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]

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?

I don't see why people shouldn't choose Brunumb's side, if they want to. A while back scientists tried to redefine jellyfish as "jelly animals" because, scientifically, they are not fish. But it didn't catch on, and jellyfish remains correct. (And they also decided that fish isn't a monophyletic clade so it's not terribly orthodox classification anyway.)

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? Maybe we shouldn't dump on their identity.

If someone wants to identify as a woman because they have two X chromosomes and were born with a vagina, why should it matter if the science is on their side or not? Maybe we shouldn't dump on their identity.

And I don't see how legal policy on who should and should not get bottom surgery and what age they should be, is relevant.

Look at it from the other perspective. If hacking up a 13-year-old's genitalia really is abuse, even if they say they want it, then affirming that they need to be cut up since they were 13 and only doing it when they are 18, is the same sort of abuse. It comes from an initial assumption that this 13-year-old is probably (or at least reasonably might be) very, very wrong that this will make them happier and they need a chance to think about it seriously, examine the idea that they might be wrong seriously, and if they really are wrong, come to their senses. But how are they going to do that if their therapist is required by law to provide affirmation-only?

Why is affirmation-only not the law for anorexia? Anorexic chicks are hot. They also kill themselves or try to at a higher rate. Maybe affirmation-only care would help them. Yet, for this disorder, a 1% drop in physical health from having a low BMI is seen as more important than a 20% suicide rate. I wonder how many lives would be saved if their therapists were forced to tell them, yes, you're fat, I see it too, you couldn't get into Georgio's or The Blue Martini looking like that. We need to help you get thinner. And it's true. The best clubs are going to prefer the crack whore look, because it is hot. And maybe getting in and having a social life and some mental health is worth a small drop in physical health.

[Jose Fly]

I don't see why people shouldn't choose Brunumb's side, if they want to.

People can be on whatever side they want to. I don't think anyone has argued otherwise.

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? Maybe we shouldn't dump on their identity.

If someone wants to identify as a woman because they have two X chromosomes and were born with a vagina, why should it matter if the science is on their side or not? Maybe we shouldn't dump on their identity.

And I don't see how legal policy on who should and should not get bottom surgery and what age they should be, is relevant.

Agreed. People should be free to live as they please.

Look at it from the other perspective. If hacking up a 13-year-old's genitalia really is abuse, even if they say they want it, then affirming that they need to be cut up since they were 13 and only doing it when they are 18, is the same sort of abuse. It comes from an initial assumption that this 13-year-old is probably (or at least reasonably might be) very, very wrong that this will make them happier and they need a chance to think about it seriously, examine the idea that they might be wrong seriously, and if they really are wrong, come to their senses. But how are they going to do that if their therapist is required by law to provide affirmation-only?

Not sure what you're referring to, since I'm not aware of any affirmation only laws.

[Purple Knight]

Not sure what you're referring to, since I'm not aware of any affirmation only laws.

The source you linked was talking about what agender-affirming care is, and that it doesn't include sub-18-year-olds getting bottom surgery.

https://www.aamc.org/news/what-gender-a ... s-answered
Gender-affirming care, as defined by the World Health Organization, encompasses a range of social, psychological, behavioral, and medical interventions “designed to support and affirm an individual’s gender identity” when it conflicts with the gender they were assigned at birth.

In many cases, the law does say affirmation-only, which on its own ought to be concerning, because if the therapist can't help the patient at least explore the idea that they might not be gender-dysphoric, then the mind of the 18-year-old that 13-year-old becomes has probably not considered alternatives to surgery any more than the 13-year-old has, and you might as well just let the 13-year-old have the surgery.

I don't see why people shouldn't choose Brunumb's side, if they want to.

People can be on whatever side they want to. I don't think anyone has argued otherwise.

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? Maybe we shouldn't dump on their identity.

If someone wants to identify as a woman because they have two X chromosomes and were born with a vagina, why should it matter if the science is on their side or not? Maybe we shouldn't dump on their identity.

Agreed. People should be free to live as they please.

