Do you not think that where people go or how people dress is part of their identity?
If DeSantis wins
- Thread starter CastletonSnob
- Start date
For goodness' sake, you've even given an example yourself. Native Americans have Asian descent, but they are not themselves Asian.
Bollocks.
This may surprise you, but Google does not provide the full Oxford definition. It provides an informal summary. The actual Oxford dictionary provides 22 definitions for the pronoun 'he', but it requires a subscription to view. So let's go to Cambridge.
The Cambridge definition refers to a 'man or adult male' human being or male animal-- much like the Oxford one. And what's the second definition for 'man'?
"an adult who lives and identifies as male though they may have been said to have a different sex at birth."
Dude, you're the one who said sex at birth is the same thing as biological sex. So it's directly relevant to point out that every characteristic used to determine sex at birth is changeable. It's also directly relevant to point out that the characteristics you personally use to attribute pronouns are all changeable, too.
If you want to start talking about the few characteristics that are essentially unchangeable-- such as chromosomes, or internal reproductive organs-- then you can also acknowledge that none of them are used to determine sex at birth, and none of them are used by yourself to attribute pronouns.
Last edited:
Where people go isn't, no, that's pretty ridiculous-- going to the corner shop isn't part of my identity.
How people dress may be an /expression/ of identity, or it may not be if it was mere momentary convenience or lack of alternative.
Look, pretty much everyone understands identity to refer to aspects of someone that are at least somewhat significant. Not comparisons to their immediate surroundings. Ask anyone to describe their identity, and they may talk about their passions/interests, perhaps their career, or broadly distinguishing traits. They absolutely will not give you an answer like 'the guy standing nearest to this lamppost' or 'the guy who's slightly taller than that passerby'.
You've never identified someone by where they sit in a classroom? You don't know who "the guy who sits in the back corner" is?
No, not everyone understands identity that way. You, and many like you, understand identity that way, because you've followed behind movements that you don't understand. The thing you want to discuss isn't identity, it's essence. You want to talk about the essential characteristics of a person that describe or dictate their reality. That's not what identity is.
I'm sure you've heard the statement "gender is a social construct". Decades ago, the people pushing gender boundaries still had a grounded distinction between physical realities and social concepts. Gender, especially gender identity, falls firmly in the latter category. It was this same gender avant garde that began using the phrase "I identify as...". This is not accidental language, this is deliberate language. If they wanted to say "I am a woman", they would have said "I am a woman". Saying "I identify as a woman" is different than "I am a woman" in that it is acknowledging that the speaker isn't making a statement of essence, they are not saying they are or are not essentially a woman, they may not even believe there is such a thing, but socially they prefer to be seen as one, to be identified that way.
Your understanding of identity misses the point of the word entirely.
Of course-- but to 'identify' someone as something isn't the same. I can identify an inanimate object, or a fossil. But we don't talk about these things having 'identities'.
No-- it's just a favourite rhetorical tactic of yours to insist ignorance on the part of people who disagree with you. I understand identity in the sense that almost everyone else does, rather than your particular fringe superficial interpretation.
"Essence" is vague quasi-spiritual guff.
It's incredible that you can give a little potted history (a reductionist one, but still) that doesn't support your proposition one iota, but just steadfastly act like it does.
In truth, the distinction between sex as a physical category and gender as a social construct is still very much recognised by those who question and push gender boundaries-- such as those who identify outside of their birth sex. You think you've spotted a shift because of a development of language-- "identify as X"-- but you've presupposed your specific interpretation of that term in order to reach your conclusion, a usage which isn't shared by these people (or by very many people at all, really).
Because even back then-- decades ago, when the distinction between sex and gender became popularised in the West-- 'identity' was understood as something significant or meaningful to the individual, not fully external and superficial. It has always been treated this way-- in psychiatric and philosophical literature as well as common parlance.
People began to say 'I identify as X' as a method of making it linguistically clearer they were talking about gender identity. Yet the same people will also simply use the terms 'man', 'woman' etc to describe themselves in line with gender, not sex. Hence a trans man identifies as a man, and a trans woman identifies as a woman. No shift: the same was true decades ago.
No, it isn't.
Essence:
Dictionary.com: the basic, real, and invariable nature of a thing or its significant individual feature or features
Britantica: the basic nature of a thing : the quality or qualities that make a thing what it is
Oxford: The basic or primary element in the being of a thing; the thing's nature, or that without which it could not be what it is.
"Essence" has certainly been used by the quasi-spiritual, but that doesn't mean it isn't a real word with a real meaning that applies to the concept you are expressing. The important, significant, primary, necessary qualities that define a person can be accurately called their essence.
