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.

[Jose Fly]

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.

Completely false, as shown in the protocols I've posted here many times. I suppose bigotry and spreading false info go hand in hand.

[Jose Fly]

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.

FYI, that was a fake story.

https://www.economist.com/united-states ... fy-as-cats

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.

You're operating under numerous misconceptions. Read this please: https://medicine.yale.edu/lgbtqi/resear ... ive-organs

[Diogenes]

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.

FYI, that was a fake story.

https://www.economist.com/united-states ... fy-as-cats

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.

You're operating under numerous misconceptions. Read this please: https://medicine.yale.edu/lgbtqi/resear ... ive-organs

Both good references, but I got a laugh out of this part of the Yale Med headline: "In fact, present medical standards state that individuals must be the age of majority or older before undergoing surgery on genitals or reproductive organs,"
... considering male circumcision in the U.S.

[Purple Knight]

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.

It used to be that you like what you like. If someone wants to pound buttholes, that's them doing them and I'm supposed to let them be, not call them vagina-phobic.

[brunumb]

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.

As soon as you go down that path all scientific classification may just as well be chucked in the bin. My dog is now a cat and my budgie is an eagle. That's how I feel so that must be all that counts. We're heading for clown world real fast. Self-identification is denial of reality and needs to be resisted, not affirmed. Tacit approval is how we hand over the world to the lunatic fringe.

[brunumb]

If someone wants to identify as a woman because of something internal that says they are, why should it matter if the science is on their side or not?

Science is not on their side, so why should anyone else go along with the internal feelings of that individual? I am happy enough for them to live their life according to their feelings as long as they do not make unnecessary impositions on me. If a man clearly presents as a woman, then I have no problem going along with the delusion and accepting them as such. But, turn up with a beard and chest hair while wearing nail polish and lipstick, then abuse me for getting the gender wrong and it's whole other kettle of fish.

[brunumb]

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.

It seem that you have adopted the trans activist strategy of just throwing around labels like bigot, even though you have no knowledge of the person you are talking to. You cannot refute any of the arguments presented to you. You may shut down the conversation, another strategy of the trans activists, but there may be others who at least will question the ideology that they are being force fed and see beyond the disinformation.

[brunumb]

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 that was the sum total of the issue, then it would not matter. But you know full well that it has spread well beyond that. But, once captured by the ideology everything within it is beyond reproach and must not be questioned.

And, before you throw accusations of bigotry around, please be aware that it's a two way street.

bigotry: obstinate or unreasonable attachment to a belief, opinion, or faction, in particular prejudice against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.

[brunumb]

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.

Completely false, as shown in the protocols I've posted here many times. I suppose bigotry and spreading false info go hand in hand.

If you do some research you will find that those alleged protocols are largely ignored and what I have said is true. No bigotry necessary, unless you look in the mirror perhaps.

[brunumb]

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.

FYI, that was a fake story.

https://www.economist.com/united-states ... fy-as-cats

But the story from the UK was supported with auditory evidence.