I think it's a problem that people are trying to cancel J.K. Rowling for having that unpopular identity.

Rowling commented: “’People who menstruate’. I’m sure there used to be a word for those people. Someone help me out. Wumben? Wimpund? Woomud?”
The author’s remark was immediately met with a backlash from people calling her “transphobic” and pointing out that it’s not just cis-gendered women who menstruate.

She clearly has an identity of "people who menstruate" and wants to call that "woman" and I don't see how that's transphobic; it's just exclusionary. It's not cisphobic for trans people to tell me I'm not trans, since they have their definition of what trans is, and they're welcome to exclude me on a clear definitional basis, even if I identify as trans.

I don't have a problem with people individually choosing not to buy Harry Potter merch, for any reason they personally choose. I do have a problem with whipping up social media mobs to bully people into not buying Harry Potter merch. You tell people they're "not an ally" you threaten to get them fired, you kick them out of your friend group? That's bullying.

[Jose Fly]

In many cases, the law does say affirmation-only

Where? Citation please.

I think it's a problem that people are trying to cancel J.K. Rowling for having that unpopular identity.

What do you mean by "cancel"? AFAICT, she's quite well off, certainly more so than me.

Rowling commented: “’People who menstruate’. I’m sure there used to be a word for those people. Someone help me out. Wumben? Wimpund? Woomud?”
The author’s remark was immediately met with a backlash from people calling her “transphobic” and pointing out that it’s not just cis-gendered women who menstruate.

She clearly has an identity of "people who menstruate" and wants to call that "woman" and I don't see how that's transphobic; it's just exclusionary.

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

I don't have a problem with people individually choosing not to buy Harry Potter merch, for any reason they personally choose. I do have a problem with whipping up social media mobs to bully people into not buying Harry Potter merch. You tell people they're "not an ally" you threaten to get them fired, you kick them out of your friend group? That's bullying.

How can one be "bullied" into not buying merch? The only way complete strangers would know if you even bought anything would be if you posted about it online.

And I've not seen anyone be fired for buying Harry Potter books.

[brunumb]

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

Gender ideology is rather like religion. Self-identifying is an unfalsifiable claim. At least when someone identifies as a horse we can see that it is a false claim. Being born in the wrong body is an impossibility. Believing that one is in the wrong body is clearly a mental condition and should be addressed as such. Surgical and chemical castration is not what one should consider as care in such cases, certainly not when it comes to children caught up in the prevailing hysteria.

[brunumb]

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?

Not just my say-so. Scientists (as well as people in many other fields) are being cancelled and losing their jobs when they try to even just ask questions. Trans activists will not even engage in debate. Their strategy is to shut down all conversation and apply verbal and physical abuse if necessary. That is because their position is actually full of contradictions and patently wrong. One can't defend any of it within a rational debate and they cannot risk being exposed as peddlers of a false ideology. LGB people are now suffering as a result, and even the ordinary trans people who just want to live their lives are now being more negatively impacted than before. Nothing to be proud about.

The education system in the US has been subverted by radical activists. When an allegedly 'scientific' article waves rainbow flags before promoting their obvious agenda you have to question their integrity. The science has been in for millions of years, unless you are also an evolution denier. Suddenly, mass hysteria has erupted and the natural order has been overturned. Yeah, right. You should look up Asch's conformity experiment to see how easy it is to get people to go along with a proposition that they inherently know is actually wrong.

[brunumb]

It's transphobic in that she's saying that trans women aren't women

It's not transphobic to say that trans women aren't women, because they are not. So-called trans women are men who think they are women or want to be women. One doesn't have to hate that person because one is not willing to deny their own understanding of what is the truth. Slinging around derogatory terms does not validate a position.

[brunumb]

How can one be "bullied" into not buying merch? The only way complete strangers would know if you even bought anything would be if you posted about it online.

And I've not seen anyone be fired for buying Harry Potter books.