I wouldn't call it a shift. I'm noting the difference between these words original intentions and you. Lots of people understand the original intentions and use the words in the same way (if you want to argue about social constructs, TerminalBlue is usually available for that), there are many people who are not even trans that when asked their gender will explicitly use the "I identify as" phrasing to illustrate that they are answering as a social statement rather than an ontological one. You imitate these people, whom you want to associate with, without knowing or caring what the words mean. You do this in the same way you want to avoid the word "essence" not because of the definition of the word, but rather because you don't want to share language with the people you associate the word "essence" with.
They can accurately be called someone's 'spirit' too, but I'd object to that term just the same, because it has connotations and associations that go beyond just traits and characteristics.
Someone who identifies as a man would agree with the statement 'I am a man'. The occasional use of the former is merely to make it clearer they're talking about gender. The sole reason you think that phrase means something else altogether is because you're assuming they also subscribe to your fringe, superficial understanding of the term 'identity'-- a reason that falls apart as soon as you consider they may be using it in the way most people do.
I'm using the terms in the same way they do-- not because of imitation, but because that's how they're actually understood and what they mean to people.
And it's not just the same way gender-noncomfortists use the term. Ask anyone, even a gender traditionalist, to describe their identity and they'll tell you about traits they consider significant, meaningful or formative. They categorically will not tell you about where they're standing or a trite comparison to the person closest to them. You know just as well as I do that that's true-- using 'identity' in that way is frankly bizarre.
Last edited:
Native Americans are Asian. They are from Asia and have traits that Asians have, they also have been separated enough from Asians that they developed traits that make them distinct from Asians as well. It's like saying I'm not my race because I was born in America. You're trying to act like you can't ever say someone is XYZ based on any physical trait, that's just asinine.
Objective fact.
And why can't a person use 1 definition for "he" especially when others are contradictory? The first one refers to sex so if you apply that to the 2nd definition, it's no longer consistent. You're also acting like the 2nd definition has been around forever (when it's very recently added) so as people have learned language and through culture, decided on use of pronouns, it never involved the 2nd definition. Now, you guys are going around complaining about how horrible using the standard method for pronoun use is, saying you shouldn't force identity onto someone when you guys are forcing the meaning of words onto others. Both sides can literally argue something is being forced on them, yet your side is inherently the "right" side? Tstorm is right, there's a difference between what you are and what you identify as. Why is someone inherently wrong if they use pronouns based on what you are? We don't do this for race. If you're Chinese, you can't say you identify as black and people will actually consider you black.
I said it's in essence the same because it determines biological sex. Why would anyone use sex at birth to determine pronouns in real life? Someone could be Barbie or Ken, and they'll get called 'she' and 'he' even though everything that is used to determine sex at birth is stuff they don't have. The only thing babies have that is noticeable at birth to determine sex is genitals, all other features develop later (the features that people use in the real world to determine sex without looking in or grabbing in your pants). Thus, why would I care or know if someone changed their genitals? I explained several different features that are based on sex that aren't changeable like say your wingspan. A woman with a man's wingspan is noticeable.
You're doing the thing where you just assume whatever you personally think is what most people accept with absolutely no evidence to back it up. We've been through this before.
And you're simply adopting a bizarre fringe usage and then pretending everyone else has to play along or they're ignorant. We've also been through this before.
You know, 100%, that if you asked someone to describe their identity, you'd get answers related to the traits, characteristics or possibly interests that are significant to them. You know, 100%, that you would not get answers containing superficial comparisons to their immediate vicinity. You absolutely know this, because you're not a complete fool.
But fine:
Identity
Identity encompasses the memories, experiences, relationships, and values that create one’s sense of self. This amalgamation creates a steady sense of who one is over time, even as new facets are developed and incorporated into one's identity.
www.psychologytoday.com
Psychology Today said:
APA Dictionary of Psychology
A trusted reference in the field of psychology, offering more than 25,000 clear and authoritative entries.
American Psychiatric Association said:
Identity: Definition, Types, & Examples
What is identity? Discover the definition of identity, understand how it differs from personality and character, and learn about its types.
www.berkeleywellbeing.com
Berkeley Institute said:
Identity
'Identity' published in 'Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences'
link.springer.com
Springer said:
Personal Identity (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
plato.stanford.edu
Then (if we want to follow the Phoenixmgs approach) we can go to the common dictionaries... all the major ones of which also link identity to self-image, sense of self, or facts about the self. Or we could look to Erik Erikson, whose concept of the identity is probably the most influential within psychology, and we find a definition about an evolving /sense of self/ derived from the traits and roles one takes.Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy said:
Last edited:
Except they're not "from Asia", are they? What you mean is their distant ancestors were from Asia. By which standard... you and I and everyone on this board is African.
