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.

[bjs1]

That's my point. There should not be policies about women. If the law just treats everyone equally, as people, you can identify as whatever you want and it will be strictly a personal matter.

But we do have policies about women. The opening post mentions scholarships. If we are okay with scholarship designed specifically for women (I, at least, am) then there will have to be a policy about what makes someone a woman.

A current cultural flashpoint is sports. We could consider Olympic sports. The current men’s long jump world record is 8.95 meters. The current women’s long jump world record is 7.52 meters. That is a difference of nearly five feet!

If we define a woman as “a person born with a vagina” then that is a valid record. If we define a woman “a person who identifies as a woman regardless of anatomy” then a biological female has no hope of competing for that record no matter hard she trains or how disciplined she is. The physical difference will be insurmountable.

There are aspects of the law that should be gender neutral. However, the practical realities of life require some policies regarding women. Some universal definition of “woman” will have to be either agreed upon or imposed upon people.

[Diogenes]

According to racial equality activist Richard Lapchick, the NBA in 2021 was composed of 73.2 percent black players, 16.8 percent white players, 3.1 percent Latino players of any race, and 0.4 percent Asian players.

But about 76% of the population is white. Should we apply some sort of affirmative action to ensure a better representation of white, or even just non-black players, in the NBA?

The standard answer is that affirmative action is only applied to help groups that have historically suffered from discrimination because of race. It is a a corrective measure rather than one designed to ensure each 'race' is equally represented. About 3/4 of Asians do not favor 'Af-Ac' because of concern universities will or have imposed quotas limiting Asian enrollment.

https://www.pewresearch.org/race-ethnic ... ve-action/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_quota

[Jose Fly]

Sex no. Gender yes.

Thanks for your time.

[Jose Fly]

According to racial equality activist Richard Lapchick, the NBA in 2021 was composed of 73.2 percent black players, 16.8 percent white players, 3.1 percent Latino players of any race, and 0.4 percent Asian players.

But about 76% of the population is white. Should we apply some sort of affirmative action to ensure a better representation of white, or even just non-black players, in the NBA?

Did the NBA have a history of denying white people even the chance to play in their league? No? Then it's not an apt analogy.

Next time, at least give it a little bit of thought before you post such idiocy.

[otseng]

I can tell you keep trying to hide your bigotry, but I got news for ya....you aren't really pulling it off. If you want to be a full-on bigot, just drop the charade and be one.

Moderator Warning



Please case from the personal comments.

Please review our Rules.



______________



Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Purple Knight]

That's my point. There should not be policies about women. If the law just treats everyone equally, as people, you can identify as whatever you want and it will be strictly a personal matter.

But we do have policies about women. The opening post mentions scholarships. If we are okay with scholarship designed specifically for women (I, at least, am) then there will have to be a policy about what makes someone a woman.

A current cultural flashpoint is sports. We could consider Olympic sports. The current men’s long jump world record is 8.95 meters. The current women’s long jump world record is 7.52 meters. That is a difference of nearly five feet!

If we define a woman as “a person born with a vagina” then that is a valid record. If we define a woman “a person who identifies as a woman regardless of anatomy” then a biological female has no hope of competing for that record no matter hard she trains or how disciplined she is. The physical difference will be insurmountable.

And the physical difference between Squat Betty and a naturally athletic biological female is insurmountable. There are biological males also, who simply have no hope of winning at sports. This is what we concede when we have sports at all, isn't it?

Now, when we create categories like disabled and biologically female, and protect them from the competition of their clear athletic betters, we give more people the opportunity to "win" and arguably there's merit to that. But what's not consistent is to ignore Squat Betty who had no hope of winning ever, and never complained because biology stiffed her, but pretend to give a fig for naturally gifted biological female athletes who have their medals "stolen" by even more biologically gifted athletes, just because the name of the gift is testosterone. If everyone should have a chance to win, then we need better matchmaking across the board and some consideration for people who are poor athletes for biological reasons other than having got two X chromosomes or a specific disability.

There are aspects of the law that should be gender neutral. However, the practical realities of life require some policies regarding women. Some universal definition of “woman” will have to be either agreed upon or imposed upon people.

What are these practical realities? That biological females are disadvantaged by their biology? Then we can write laws about people who are disadvantaged by their biology. Why they are disadvantaged shouldn't be important.

