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.

[Purple Knight]

I could read no more after that last sentence. I want to impose no labels on anyone.

Then you have established the right of people to self-identify.

Do you want to impose the label of cis on me? Let's say I was born male, identify as "a man"* but I don't identify as cis.

Are you going to insist I am cis because that's the definition of cis and I meet it?

*Note that if someone has an achievement definition of man - and those do exist - I do not impose on them to accept that I have completed that achievement and "become a man" according to them; according to them I'm not a man and that's fine with me. I'm not going to cry for tolerance and scream about my identity; I'm going to accept that to have them acknowledge me as a man, I must go and do that achievement.

[Jose Fly]

Exactly! I think that is part of what set me off.
... Along with the wording of the title, The Right to Have an Exclusionary Identity. I don't like the idea of "exclusionary."
That is the antithesis of what I think the approach should be, "inclusionary." We are all in this together, and it is sometimes a heavy slog. Equality of status and opportunity should be the goal.

Ah, got it. Thanks!

Which brings up another divisive topic, 'affirmative action.' While I applaud the goal and I am not sure there was a better way in the 1960s to correct some of the systemic bias in our institutions and in our culture in general, the 'categorization' and discrimination on the basis of 'race' is unfortunate. I have a visceral reaction to anything that divides us irrevocably that is based upon characteristics beyond our control.

I want to reiterate my mention of "I am not sure there is/was a better way" to effectively combat inherent bias, but the goal should be a color blind society. Affirmative action may have incidentally had effects counter to its goal. Consider this quote from a very close friend,
"Affirmative action may have gotten me in to UVA, but it didn't get me out."

These days, I wonder if we can even use the phrase, "We are all brothers" or "We are all brothers and sisters," without considerable offense being taken. Maybe it needs to be changed "We are all one," but even then some 'special' people will be offended.

The sad part is that the ruling on AA will result in fewer students from minority groups at lots of colleges, thereby illustrating the difference between an ideal and actual reality. But then, my cynical side says that was one of the plaintiffs' main goals.

[Jose Fly]

In many cases, the law does say affirmation-only

Where? Citation please.

Can you quote/cite an actual law, or at least link to one? I don't want to watch an hour+ long YT vid that was posted without any further comment. If you know of an actual law, cite it.

I mean bullying. Including but not limited to death threats.

As I said previously, violence and death threats are unacceptable.

It's transphobic in that she's saying that trans women aren't women (because they don't menstruate).

And trans people can tell me I'm not trans. They have an identity, based on things. I do not have those things. They in that group have the right to define it so it doesn't include me.

Are you claiming to be trans? If not, then it's not analogous at all.

She didn't say trans women weren't women. She's (half-jokingly) (imo) implying she should have the right to classify "people who menstruate" as women.

Right, she implied that trans women aren't women, which generated a lot of blowback.

That doesn't mean you can't classify trans women as women. It just means she can classify it her way. Some words have multiple definitions. Some definitions with wide usage are scientifically bad, and so what?

It's terribly offensive to transgender people, no different than if she'd said black people aren't really "human". Sure, she has the right to say that and personally define "human" as she pleases, but once she makes that view public she opens herself up to a public reaction.

It would be nice if people who wanted to identify as double-Xers or vagina-havers-since-birth would follow the science and pick another word, but if they want to call what they are (and trans women aren't) "women" it's just their definition which applies to their identity and no one else's.

So how do you define "woman"?

This is a discussion about language, and who has the right to use which words to describe what. IMO, science shouldn't even come into it.

In general, we're all free to use whatever terms we like. Racists can refer to minority groups with derogatory terms, anti-Semites can refer to Jews with derogatory terms, anti-LGBTQ bigots can refer to queer folks with derogatory terms, and (in the US) the government won't lock them up for it.

However, as with JK R., once you go public with that you can probably expect quite a bit of blowback and even some significant consequences. The racist, anti-Semite, and anti-LGBTQ bigot might get fired from their job for example.

Like this:

guilt.png

???? I don't see that as bullying at all. The person just said you're free to give Rowling your money, but if you do you're harming LGBTQs and as such, the person won't absolve you of any guilt you might feel.

If you really see that as "bullying", you might want to think on it a bit more.

[Purple Knight]

Can you quote/cite an actual law, or at least link to one? I don't usually debate YT vids that are posted without any further comment.

You certainly don't have to, but the interviewee is saying that she was forced to provide affirmation-only care, and not question the gender identity of any child who expresses one. If you don't want to invest a lot of time but you're willing to at least look, I can provide some timestamps.

Some states are trying to ban affirmation-only care. Some states have banned it. If it's so great, and helps people so much, I can't help but wonder, where is the affirmation care for other disorders? Why affirmation and surgery for gender dysphoria but not for body dysmorphia? Where is the oversight that's somewhere between confused rednecks decrying what they don't understand, and laymen being allowed to question the idea that a lobotomy is good for you?

As I said previously, violence and death threats are unacceptable.

Death threats are also pernicious because they have an effect on the culture. If you believed someone was really evil, truly a Nazi, most people would do this to them, or at least believe it was moral, doxxing them and hoping for someone brave to hurt or kill them. So if people do it, and cite repression of rights as the reason, they bring people to their side. Each side presents kind of an unfalsifiable narrative, forcing people to pick one.

It's terribly offensive to transgender people, no different than if she'd said black people aren't really "human". Sure, she has the right to say that and personally define "human" as she pleases, but once she makes that view public she opens herself up to a public reaction.

But she didn't say they weren't human. She implied they weren't women according to her. And to me, it absolutely does depend on what someone means by "not human" before I will agree with people mobbing them for saying something horrible. You're relying on the history of people saying this and meaning something horrid for it to be emotionally charged. But it does depend on what they mean. It does need to be unpacked. Suppose someone said that about Vulcans as they landed? If they mean we ought not respect their rights, then that's horrid. If they mean we can't breed with them, well, they were amazingly likely to have got that right, but it turned out to be factually incorrect.

I don't see why this is any different than calling me "not a man" because I did not do some usually foolhardy and dangerous achievement. People do that all the time, especially when young. I accept that I can either go and do the achievement or not have them acknowledge me. To me, imagining that I have a right to be acknowledged as "a man" and can force others to do so, otherwise I get offended and bring in others to get offended, is just being an entitled brat. To them I'm not a man. So what?

(And btw, I learned to think this way after having done the achievement, then being denied the acknowledgment. I was angry, then I had to learn I don't get to control or punish people for how they think.)

So how do you define "woman"?

I don't. I honestly don't care until people are turning into word-Libertarians and greedily hoarding chunks of syllables as personal property to be used as they like, and not only denouncing others but imposing physical or moral consequences on them, for using them as they like.

I will get mad at people for using definitions that are non-functional or objectively bad, or nondescriptive when I can show that (either including everything or nothing) but if your definition does what you want it to do and describes what you want it to describe, I literally do not give a ratatouille.

This is a discussion about language, and who has the right to use which words to describe what. IMO, science shouldn't even come into it.

In general, we're all free to use whatever terms we like. Racists can refer to minority groups with derogatory terms, anti-Semites can refer to Jews with derogatory terms, anti-LGBTQ bigots can refer to queer folks with derogatory terms, and (in the US) the government won't lock them up for it.

However, as with JK R., once you go public with that you can probably expect quite a bit of blowback and even some significant consequences. The racist, anti-Semite, and anti-LGBTQ bigot might get fired from their job for example.

When people create a mob and use the power it generates to impose consequences, I don't see it as a lot different than the government imposing consequences. Do you think it's fair? Would you ever say someone got mobbed or fired unfairly? Imagine a world dominated by racists, where people who spoke out for tolerance and good were mobbed and fired. Would that be okay?

If you don't have a line, and whatever social consequences the group imposes are fair by definition, I don't agree but I think it's consistent and I can't dispute it.

If you do have a line, I think it can be shown that mobbing people for having an exclusionary identity is unfair, because we don't do it to others who have one. We don't mob Suzie for the group "friends of Suzie" being exclusionary. We don't mob "real men" for gatekeeping their group by whatever achievements they want to gatekeep by. We never say these people are being offensive or hurtful, even though they are, and we just tell those excluded to get over it. We only mob people if the people they're excluding happen to be trans people and the group happens to be gender.

Like this:

guilt.png

???? I don't see that as bullying at all. The person just said you're free to give Rowling your money, but if you do you're harming LGBTQs and as such, the person won't absolve you of any guilt you might feel.

If you really see that as "bullying", you might want to think on it a bit more.

I have thought about it, and I think people need to be more careful when stating or implying that an (especially legal) act harms them and/or restricts their rights, or is immoral.

It's not different than the sort of religious bullying about righteousness that leads to inquisitions and crusades and witch burnings. People do not want to be bad people. Telling them they are, to a large degree removes their agency and forces them to do what you want.

If you tell someone, "that hurts me" that had better be true, or you're hurting them, making them stop what they're doing and give you the benefit of the doubt, because we all have to give the benefit of the doubt, since we're not in the other person's body. And if you tell someone they are violating your rights when you're not, then you are violating theirs, because people have a right to do whatever they wish, unless they are violating the rights of others. The cry of, "you are violating my rights," should therefore be considered unlawful when untrue, since it uses moral (if not legal) force and threats to compel behaviour.

The sad part is that the ruling on AA will result in fewer students from minority groups at lots of colleges, thereby illustrating the difference between an ideal and actual reality. But then, my cynical side says that was one of the plaintiffs' main goals.

I know this is off-topic but I agree and don't know what I'm supposed to support. To me, the ideal is reparations that completely address the inequality that grew out of slavery, the ensuing legal inequality, and the power and wealth divide exploited by racists to continue and widen that divide. And then a colourblind legal system, because it really is racist to boost up one race over another in a fair system.

But we don't have that fair system and the only option is to support an unfair solution that harms and punishes people who don't even share in the wealth and power they're being punished for having. Imagine being a poor white kid who clawed their way through classes while working full-time, to not only be displaced from his spot in a good college by Black students who in some cases might have more privilege, but by the white students who beat him out thanks to the very privilege Affirmative Action is supposed to make up for.

Am I playing into the plaintiffs' evil hands when I say, no, that's not right, you can't have a law that rather deliberately (or at least massively negligently) hurts someone who doesn't deserve it? I mean, it's one thing to simply have no law and let Nature take its course. It's another when you beat on innocent people with what seems like an intentionally bad law and justify it by saying well, it's this or nothing, so you're forced to support it.

[Jose Fly]

You certainly don't have to, but the interviewee is saying that she was forced to provide affirmation-only care, and not question the gender identity of any child who expresses one. If you don't want to invest a lot of time but you're willing to at least look, I can provide some timestamps.

You claimed "the law says affirmation only". I'm simply asking you to cite that law. No need for hour+ YT vids, just cite the actual law.

If it's so great, and helps people so much, I can't help but wonder, where is the affirmation care for other disorders? Why affirmation and surgery for gender dysphoria but not for body dysmorphia? Where is the oversight that's somewhere between confused rednecks decrying what they don't understand, and laymen being allowed to question the idea that a lobotomy is good for you?

I suggest you take the time to look into the science behind those things.

But she didn't say they weren't human.

I didn't say she did. I used it as a hypothetical example of another type of speech that would generate public blowback.

I don't see why this is any different than calling me "not a man" because I did not do some usually foolhardy and dangerous achievement.

Because that's a very different context.

To them I'm not a man. So what?

Are they trying to deny you basic civil rights?

How do you define "woman"?

I don't.

Ok.

When people create a mob and use the power it generates to impose consequences, I don't see it as a lot different than the government imposing consequences.

We'll have to disagree on that.

Do you think it's fair? Would you ever say someone got mobbed or fired unfairly?

Of course there are examples of people being unfairly targeted by a "mob". But that doesn't mean every reaction by the public is therefore an unfair mobbing.

If you don't have a line

I've already said that violence and threats of violence are unacceptable.

I think it can be shown that mobbing people for having an exclusionary identity is unfair, because we don't do it to others who have one.

Yes we do. Although it's not against the law to be racist, if someone expresses exclusionary rhetoric against blacks on a public platform, it's quite likely they will be "mobbed".

We only mob people if the people they're excluding happen to be trans people and the group happens to be gender.

Incorrect.

