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.

[brunumb]

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?

Do you not actually follow the news? The ruling was actually made on the basis of evidence demonstrating that very thing.

[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?

Do you not actually follow the news? The ruling was actually made on the basis of evidence demonstrating that very thing.

The SCOTUS case was brought by the Students for Fair Admissions Inc. (plaintiffs) who made the general argument that giving preference points based on race violated the Civil Rights Act and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. It was not brought by a specific student who argued that they were denied a spot that was instead given to an otherwise unqualified minority.

If you have a specific case, let's see it.

[brunumb]

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?

Do you not actually follow the news? The ruling was actually made on the basis of evidence demonstrating that very thing.

The SCOTUS case was brought by the Students for Fair Admissions Inc. (plaintiffs) who made the general argument that giving preference points based on race violated the Civil Rights Act and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. It was not brought by a specific student who argued that they were denied a spot that was instead given to an otherwise unqualified minority.

If you have a specific case, let's see it.

OK, I don't have a specific case and will not waste time looking for one. That said, the decision clearly validates the claim and that is what counts. If you prefer that a racist policy is used to offer positions to people in any institution, that is your prerogative.

[Jose Fly]

I don't have a specific case and will not waste time looking for one.

Noted.

[Purple Knight]

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.

So calling a trans man "not a man" is denying people basic civil rights, meanwhile calling a cis man "not a man" is fine because context. My gender identity is for people to trample if they have the right context, but if I try to treat a trans man exactly the same as you're treating a cis man, I get rightfully mobbed and fired from my job as a bigot. I think I get it.

[Diogenes]

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.

EXCELLENT point! Compared to the complaints about affirmative action there are almost ZERO complaints about 'legacy' enrollments. 'Legacy' is just another word for 'Good ol' boy' network. They go hand in hand with donations from the wealthy. "W" Bush did not get into Yale based on his test scores or grades and another recent President who won't disclose his grades got into Penn thru family connections, as did his mediocre kids.

[Diogenes]

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.

As I've mentioned, I am no fan of affirmative action (on principle), but my understanding is that ALL who are considered for admission must be qualified. IOW they have demonstrated potential to succeed before AA gives them any preference. MY gripe with AA is that it adds advantage solely because of 'race.' My close friend benefited from AA but was very highly qualified and may have been admitted to the University of Virginia and Georgetown Law School regardless of skin color. OTOH, both his parents were doctors (one medical and the other a Ph.D) but he got the same boost as some guy from the meanest circumstances who likely WAS held back because of his 'race.' (not to mention my friend was, despite his upper middle class background, discriminated against; it just wasn't as obvious or effective.)

BUT, probably the strongest rationale for 'affirmative action' is that in the U.S. we still have systemic, institutionalized racism which is fueled by genuine racial bigots, half of whom are oblivious to their own racism. So before AA gets junked (oops! too late) we need other methods to protect people from it. And that isn't going to happen. It's a lose-lose proposition and I don't pretend to have an answer.

[Jose Fly]

So calling a trans man "not a man" is denying people basic civil rights

I never said that.

meanwhile calling a cis man "not a man" is fine because context. My gender identity is for people to trample if they have the right context

Really? You don't understand that when someone makes a comment like that, they're not actually questioning your sex or gender and they're really just insulting or teasing you for not being sufficiently "manly'? So like when you're playing golf, and you don't hit the ball to the hole and another guy says "I think your purse got in the way", you understand that as him seriously questioning your sex/gender?

Come on.

but if I try to treat a trans man exactly the same as you're treating a cis man, I get rightfully mobbed and fired from my job as a bigot. I think I get it.

No, I don't think you're getting it at all.

[Purple Knight]

Really? You don't understand that when someone makes a comment like that, they're not actually questioning your sex or gender and they're really just insulting or teasing you for not being sufficiently "manly'? So like when you're playing golf, and you don't hit the ball to the hole and another guy says "I think your purse got in the way", you understand that as him seriously questioning your sex/gender?

Sex no. Gender yes. Some people think very seriously that manhood is earned. Some tribal cultures don't regard you as a man until you do some ritual, and this will have real consequences. Whether or not the person was born with XY chromosomes and male genitalia isn't what's being questioned.

Cis men question one another's gender identity and sexual orientation all the time. It wouldn't be sufficiently insulting to even be a tease if it wasn't the goal of the one being teased to be regarded as a straight man. That acknowledgement has been, since ever, something you don't get to demand from anyone.

Cis women also do things that demoralise other cis women out of their gender identity. You know that one girl who doesn't get to wear makeup or jewelry when the rest of the class does, because her parents are too conservative regarding their daughter as just a child? Nobody bats an eyelash at how the rest treat her, even if it includes saying she's a dog, not a girl. Nobody says that's "dehumanising" and nobody whips up mobs to shame people for saying it, yet I've heard it too often to count. Trump also uses it to describe ugly women if I'm not mistaken.

Equality for trans people would be that you have your gender identity questioned sometimes and it's hurtful, sometimes extremely hurtful. And you get over it. Equality for trans people is that you get treated exactly the same as cis people of your gender. Cis women are not nice to other cis women.

[brunumb]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #42]

Thomas Sowell explains what happened when they banned affirmative action in California (in this clip the url is copied at the start of the relevant segment so you don't have to watch the rest)

According to racial equality activist Richard Lapchick, the NBA in 2021 was composed of 73.2 percent black players, 16.8 percent white players, 3.1 percent Latino players of any race, and 0.4 percent Asian players.

But about 76% of the population is white. Should we apply some sort of affirmative action to ensure a better representation of white, or even just non-black players, in the NBA?