[Purple Knight]

Gender ideology is rather like religion. Self-identifying is an unfalsifiable claim. At least when someone identifies as a horse we can see that it is a false claim.

It's not an impossibility that someone could be very, very sad to the point of being completely miserable because they weren't born a horse. Somebody who kicks that possibility to the curb and invalidates that suffering has lost the high ground, in my opinion.

That person doesn't need any laws giving them special protection and access to surgery, because they're just some idiot who has made it all up in their head? Okay. So be it. This whole thing starts to seem to me like a crusade to invalidate suffering, not ameliorate it.

But cosmetic surgery has been shown to have a shocking impact on criminals and reoffence rates. Draw what conclusions you will about who needs help because their body is wrong and who doesn't.

It would be really funny to me if we actually lived in a world where screeching filthy apes determine the fates of other screeching filthy apes entirely by appearance, and this time in history could have been the gateway to understanding that and actually moving into a slightly better world and way of doing things, but it didn't happen because as soon as one screeching filthy ape is given consideration for its suffering, its ape brain only registers that it has become dominant and it proceeds to act as the dominant ape always has, and screech for everyone else to shut up and get over it.

[Purple Knight]

According to racial equality activist Richard Lapchick, the NBA in 2021 was composed of 73.2 percent black players, 16.8 percent white players, 3.1 percent Latino players of any race, and 0.4 percent Asian players.

But about 76% of the population is white. Should we apply some sort of affirmative action to ensure a better representation of white, or even just non-black players, in the NBA?

The standard answer is that affirmative action is only applied to help groups that have historically suffered from discrimination because of race. It is a a corrective measure rather than one designed to ensure each 'race' is equally represented. About 3/4 of Asians do not favor 'Af-Ac' because of concern universities will or have imposed quotas limiting Asian enrollment.

https://www.pewresearch.org/race-ethnic ... ve-action/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_quota

The relevant question then, is when and if Affirmative Action can itself become that historical suffering. I think the assumption that it absolutely can't is dubious, because I don't think you could save the racist policy of the past by simply tacking on, "oh it's a corrective measure" or "because history" when it obviously wasn't. Therefore, Affirmative Action does have to pass some sort of muster in the present to be fair in the present. It can't simply be defined as fair because it's defined as corrective. We must be allowed to look at whether it actually is.

I personally don't have a problem with the fact that Asians are better at academics (in general) and will get more college admissions. I don't have a problem with the fact that Blacks are better at sports (in general) and get more spots in the NBA. I don't even have a problem with the fact that biological males have huge advantages in sports far over and above the advantage Black males have over males of other races, to the point that if you allow biological males, biological females will probably not get any spots at all. It's sad but biggest biological advantage wins, and that's just sports.

I think what's sad about the last is that what we're admitting, and should have always been admitting, is that double X homology is a disability and no one has ever tried to cure it. Yet if some other genetic disease resulted in a population of people who would never be able to complete and win in a sport, it would get tons of funding. If it was affecting 50% of the population it would be seen as a crisis.

[brunumb]

It's not an impossibility that someone could be very, very sad to the point of being completely miserable because they weren't born a horse. Somebody who kicks that possibility to the curb and invalidates that suffering has lost the high ground, in my opinion.

Who is invalidating the suffering? Sheesh. Are you suggesting that chemical and surgical intervention be used to affirm that person's feelings? Or do you recognise that it is a mental condition and try as hard as possible to resolve that issue some other way. Sometimes the alleged cure is actually worse than the disease.

[Purple Knight]

It's not an impossibility that someone could be very, very sad to the point of being completely miserable because they weren't born a horse. Somebody who kicks that possibility to the curb and invalidates that suffering has lost the high ground, in my opinion.

Who is invalidating the suffering? Sheesh. Are you suggesting that chemical and surgical intervention be used to affirm that person's feelings? Or do you recognise that it is a mental condition and try as hard as possible to resolve that issue some other way. Sometimes the alleged cure is actually worse than the disease.

I think if anyone should have access to surgery because it will alleviate their suffering, then everyone should. I'm not going to accept that trans people should get access to surgery to affirm their identity, but a girl tortured every day because she is ugly, should just get over it.

Jose Fly is invalidating suffering because he said that when a trans person has their gender identity questioned, it's dehumanising and compared it to someone calling Black people "not human." Then I suggested that a cis man can also have his gender identity questioned and he just dismissed it, saying it was a different context.