Prove it, then.
You're the one who claimed the definitions of pronouns all literally connect solely to sex. Don't do this goalpost-shifting when it turns out that's just a load of rubbish: I couldn't care less about the endless paragraphs of barely-relevant rambling.
I directly disproved what you said about "the definitions". Just acknowledge that definitions actually exist that allow for it to be connected to gender, rather than sex, and then move on.
Have you forgotten where this all began?
And now you've presented 5 consecutive definitions that all tell you that relationships, affiliations, and social roles are determinants of identity.
My favorite is the Standford one, firstly because it makes the distinction that it is talking about "personal identity", which is not the whole of identity, and secondly because of the sentence " Someone’s personal identity in this sense is contingent and temporary." You really think this all agrees with what you've been saying?
This sounds like you are trying to express the philosophical concept of essence and identity. Essence, in this sense, could be summed up briefly as the core attributes which an entity must have to retain its identity. So for instance, if we take the rungs away from a ladder, it ceases to be a ladder: it's just two parallel poles. (And possibly not even parallel, given there's no structural feature to keep them that way, but that's a trivial digression.) Arguably, it's not even worth separating essence and identity.
If you take this line, then a lot of the things you are talking about (height, location) are obviously meaningless to "identity" (or "essence"), so it's not clear to me why you ever brought them up. These were particularly perplexing because you've correctly grasped "personhood", and it should be plain that personhood does not depend on one's height or location: you don't cease to be the person you are by taking a step to the left or by growing an inch between ages 16 and 17.
Of course, personhood is itself a tricky issue as it is a social construct, chiefly in the fields of law and philosophy. I assume this is what you were trying to get at saying there was no objective reality several posts back. One might argue from a certain practical sense, the definition of law has a lot of impact. If the law insists, it can define you as anything it damn well pleases and you become so - legally, at least. However, if any one person thinks about their identity, those distinguishing features that differentiate them from other people, they obviously don't tend to think what the law says. They occasionally will have cause to (for instance, being a victim of "identity theft"), but it's clearly not the most useful way forward. Not only that, but the law, at least in our countries, is also supposed to recognise our rights of self-determination as individuals with agency. As in that "liberty and pursuit of happiness" stuff the US Constitution puts up front and central, which is drawn from philosophy.
From a philosophical perspective, there is a general trend and that trend looks at personhood in the means that the US Constitution acknowledges: we are individuals with our own volition and self-awareness and blah blah blah. So whilst you can appeal to the lack of objective reality as a last-ditch, honestly I don't think your epistemological argument here about "essence" or internal / external perception over the last few pages is worth very much at all.
This is really about ethics. We can legally force people to be formally defined as birth sex according to whatever way society deems it appropriate to assign sex at birth, or we can honour their agency, self-awareness and volition etc. when they deeply feel their birth sex is very much at odds with how they feel about themselves. Anyone with a shred of liberal instinct should know the answer to that: so long as it harms no-one, why should we deny them? You, on the other hand, think the collective should have the right to dictate to an individual their identity... that is all.
Last edited:
It is worth separating those for multiple reasons, but primarily because identity takes on outside factors as well. If you take the rungs away from a ladder, it ceases to be a ladder, and that is changing the identity by changing the essence. But also, if you lay it on the ground across a gap, now its bridge, and you've changed the identity by changing the perspective without changing the essence at all. Identity changes with context, as Stanford said in the article Silvanus posted, it is contingent and temporary.
I did not say there is no objective reality. I said that we cannot know it. Most people, certainly including me, still believe that there is objective truth, and the things we experience are caused by objective truths, even if we can't clearly see them because they are filtered by our limited and subjective perspectives. The very concept of gender, I think, is a product of that filtering. Gender is not objective, it's perceived. Much like the physical realities of the object discussed above exist (the structure with the rungs), but ladders and bridges are products of human perspective.
Ya'll keep accusing me of this, but that's not it. I'm not saying that people have the right to dictate things, I'm not saying that I want to dictate things, what I'm telling you is that these things are defined socially.
A) Any personal identity you take on at minimum relies on the language you use to define that identity, and language is socially constructed, your identities are limited by the words and meanings you have access to.
B) All identities exist relative to others. You cannot identify as something if that something has no alternatives to compare to, and the rest of the people in society are the baseline which you compare to.