I have thought about it, and I think people need to be more careful when stating or implying that an (especially legal) act harms them and/or restricts their rights, or is immoral.

As noted above, it's legal to be racist and say racist things, even in public. It is not "bullying" for the targets of that racist speech to say that it is harmful to them.

People do not want to be bad people. Telling them they are, to a large degree removes their agency and forces them to do what you want.

If that were true, racists and bigots wouldn't exist.

Imagine being a poor white kid who clawed their way through classes while working full-time, to not only be displaced from his spot in a good college by Black students

But the problem is, the poor white kid has no specific reason to blame the black students. He would be merely assuming that a black kid displaced him from his rightful spot. But how does he know he wasn't displaced by a legacy student? Or a rich student whose parents gave the college a big donation? IOW, why assume "I would've gotten in if it weren't for that black kid", instead of "I would've gotten in if it weren't for that legacy kid"?

That's been a common tactic of the rich for a long time....pit the poor/underprivileged against each other over the scraps that are left over after the rich have looted most of the good stuff.

Am I playing into the plaintiffs' evil hands when I say, no, that's not right, you can't have a law that rather deliberately (or at least massively negligently) hurts someone who doesn't deserve it? I mean, it's one thing to simply have no law and let Nature take its course. It's another when you beat on innocent people with what seems like an intentionally bad law and justify it by saying well, it's this or nothing, so you're forced to support it.

That involves a lot of assumptions (see above).

[brunumb]

There you go with the typical dismissal.

You've provided nothing but your baseless say-so. As is often said when debating creationists, that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence (Hitchen's Razor).

You have not been able to refute a single argument against multiple sexes based on the science.

Your bizarre denialism is noted.

Not at all. You have not been able to refute a single argument against multiple sexes based on the science. It's there for all to see.

[brunumb]

Brunumb would like to impose the label of "man" on a trans woman.

Another problem with language. I do not see that I am imposing that label. I am saying that I recognise that the person who claims to be a woman is actually a biological male, or a man. I am not buying into their self-deceit.

[brunumb]

The sad part is that the ruling on AA will result in fewer students from minority groups at lots of colleges, thereby illustrating the difference between an ideal and actual reality. But then, my cynical side says that was one of the plaintiffs' main goals.

What happened to merit and earning your place? A person who works their butt off, achieves a high standard and demonstrates the potential to succeed in higher learning is dismissed in favour of someone who has not demonstrated either but has a specific skin colour. That's not affirmative action. That's racism.

[Jose Fly]

What happened to merit and earning your place? A person who works their butt off, achieves a high standard and demonstrates the potential to succeed in higher learning is dismissed in favour of someone who has not demonstrated either but has a specific skin colour. That's not affirmative action. That's racism.

Do you have a specific example of a high-achieving applicant being denied a spot that was instead given to a minority applicant that wasn't otherwise qualified?

[brunumb]

Some states are trying to ban affirmation-only care. Some states have banned it. If it's so great, and helps people so much, I can't help but wonder, where is the affirmation care for other disorders? Why affirmation and surgery for gender dysphoria but not for body dysmorphia? Where is the oversight that's somewhere between confused rednecks decrying what they don't understand, and laymen being allowed to question the idea that a lobotomy is good for you?

You made a lot of great points in that post and I would like to respond to more if I have time. This one about affirmative care really stood out. The focus has been on a very small proportion of the population while there are larger groups that are largely overlooked for such dedicated attention. Add to that the 'experimental' nature of alleged gender affirmative care involving surgical and chemical interventions. As someone said, they are trying to fly the plane and build it at the same time. Evidence coming out is that the best care is to wait it out as far as those extreme measures go as most of the issues eventually resolve themselves. The power yielded by groups such as Stonewall and BlackRock is driving a very specific and focused agenda with unfortunately serious negative consequences for everyone.

Another point in your response involved the question of what is a woman. When the response to that question is "anyone who identifies as a women" doesn't actually answer the question. They are saying who may be a woman without actually saying what being a woman actually means. It's circular. It's like asking someone "what is a cat?" and the response is "anything I call a cat". We are none the wiser of what a cat really is. If someone tells me that they are a woman they should also be able to tell me exactly what it is that makes them a woman.