mean, and they can, if they wish, define it to exclude me. I'm still a bat as far as I'm concerned, but I can't force them to call me a bat as far as they're concerned. If I could, that would be trampling their identity.

So far so good?

If so, a group of people born with vaginas may call themselves women and define it to exclude other women. I don't see this as any more wrong for them to gatekeep that identity as far as they're concerned than it is for Suzie to gatekeep the group "friends of Suzie" as far as Suzie is concerned.

This does not mean policy should be written to placate Suzie and disqualify people who are not her friends from competing against those who are to earn real rewards like scholarships. Policy should be fair to all and should not concern itself with what Suzie wants or who she acknowledges.

This only means that Suzie has a right to say who the friends of Suzie are. And if she wishes her friends to be only those who were born with vaginas, and she wishes to call that group "women" then she can. It's only as far as she's concerned and it has no bearing on anyone else's identity or how policy should treat them.

[brunumb]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #19]

There you go with the typical dismissal. Throw in the accusation of bigotry and that counters everything. Well done. When I refer to 'real' trans people I mean those very few who have genuine serious gender dysphoria, but I still don't accept that they have changed their sex in any way. I believe that a large proportion are just gay. If they want to live their lives that way, go for it. But trying to warp reality for everyone so that the delusion can be accepted as real is not on. Interestingly, the whole transgender movement is turning out to be seriously homophobic. How ironic.

You have not been able to refute a single argument against multiple sexes based on the science. That's because gender ideology is based on lies and misinformation. As I have said, the only response in the media and out in the streets is aggressive shutting down of any discussion and an appeal to emotional blackmail.

[brunumb]

It's no skin off my nose if they want to say they are 'this' or 'that,' tho' it's annoying if they want to make a big deal about it and insist language should change to accommodate their whims. We have enough real issues to deal with without being expected to indulge every one's claim to be 'special.'

It only gets worse when legislation is being produced that makes misgendering or wrong use of pronouns hate speech and a criminal offense punishable with fines and/or imprisonment. This is the society we are heading for. And people find the Taliban insufferable. Sheesh.

[Jose Fly]

Or to use Jose Fly's example, one could decide to be a horse... or a god.

That was not my example. It was someone else trying to equate gender dysphoria with arbitrarily making up identities.

it's annoying if they want to make a big deal about it and insist language should change to accommodate their whims.

That's been the case with every civil rights movement. They all involve "making a big deal about it" and changing language to do away with the old, often bigoted words and usages, and introducing new more inclusive words and usages.

We have enough real issues to deal with without being expected to indulge every one's claim to be 'special.'

The LGBTQ civil rights movement is about equality, not being "special" (whatever that is).

Also, this stuff has the potential to distract and degrade protected classes of people who have historically suffered actual disadvantage and hardship because of their genuine membership in such a class.

How so?

[Jose Fly]

There you go with the typical dismissal.

You've provided nothing but your baseless say-so. As is often said when debating creationists, that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence (Hitchen's Razor).

You have not been able to refute a single argument against multiple sexes based on the science.

Your bizarre denialism is noted.

[Diogenes]

Or to use Jose Fly's example, one could decide to be a horse... or a god.

That was not my example. It was someone else trying to equate gender dysphoria with arbitrarily making up identities.

it's annoying if they want to make a big deal about it and insist language should change to accommodate their whims.

That's been the case with every civil rights movement. They all involve "making a big deal about it" and changing language to do away with the old, often bigoted words and usages, and introducing new more inclusive words and usages.

We have enough real issues to deal with without being expected to indulge every one's claim to be 'special.'

The LGBTQ civil rights movement is about equality, not being "special" (whatever that is).

Also, this stuff has the potential to distract and degrade protected classes of people who have historically suffered actual disadvantage and hardship because of their genuine membership in such a class.

How so?

Sorry I misunderstood who wrote that. The quoting function can be confusing (and is one of the reasons I use a larger font for my replies).
I do not mean in the least to claim gender dysphoria is not real. I believe just the opposite.
My comment was on the faulty logic employed in the OP:

Just a comment on logic:
That "woman" and "man" are primarily "self-labeling identities" does not establish a "right" for people to choose their identity. This is important because as you say "The government has created some protected classes of people." If one can simply choose to include themselves in a protected class a white male could enter himself in a protected class simply by choosing to be a black woman.