C) Some parts of identity are socially defined. I'm sure arm wrestling champions consider that a chief part of their identity, but you cannot just identify that within yourself, that is a social position that must be established interpersonally.
So like, you and Silvanus can keep acting like I think we should be dictating people's identity, but I'm not talking about "should" anything. I'm telling you that everyone is part of everyone else's identities, whether you want them to be or not, you cannot just detach from each other and say everyone is whatever they want to be independent of one another, because we aren't independent of one another.
Jesus-- it appears /you've/ forgotten where this began. Because I've literally never denied that those things are involved in constructing an identity. Those things are not the same as external perception-- and you'll notice those definitions also involve sense of self, and traits.
It absolutely does-- because I also never said identity wasn't contingent or temporary/evolving. What, you think I've been arguing someone's height, interests, career or gender identity /can't change/?! Pay attention.
None of these things contradict what I've been saying. They do, however, make absolutely clear that identity is not limited to external perception, and that it involves the traits and sense-of-self of the individual. There is no way an honest person could read those sections and come away with the solely superficial, external interpretation you've been peddling. They directly and unambiguously contradict you-- and your response is a pretty desperate attempt to rewrite the conversation we've had.
Last edited:
Ah, "should". If there is no "should" anywhere in your thoughts in this debate, why are you arguing this?
People have different perceptions about essence/identity (there's a whole other issue of what you mean by these, but it's a huge digression from where I'm going) - fine, this isn't controversial. The issue is that society may need to make certain decisions or actions based on differing perceptions of identity because it has consequences for everyone involved. This is an ethical issue, not a metaphysical one.
So are you really just discussing metaphysics relating to gender untethered to ethics - there's no "should" implicitly hanging over, maybe even motivating, this line of argument? At present I do not find that notion convincing, but I invite you to clarify.
Oh, you just can't read. I get it. You've taken an idea that identity is shaped by external perception and somehow made that into identity being completely independent of internal characteristics, in spite of my brilliant tree-shadow analogy. Stop trying to find a wrong position to put me in and actually understand what I'm saying.
Personally, I think "should" is a dangerous word in most contexts. "Should" (without an if involved) implies an explicitly right answer, which hides a world of infinite options and consequences. The only thing more dangerous than "should" is "why not", the question that implies you should do anything you can't reason is a mistake.
At any rate, whether you're looking for a singular "should" or trying to navigate consequences to reach results preferable over others, all of that is downstream of what is. If your ideas of what is happening and what causes what are wrong, your conclusions are going to be wrong. Rather than try to tackle "should people be able to identify as whatever they want", the question is "what are the causes/effects/significance of people identifying as things?" Silvanus believes that if people identify as the opposite sex, that has no effect on anyone else's identity. A man identifying as a woman doesn't change a woman identifying as one, or so he believes, but if the word "woman" changes meaning, every woman's identity changes with it, and if you find yourself trying to identify the original group, you end up at things like "birthing people".
If you think that is a preferable end result, so be it. I do not deny that there is a lot of baggage in modern sexual politics that doesn't need to exist, and perhaps this is the path to alleviating some of that. But what I'm not here to read and let stand is the idea that these things can change and anyone who doesn't want to be effected just won't be, cause that's not how society works, and I personally resent the talking out of both sides of his mouth Silvanus does for things he supports where they all simultaneously make the world better and don't change the world at all depending on the argument.
"Should" is an inevitability - the essence of decision-making. I do not agree that that it implies an absolute (I think that is a better term than explicit) right answer, merely to strive for a good answer according to the information and circumstances at the time.
The perception of things has always been open to change. It's constant flux, everywhere and everywhen. What it is to be a man or a woman - i.e. gender roles - have been under through discussion and change as long as our species. Otherwise, I don't disagree that the inclusion of transwomen into "woman" currently in process is arguably a large and rapid change liable to ruffle feathers. And I certainly accept that there may be resistance in society by those uncomfortable about the change to societal perceptions of gender identity, even individuals' own self-identity.
However, I simply cannot accept that a good answer is just to squash transpeople by denying their existence or certain rights of self-identification, on the principles of care for their wellbeing, an ideological basis of personal freedoms, or even just basic respect and courtesy towards fellow members of society.
You explixitly said it was /interchangeable/ with external perception-- not merely that it was "shaped" by it, which is just bloody obvious to everyone-- and you repeatedly dismissed the idea that it related to someone's actual traits or characteristics in any meaningful way.
Then, when faced with multiple definitions directly contradicting you, you've tried a shameless rewrite of the conversation, shifting your position without acknowledgement and hurling insult. It's frankly a bit pathetic.
Last edited: