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]

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.

Yet it is too difficult for you to clearly define what is a woman.

If sex is not binary then why is it that we only see alleged transitions from male to female or female to male? Has anyone transitioned to any other sex? What changes do you see them make when they transition? It's all based on the binary nature of sex and follows stereotypical patterns. When you ask someone who claims to be non-binary, what sex do they claim to be? You get wishy-washy ludicrous answers and a lot of hand waving. When it comes to reproduction, biology only functions on a binary model. All of these gender fluid people will come up against a brick wall when they try to impose their fantasies on reality. Gender expression is no more than role play.

As for your fish spawning example, isn't even close to being relevant.

[brunumb]

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.

Let's be honest. Every group practices racism. Just pointing the finger at white people all the time is in itself racist.

[Clownboat]

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".

Your urges are your own and your straw man is noted. A word is meaningless when the meaning of the word is unknown when used. Not because a word has multiple definitions.

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

Thank you for acknowledging the mechanism that drives my thinking here.
'Sound' is a polysemous word. However, when used in a sentence, the meaning become clear.
I don't see 'woman' following this path. When 'woman' is used in a sentence, what is meant these days? That words can have multiple definitions alone is not something I contest and does not automatically make a word meaningless. Again, see 'sound'.

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.

That question (for no other reason than saying "woman" has multiple definitions) was not asked of you. Matters not though as the question is rhetorical really.
Furthermore, I demonstrate my non black/white thinking by acknowledging that the word 'woman' is like putting on a costume. Is that to think 'black' or to think 'white'? I would argue that it is an extremely inclusive definition of the word and therefore not to be claiming either 'black' or 'white'.

I do not mean to insinuate by using the word 'costume' that some humans are just playing dress up or playing pretend by the way. It's just the best I can come up with at the moment.
By putting on a costume, you become a policeman or fireman for your event.
By claiming you are a women, you can now become a women. If you can accept that this is not coming from a place of hate, surely you can at least see the comparison I'm making (again, not comparing it to dress up or playing pretend, just the effect of each). In this way... what is a woman? It's seems similar to a costume and is not inclusive for any humans that thought they knew what a 'woman' was just a few years ago.

[Clownboat]

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.

See the claim: "...we still have systemic, institutionalized racism..."
I'm looking for examples of this claimed racism. Not racism in general, the systemic and institutionalized type that I provided definitions for.

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).

Agreed.

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.

Let me be clear to all reading here... this is not something I have said or claimed.

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

Class action lawsuits come to mind, but I may not be understanding you clearly here.

[Clownboat]

All of these gender fluid people will come up against a brick wall when they try to impose their fantasies on reality. Gender expression is no more than role play.

I had a discussion with a very liberal friend of mine about this topic in general, which then turned to kids identifying as 'cats' in school. His take on the issue is that it's just the new Goth movement and they will grow out of it (the cat kids specifically, but some of the gender fluid as well).

I trust this is the case for our 'cat' kids, but I can see the possible un-reversible side effects that could happen if a young person grew out of their body dysmorphia after having taken measures to identify as another gender. Especially if counselors can only be affirmative and surgery and/or drugs are being recommended.

A good point was brought up about 'affirmative only' and what could happen if we treated anorexia (or schizophrenia) in the affirmative only. What's good for the goose is not good for the gander here it seems. So should we seek for affirmation only for dysmorphia? I don't think I could get behind that and would see it as a mechanism to increase it.

With body dysmorphia on the rise, is this due solely to it being more accepted now, or it being the new Goth, or is it being offered as a sort of life line for adolescences struggling with growing up? I don't claim to know, but I do have a friend with 3 out of 4 children (4th child is only 10 years old, but you can see it coming) that are all non-binary. What are the odds of that? Gives credence to the idea that some parents are offering such things as a life line for real world adolescent struggles.

Imagine a kid dealing with insecurities and then a parent/councilor offering (as a life line of sorts) that perhaps the struggles are due to gender issues they may be having. Some kids will inevitably grab on to this life line. Perhaps a kid is not liked much for being unkind. Should they seek to be more kind, or grab the life line being presented to them? Some kids will see being a victim of bigotry as the easy road, but that would leave the unkindness unaddressed and some parents will find it easier to offer an alternative reason rather than addressing their child's behavior. We all know some of those parents that their kids can do no wrong.

[Purple Knight]

A good point was brought up about 'affirmative only' and what could happen if we treated anorexia (or schizophrenia) in the affirmative only.

Good things, with anorexia. I am one of the people disgusted by even a tiny amount of body fat on a woman. I like only the thinnest of runway models. This is very normal. Some women might need help to become thinner. If we could do bariatric surgery to get someone from a disgusting BMI to a sexy one, why not? Because it might have a few negative effects on their health? I thought we've accepted that mental health is more important. I thought we cared if people offed themselves because their body made them unhappy.

The cynical part of me says, well, it's because this is about sterilising people, not helping them have sex.

It's seems similar to a costume and is not inclusive for any humans that thought they knew what a 'woman' was just a few years ago.

That's just my original point. If we can let people identify as a woman because they feel they are one, why can't we be inclusive of people who identify as a woman because they have two X chromosomes and menstruate?

If we allow "double X-er without a Y" to be the 971st gender and they want to call it woman, it seems like telling them they can't do that is claiming universal ownership of the word, something that if those who had the word before had done, the trans people would not be able to identify as their chosen gender now.

So in a sense, trans people got access to the word, then claimed nobody else could use it but them. It means only what they want it to. Have another identity? Too bad.

[brunumb]

A good point was brought up about 'affirmative only' and what could happen if we treated anorexia (or schizophrenia) in the affirmative only. What's good for the goose is not good for the gander here it seems. So should we seek for affirmation only for dysmorphia? I don't think I could get behind that and would see it as a mechanism to increase it.

I think you have highlighted the heart of the problem Affirmative care only. People, most disturbingly children, are self diagnosing with gender issues on the flimsiest of evidence and these must be affirmed, or else. Assume it's real, don't question, don't try to find a 'cure', just get with the program. But, once they get on that treadmill, it's a one way journey that does not necessarily end up resolving anything.

[brunumb]

Good things, with anorexia. I am one of the people disgusted by even a tiny amount of body fat on a woman. I like only the thinnest of runway models. This is very normal.

Unfortunately Purple Knight, you will now simply be regarded as fat phobic. Somehow the geniuses who are promoting this notion have managed to associate it with white supremacy, the patriarchy and homophobia. Just going to the gym demonstrates all of that. As far as I'm concerned, social media has allowed all of those from the wrong end of the Bell Curve to have their say and as a result society is being eroded.

If we can acknowledge that anorexic women are not fat women regardless of how they feel, then we can acknowledge that trans women are not women regardless of how they feel.

[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.

Yet it is too difficult for you to clearly define what is a woman.

If sex is not binary then why is it that we only see alleged transitions from male to female or female to male? Has anyone transitioned to any other sex? What changes do you see them make when they transition? It's all based on the binary nature of sex and follows stereotypical patterns. When you ask someone who claims to be non-binary, what sex do they claim to be? You get wishy-washy ludicrous answers and a lot of hand waving. When it comes to reproduction, biology only functions on a binary model. All of these gender fluid people will come up against a brick wall when they try to impose their fantasies on reality. Gender expression is no more than role play.

As for your fish spawning example, isn't even close to being relevant.

We've been over all this before, and it's obvious to me that you prefer to wallow in bigotry. I'm not sure why you're so set on being on the wrong side of history (bigotry is never looked back on favorably), but I'm done trying to persuade you away from it.

[Jose Fly]

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".

Your urges are your own and your straw man is noted. A word is meaningless when the meaning of the word is unknown when used. Not because a word has multiple definitions.

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

Thank you for acknowledging the mechanism that drives my thinking here.
'Sound' is a polysemous word. However, when used in a sentence, the meaning become clear.
I don't see 'woman' following this path. When 'woman' is used in a sentence, what is meant these days? That words can have multiple definitions alone is not something I contest and does not automatically make a word meaningless. Again, see 'sound'.

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.

That question (for no other reason than saying "woman" has multiple definitions) was not asked of you. Matters not though as the question is rhetorical really.
Furthermore, I demonstrate my non black/white thinking by acknowledging that the word 'woman' is like putting on a costume. Is that to think 'black' or to think 'white'? I would argue that it is an extremely inclusive definition of the word and therefore not to be claiming either 'black' or 'white'.

I do not mean to insinuate by using the word 'costume' that some humans are just playing dress up or playing pretend by the way. It's just the best I can come up with at the moment.
By putting on a costume, you become a policeman or fireman for your event.
By claiming you are a women, you can now become a women. If you can accept that this is not coming from a place of hate, surely you can at least see the comparison I'm making (again, not comparing it to dress up or playing pretend, just the effect of each). In this way... what is a woman? It's seems similar to a costume and is not inclusive for any humans that thought they knew what a 'woman' was just a few years ago.

Again, this isn't all that complicated. In the vast, vast majority of situations, when someone says they're a woman it doesn't matter one bit whether they're a cis-gender woman, a trans woman, an intersex person who presents as a woman, a person with one of the conditions we covered earlier, or anything else. And quite frankly in most cases, it's really none of your business.

I mean, why exactly is any of that relevant to you? If a woman says she's a woman at work or some social situation, what are you going to do? Grill them about what specific type of woman they are? Are you going to shout "NO YOU'RE NOT"? Demand that they stop referring to themselves as a woman?

If not, then perhaps you can explain why in most situations it even matters.