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]

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.

Interesting on the whole, and I can agree with a lot of it. However, this this is the part is where it might fall apart. Being part of group in a meaningful sense usually involves some form of policy. Being a friend of Suzie probably does not come with a scholarship, but it likely comes with real rewards.

Real life examples might be more subtle, but here is an understandable example: Suzie might say, “My friends are always welcome in my home.”

John, who has never met Suzie, might define himself as a Suzie’s friend. If Suzie does not create a policy that excludes those who do not fit her definition of a friend of Suzie, then John could claim that he is always welcome in Suzie’s home. This would almost certainly violate Suzie’s privacy and sense of security.

I can see only three options for Suzie. One is that she would have to live with this this invasion of privacy and security. The second is that she would have to change her policy so that her friends are not always welcome in her home – in essence allowing John and others like him to dictate what her policy for her own home could be. The third option is that Suzie uses her own definition of what qualifies someone as a friend of Suzie to create a policy that excludes those who do not fit her criteria.


This thread creates an interesting thought experiment, but eventually we have to reach the level of policy. At that point there is little hope of moving forward without agreed about definitions of words.

[Purple Knight]

This thread create creates an interesting thought experiment, but eventually we have to reach the level of policy. At that point there is little hope of moving forward without agreed about definitions of words.

The government should treat everyone equally regardless of what anyone is, thinks they are, or defines themselves as?

You brought up an interesting point which is Suzie excluding people from her home. (And more relevantly perhaps, her business.)

Either let anyone do this for any reason, or let nobody do it ever. The only reason to let some people do it sometimes for some reasons that's potentially justified, is if the person being excluded is breaking a law.

[brunumb]

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.

People may self-identify as anything they like, but if they do not possess the attributes that apply to that identity then it is not real and need not be acknowledged. I can self-identify as a doctor, a horse, or a chair, but in reality I am none of those because I do not possess the attributes that define them. A man may identify as a woman, but he has the attributes of a man, particularly his DNA, which contradicts that identity. Makeup, clothes, hairstyle, etc, are not attributes that define a woman. All of those things can be attached to a shop dummy making it have the external stereotypical appearance of a woman, but it is not a woman. So, people self-identifying is not a meaningful concept.

Reality does not necessarily conform to what we would like it to be. Wishful thinking can't change reality so we just have to move on with the cards we have been dealt.

[Purple Knight]

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.

People may self-identify as anything they like, but if they do not possess the attributes that apply to that identity then it is not real and need not be acknowledged. I can self-identify as a doctor, a horse, or a chair, but in reality I am none of those because I do not possess the attributes that define them. A man may identify as a woman, but he has the attributes of a man, particularly his DNA, which contradicts that identity. Makeup, clothes, hairstyle, etc, are not attributes that define a woman. All of those things can be attached to a shop dummy making it have the external stereotypical appearance of a woman, but it is not a woman. So, people self-identifying is not a meaningful concept.

Reality does not necessarily conform to what we would like it to be. Wishful thinking can't change reality so we just have to move on with the cards we have been dealt.

If they change the definition to one of self-identification, you're the one who'll be out of luck, begging from the outside that you are what you say you are, and having people dump on your identity.

I'm saying that if you want to identify as "someone with an X and a Y chromosome" and call that a man, you have every right to do that and people should not dump on your identity any more than they should dump on trans identity.

If you want strictness and definition based on objective characteristics, don't worry - you'll get it. It just won't be the definition you want, and it will apply to you nonetheless. Don't like being called "cis"? Too bad, you are. See how this isn't fair?

This is, to some degree, happening to biological females now. I'm arguing that not only can they self-identify as women, but they can self-identify as the only women, and they have a right to characterise their identity with two X chromosomes if they wish. Just as it is someone's right to define feeling and identifying as a woman, as being a woman, it is also Suzie's right to define having two X chromosomes as being a woman and identify as that. Nobody has to indulge her as far as their identity, but they also shouldn't dump on hers.

[brunumb]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #5]

The facts of biological science trumps all this religious gender ideology nonsense. As soon as any two individuals decide to procreate, reality will rear its ugly head. Language can't redefine reality.

[bjs1]

The government should treat everyone equally regardless of what anyone is, thinks they are, or defines themselves as?

Not necessarily. The government has created some protected classes of people.

My main point was that, when we get to the point of policy, we need to agree on what words mean.

In the analogy, if Suzie defines “friend of Suzie” one way and other people define “friend of Suzie” a different way, then it will be almost impossible for Suzie to create a policy about how she treats her friends.

The opening post mentions women. If we are going to have a policy that is specifically about women, then everyone will have to agree on what makes someone a woman. If one group defines a woman as “person born with a vagina” and another group defines a woman as “person who identifies as a woman regardless of anatomy” then there is virtually no way to create a policy about women. Any policy about women will inherently require one of those two groups to enforce their will upon the other.

[Jose Fly]

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.

People may self-identify as anything they like, but if they do not possess the attributes that apply to that identity then it is not real and need not be acknowledged. I can self-identify as a doctor, a horse, or a chair, but in reality I am none of those because I do not possess the attributes that define them. A man may identify as a woman, but he has the attributes of a man, particularly his DNA, which contradicts that identity. Makeup, clothes, hairstyle, etc, are not attributes that define a woman. All of those things can be attached to a shop dummy making it have the external stereotypical appearance of a woman, but it is not a woman. So, people self-identifying is not a meaningful concept.

Reality does not necessarily conform to what we would like it to be. Wishful thinking can't change reality so we just have to move on with the cards we have been dealt.

Wow. You really equate transgender people with you casually deciding on a whim that you're a horse?

The more I read from you on this topic, the worse it gets. Very disappointing.

[Jose Fly]

The facts of biological science trumps all this religious gender ideology nonsense.

Nope. https://medicine.yale.edu/lgbtqi/resear ... d-science/

But hey, I suppose you expect folks here to just go with your say-so over the findings of actual scientists in the relevant fields, eh?

[Purple Knight]

The government should treat everyone equally regardless of what anyone is, thinks they are, or defines themselves as?

Not necessarily. The government has created some protected classes of people.

My main point was that, when we get to the point of policy, we need to agree on what words mean.

In the analogy, if Suzie defines “friend of Suzie” one way and other people define “friend of Suzie” a different way, then it will be almost impossible for Suzie to create a policy about how she treats her friends.

The opening post mentions women. If we are going to have a policy that is specifically about women, then everyone will have to agree on what makes someone a woman. If one group defines a woman as “person born with a vagina” and another group defines a woman as “person who identifies as a woman regardless of anatomy” then there is virtually no way to create a policy about women. Any policy about women will inherently require one of those two groups to enforce their will upon the other.

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.