You seem to be operating from a position of denial. Activists are constantly calling for any prominent people that challenge their views to be boycotted, cancelled, or even to top themselves. Teachers, reporters and others in the public eye are losing their jobs for even just asking questions. In the UK a bank cancelled an account of someone who asked why there were pride flags everywhere. Step outside of your bubble and take a good look around.

[Jose Fly]

Gender ideology is rather like religion. Self-identifying is an unfalsifiable claim. At least when someone identifies as a horse we can see that it is a false claim. Being born in the wrong body is an impossibility. Believing that one is in the wrong body is clearly a mental condition and should be addressed as such. Surgical and chemical castration is not what one should consider as care in such cases, certainly not when it comes to children caught up in the prevailing hysteria.

Not just my say-so. Scientists (as well as people in many other fields) are being cancelled and losing their jobs when they try to even just ask questions. Trans activists will not even engage in debate. Their strategy is to shut down all conversation and apply verbal and physical abuse if necessary. That is because their position is actually full of contradictions and patently wrong. One can't defend any of it within a rational debate and they cannot risk being exposed as peddlers of a false ideology. LGB people are now suffering as a result, and even the ordinary trans people who just want to live their lives are now being more negatively impacted than before. Nothing to be proud about.

The education system in the US has been subverted by radical activists. When an allegedly 'scientific' article waves rainbow flags before promoting their obvious agenda you have to question their integrity. The science has been in for millions of years, unless you are also an evolution denier. Suddenly, mass hysteria has erupted and the natural order has been overturned. Yeah, right. You should look up Asch's conformity experiment to see how easy it is to get people to go along with a proposition that they inherently know is actually wrong.

It's not transphobic to say that trans women aren't women, because they are not. So-called trans women are men who think they are women or want to be women. One doesn't have to hate that person because one is not willing to deny their own understanding of what is the truth. Slinging around derogatory terms does not validate a position.

You seem to be operating from a position of denial. Activists are constantly calling for any prominent people that challenge their views to be boycotted, cancelled, or even to top themselves. Teachers, reporters and others in the public eye are losing their jobs for even just asking questions. In the UK a bank cancelled an account of someone who asked why there were pride flags everywhere. Step outside of your bubble and take a good look around.

Again, nothing more than your empty say-so topped off with anti-trans bigotry (funny how sometimes you say you support the "real transgenders", but later wave away being transgender with things like "being born in the wrong body is an impossibility"). Just like trying to discuss science with creationists. I show the science and you/creationists just wave it away and reply with baseless assertions.

I can tell you keep trying to hide your bigotry, but I got news for ya....you aren't really pulling it off. If you want to be a full-on bigot, just drop the charade and be one.

[Diogenes]

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.

Just a comment on logic:
That "woman" and "man" are primarily "self-labeling identities" does not establish a "right" for people to choose their identity. This is important because as you say "The government has created some protected classes of people." If one can simply choose to include themselves in a protected class a white male could enter himself in a protected class simply by choosing to be a black woman.

Or to use Jose Fly's example, one could decide to be a horse... or a god.

BTW, I am Jesus of Nazareth, an eternal living god. Before me every knee should bow.

Again, I am merely addressing the logic involved. If science supports it I have no problem with people being, and declaring themselves to be, "transgender," bisexual, homosexual or that they fit into any other category they choose, IF the appropriate science suggests such a category is 'real' and they qualify. I see no good purpose for people fitting themselves into whatever category they want regardless of any objective evidence that they so qualify... particularly if they are then going to claim some privilege by putting themselves into the class.

It's no skin off my nose if they want to say they are 'this' or 'that,' tho' it's annoying if they want to make a big deal about it and insist language should change to accommodate their whims. We have enough real issues to deal with without being expected to indulge every one's claim to be 'special.'
Also, this stuff has the potential to distract and degrade protected classes of people who have historically suffered actual disadvantage and hardship because of their genuine membership in such a class.

If you want to be 'special,' do something that merits it. Win a Nobel Prize, get a doctorate, write a great book, compose a great song... or ... let your wit establish your credentials.

... or just wear a funny hat.