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.

[Clownboat]

Again, nothing more than your empty say-so topped off with anti-trans bigotry (funny how sometimes you say you support the "real transgenders", but later wave away being transgender with things like "being born in the wrong body is an impossibility"). Just like trying to discuss science with creationists. I show the science and you/creationists just wave it away and reply with baseless assertions.

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.

How can a person be born in the wrong body? Surely it is delusional to believe you were meant have been born in some other body, no?
Can you explain this without calling me a bigot? It's a sincere question.

[Clownboat]

So how do you define "woman"?

'Costume'?

I'm open to amend my thinking, but being a women now a days is much like putting on a costume it seems. Being a women is now pretty meaningless compared to what that meant just years ago. A person could say that they feel sorry for 'women' due to the diluting of the word, but would that even mean as any human can now be a women?

So it seems to me that a women is anyone that wears the metaphorical costume which sadly renders the term to be fairly meaningless IMO.

[Clownboat]

...we still have systemic, institutionalized racism...

sys·tem·ic
adjective
1.
relating to a system, especially as opposed to a particular part.

in·sti·tu·tion·al·ized
adjective
1.
established in practice or custom.

I hate racism! What system is it that we have that has been established to promote racism? I want to know about it so I can fight against it.

[Jose Fly]

How can a person be born in the wrong body? Surely it is delusional to believe you were meant have been born in some other body, no?
Can you explain this without calling me a bigot? It's a sincere question.

It's simply one, colloquial, way to phrase gender dysmorphia.

https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-fam ... -dysphoria

[Jose Fly]

So how do you define "woman"?

'Costume'?

I'm open to amend my thinking, but being a women now a days is much like putting on a costume it seems. Being a women is now pretty meaningless compared to what that meant just years ago. A person could say that they feel sorry for 'women' due to the diluting of the word, but would that even mean as any human can now be a women?

So it seems to me that a women is anyone that wears the metaphorical costume which sadly renders the term to be fairly meaningless IMO.

I'm not sure what your point is here. The discussion about what characteristics define a "woman" or "man" was about the reality that sex is not exclusively binary and that gray areas between "man" and "woman" exist, regardless of which characteristics one chooses.

[Clownboat]

So how do you define "woman"?

'Costume'?

I'm open to amend my thinking, but being a women now a days is much like putting on a costume it seems. Being a women is now pretty meaningless compared to what that meant just years ago. A person could say that they feel sorry for 'women' due to the diluting of the word, but would that even mean as any human can now be a women?

So it seems to me that a women is anyone that wears the metaphorical costume which sadly renders the term to be fairly meaningless IMO.

I'm not sure what your point is here.

Jose Fly: "So how do you define "woman"?
My point was to answer this question.

Do you approve of diluting the word 'woman' to the point of it being undefinable and therefore a meaningless term? Makes me wonder what the ideal amount of undefinable words is that we should strive as a society to have. If we follow this line of thinking to its logical conclusion, could you imagine if every word was this meaningless? Would communication still be possible even?

Can you understand how a homosexual might feel if we made the term homosexual just as meaningless?
Generic homosexual: "Yesterday I was a proud homosexual. Today, I can no longer define what a homosexual is." Have they not been robbed in a way?
Are woman that feel that the word 'woman' is now meaningless just bigots or is part of their identity actually being disregarded?

The discussion about what characteristics define a "woman" or "man" was about the reality that sex is not exclusively binary and that gray areas between "man" and "woman" exist, regardless of which characteristics one chooses.

That is not very inclusive for anyone that disagrees with this defined reality? Would they be correct to call you a bigot? I'm not calling you a bigot by the way.

[Jose Fly]

Jose Fly: "So how do you define "woman"?
My point was to answer this question.

Do you approve of diluting the word 'woman' to the point of it being undefinable and therefore a meaningless term?

I urge you to avoid black/white thinking as much as you can. A word having multiple definitions (which is the case with most words) does not make it "meaningless".

Makes me wonder what the ideal amount of undefinable words is that we should strive as a society to have. If we follow this line of thinking to its logical conclusion, could you imagine if every word was this meaningless? Would communication still be possible even?

Only if you equate "has multiple definitions" with "meaningless".

Can you understand how a homosexual might feel if we made the term homosexual just as meaningless?
Generic homosexual: "Yesterday I was a proud homosexual. Today, I can no longer define what a homosexual is." Have they not been robbed in a way?
Are woman that feel that the word 'woman' is now meaningless just bigots or is part of their identity actually being disregarded?

The discussion about what characteristics define a "woman" or "man" was about the reality that sex is not exclusively binary and that gray areas between "man" and "woman" exist, regardless of which characteristics one chooses.

That is not very inclusive for anyone that disagrees with this defined reality? Would they be correct to call you a bigot? I'm not calling you a bigot by the way.

Well if someone were to call me a "bigot" for no other reason than saying "woman" has multiple definitions, I'd probably just laugh a bit and then do what I've done here, i.e., caution against black/white thinking.

[brunumb]

Only if you equate "has multiple definitions" with "meaningless".

When one can no longer apply the word 'woman' with any degree of accuracy, then the word has become meaningless. If someone can merely self-identify as a woman then that is an internal or personal identity. If it is to be recognised by anyone else, then there must be certain attributes that are specifically associated with someone who is a woman. If you get it wrong, you can be accused of misgendering and there are now efforts being made for that to be regarded as a punishable felony. So the question is more important than ever. What is a woman?

[Jose Fly]

Only if you equate "has multiple definitions" with "meaningless".

When one can no longer apply the word 'woman' with any degree of accuracy, then the word has become meaningless. If someone can merely self-identify as a woman then that is an internal or personal identity. If it is to be recognised by anyone else, then there must be certain attributes that are specifically associated with someone who is a woman. If you get it wrong, you can be accused of misgendering and there are now efforts being made for that to be regarded as a punishable felony. So the question is more important than ever. What is a woman?

I'm not sure why this is so difficult for some folks. All I can figure is that it's like what I described earlier with my work and "when the species spawns". Apparently some folks tend to lock into very black/white thinking and really struggle with nuance.

First, it's important to differentiate between sex and gender. That's an important nuance.

Second, it's just fine to say that the majority of women have [blank] characteristics, such as two X chromosomes and female reproductive anatomies, then qualify that with something like "however there are exceptions, such as....", and then name a few of those exceptions.

Not that difficult.

[Purple Knight]

sys·tem·ic
adjective
1.
relating to a system, especially as opposed to a particular part.

in·sti·tu·tion·al·ized
adjective
1.
established in practice or custom.

I hate racism! What system is it that we have that has been established to promote racism? I want to know about it so I can fight against it.

The claim being made (which in this case I agree with) is that whites make up the system and practice racism and discrimination as a custom whether they have direct access to policy or not.

What I don't agree with is ignoring cases where we accept that an injustice happens, blanketing on bandaid after bandaid, not caring who we punish, and not caring if the particular people we're making it up to ever actually suffered any particular injustice or not (though it's overwhelmingly likely that they did).

It would be like saying okay, Blacks commit more murder, then paying out to whites whether they or their families got murdered or not, then sending all Black people to jail for two years regardless of whether they actually committed any murders.

Injustice can happen to groups. Justice can't be sometimes individualised and sometimes doled out by the group you belong to.

It's easy to see when you were discriminated against. Make the hiring process public. Did someone pass you over for a white candidate when you had more education and experience? JAIL. Did someone deny you education and experience? JAIL. This is very simple.