There actually have been cases of phony self labels, including a 'white' woman claiming to be black.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/25/us/r ... fraud.html

Race itself is a social construct, not a scientific category; which is not to say that 'black' Americans and others have not been (and still are) horribly discriminated against because of that label, as well as others because of ancestry.

I agree with:

In fact, of the 140 million babies born last year, at least 280,000 did not fit into a clear penis versus labia model of sex determination. Genitals, hormone levels, and chromosomes are not reliable determinants of sex. There are, for example, people with XY chromosomes who have female characteristics, people with ambiguous genitalia, and women with testosterone levels outside the typical “female” range.

Biologically, there is no simple dichotomy between female and male. As I demonstrate in my book Race, Monogamy, and Other Lies They Told You, brains are no more “sexed” at birth than are kidneys and livers. Rather, brains are “mosaics” of characteristically female and male features.

https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opin ... nity-70008

Still, I wonder at some of the 'specialness' claimed. 280,000 out of 140,000,000 is a rather small percentage [about 1/5 of 1% if I haven't misplaced a decimal point]. There are, of course, more subtle forms of biologically based gender differences.

[Jose Fly]

Sorry I misunderstood who wrote that. The quoting function can be confusing (and is one of the reasons I use a larger font for my replies).
I do not mean in the least to claim gender dysphoria is not real. I believe just the opposite.
My comment was on the faulty logic employed in the OP:

Just a comment on logic:
That "woman" and "man" are primarily "self-labeling identities" does not establish a "right" for people to choose their identity. This is important because as you say "The government has created some protected classes of people." If one can simply choose to include themselves in a protected class a white male could enter himself in a protected class simply by choosing to be a black woman.

No worries. Thanks for clarifying.

There actually have been cases of phony self labels, including a 'white' woman claiming to be black.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/25/us/r ... fraud.html

Race itself is a social construct, not a scientific category; which is not to say that 'black' Americans and others have not been (and still are) horribly discriminated against because of that label, as well as others because of ancestry.

Right.

I agree with:

In fact, of the 140 million babies born last year, at least 280,000 did not fit into a clear penis versus labia model of sex determination. Genitals, hormone levels, and chromosomes are not reliable determinants of sex. There are, for example, people with XY chromosomes who have female characteristics, people with ambiguous genitalia, and women with testosterone levels outside the typical “female” range.

Biologically, there is no simple dichotomy between female and male. As I demonstrate in my book Race, Monogamy, and Other Lies They Told You, brains are no more “sexed” at birth than are kidneys and livers. Rather, brains are “mosaics” of characteristically female and male features.

https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opin ... nity-70008

Still, I wonder at some of the 'specialness' claimed. 280,000 out of 140,000,000 is a rather small percentage [about 1/5 of 1% if I haven't misplaced a decimal point]. There are, of course, more subtle forms of biologically based gender differences.

I still don't understand what you mean by "specialness". As I noted earlier, the goal of the LGBTQ civil rights movement is equality, not some sort of "special" status.

[Diogenes]

I still don't understand what you mean by "specialness". As I noted earlier, the goal of the LGBTQ civil rights movement is equality, not some sort of "special" status.

Exactly! I think that is part of what set me off.
... Along with the wording of the title, The Right to Have an Exclusionary Identity. I don't like the idea of "exclusionary."
That is the antithesis of what I think the approach should be, "inclusionary." We are all in this together, and it is sometimes a heavy slog. Equality of status and opportunity should be the goal.

Which brings up another divisive topic, 'affirmative action.' While I applaud the goal and I am not sure there was a better way in the 1960s to correct some of the systemic bias in our institutions and in our culture in general, the 'categorization' and discrimination on the basis of 'race' is unfortunate. I have a visceral reaction to anything that divides us irrevocably that is based upon characteristics beyond our control.

I want to reiterate my mention of "I am not sure there is/was a better way" to effectively combat inherent bias, but the goal should be a color blind society. Affirmative action may have incidentally had effects counter to its goal. Consider this quote from a very close friend,
"Affirmative action may have gotten me in to UVA, but it didn't get me out."

These days, I wonder if we can even use the phrase, "We are all brothers" or "We are all brothers and sisters," without considerable offense being taken. Maybe it needs to be changed "We are all one," but even then some 'special' people will be offended.

[Purple Knight]

In many cases, the law does say affirmation-only

Where? Citation please.

What do you mean by "cancel"? AFAICT, she's quite well off, certainly more so than me.

I mean bullying. Including but not limited to death threats.

https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/cu ... k-1396913/

Rowling commented: “’People who menstruate’. I’m sure there used to be a word for those people. Someone help me out. Wumben? Wimpund? Woomud?”
The author’s remark was immediately met with a backlash from people calling her “transphobic” and pointing out that it’s not just cis-gendered women who menstruate.

She clearly has an identity of "people who menstruate" and wants to call that "woman" and I don't see how that's transphobic; it's just exclusionary.

It's transphobic in that she's saying that trans women aren't women (because they don't menstruate).

And trans people can tell me I'm not trans. They have an identity, based on things. I do not have those things. They in that group have the right to define it so it doesn't include me.

She didn't say trans women weren't women. She's (half-jokingly) (imo) implying she should have the right to classify "people who menstruate" as women. That doesn't mean you can't classify trans women as women. It just means she can classify it her way. Some words have multiple definitions. Some definitions with wide usage are scientifically bad, and so what?

It would be nice if people who wanted to identify as double-Xers or vagina-havers-since-birth would follow the science and pick another word, but if they want to call what they are (and trans women aren't) "women" it's just their definition which applies to their identity and no one else's. It's not like TERFs adopted their definition of "women" in response to trans people, in order to pick on them. It may be scientifically incorrect, but they had that identity and that name for that identity, first.

This is a discussion about language, and who has the right to use which words to describe what. IMO, science shouldn't even come into it.

How can one be "bullied" into not buying merch?

Like this:

guilt.png

[Purple Knight]

Just a comment on logic:
That "woman" and "man" are primarily "self-labeling identities" does not establish a "right" for people to choose their identity. This is important because as you say "The government has created some protected classes of people." If one can simply choose to include themselves in a protected class a white male could enter himself in a protected class simply by choosing to be a black woman.

So which identities may be chosen for onesself, which are imposed by others, and who decides that?

Brunumb would like to impose the label of "man" on a trans woman. And you would like to impose the label of "white" on someone who sees themselves as Black. In both cases your imposition denies them access to special goodies given out by the government. Women have access to less competitive sports (because they are filled with biological females), scholarships, and job offers that men do not.

So who decides who may impose a label on whom, and when? And who decides when some identity is something people may pick for themselves without fear of others imposing a label besides the one they want?

Your example is a result of government giving more rights to some classes to make up for the discrimination they suffer, and people who do not suffer wanting to be included in order to gain more rights. The fact that this is exploitable and presumably should not be exploitable, has very little to do with someone's self-identity, doesn't it?

[Diogenes]

Just a comment on logic:
That "woman" and "man" are primarily "self-labeling identities" does not establish a "right" for people to choose their identity. This is important because as you say "The government has created some protected classes of people." If one can simply choose to include themselves in a protected class a white male could enter himself in a protected class simply by choosing to be a black woman.

So which identities may be chosen for onesself, which are imposed by others, and who decides that?

Brunumb would like to impose the label of "man" on a trans woman. And you would like to impose the label of "white" on someone who sees themselves as Black.

I could read no more after that last sentence. I want to impose no labels on anyone. I don't even like the word 'white' as a label of 'race.' I don't see why it's so important, let alone that it should be 'imposed.' I remember a woman who 'identifies' as 'Latina' (or is it 'Latinx?') referred to me as 'white.' It surprised me tho' I acknowledge my heritage as Norwegian and the typical Anglo-Saxon mix of English, Scots, Irish, Welsh, and German (or 'Pennsylvania Dutch') as my father used to say. Her use of 'white' was not socially inappropriate. I just didn't like it. I also do not like being called 'cis male' tho' it is not inaccurate. Tho' I realize such labels may be necessary or useful, I just don't like them. I 'identify' as homo sapiens, tho' I have been called an _ _ _ _ _ _ e.

I don't think people of any 'label' should get special treatment, tho' I agree with accommodations under the ADA.