Why I Identify as Mammal
opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com
opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com
I'm a man by biological fact, not by identifying as one. Same with race, species, etc. Personally, I find the idea as someone "identifying" as another sex just as ridiculous as a completely white person "identifying" as black. Fact is, if you're white, no amount of convincing, shaming and delusion will change that.
> A key assumption in social identity theory is that individuals are intrinsically motivated to achieve positive distinctiveness. That is, individuals “strive for a positive self-concept”.
Are you proud to be an American, where at least you'll know you're free? If so, are you a Democrat, Republican, Green, Libertarian, or something else?
Are you proud to be Irish? A Son of Scandinavia? A Daughter of the American Revolution? Do you say it loud that you are black and proud?
Are you a Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, or member in another religion? (You don't need to think it makes sense, only that you follow religious practices.)
Are you a Ramblin' Wreck from Georgia Tech and a hell of an engineer? An Aggie? A Boomer Sooner? Proud alumni of Wossamotta U?
Are you a little monster? Juggalo? Parrothead? Deadhead? Belieber? Fanilow? Member of the KISS army?
A sporto, motorhead, geek, slut, blood, wastoid, dweeb, or dickhead?
Fan of any sports team?
Are you a runner? Cyclist? Swimmer? Triathlete? Dancer? Skier?
Trekkie? Trekker? SF fan? Con goer? Filker? Otaku?
Employee? True Blue employee of IBM? When you get cut, do you bleed in 6 colors? Are you an entrepreneur? Agileist? Extreme programmer? RAD programmer?
Citizen? Taxpayer? Loving parent? Faithful child?
While some of these are certainly facts - everyone is a child - identity comes into play when there are actions used to achieve what you consider to be a positive distinctiveness.
For possible examples: you are a Muslim so you fast for Ramadan. You wear the jersey of a favorite sports team. You have figurines from your favorite series on your desk. You fly the flag on independence day. You wear green on St. Patrick's Day. You are Catholic and get marked on the forehead for Ash Wednesday. You call your mother on her birthday because it's something a good child should do. You give money to beggars because it's what a good citizen with a bit of extra money should do. You ... well, you get the idea.
On the flip side, students may be required to run as part of P.E. class. They are "runners" in the sense that they are run, but they might not identify as a "runner" if they don't consider it a positive distinctiveness.
I see from your comments that you consider yourself to be a programmer. It's something you do in your free time. If you had the money to be financially independent, you would do more programming. You are on a discussion forum for "hackers".
Why should I believe that you don't identify as being a programmer?
Do you really not notice how identity issues pervade human culture?
I understand "pride" as a satisfaction about one's own actions and accomplishments, and as such I think that being "proud" to be black, or American, or Irish is stupid; be proud of the decisions you took and of the things you've accomplished, not of the way you were born.
> Are you a Christian, [...] Parrothead, [...] Swimmer, [...] SF fan, [...] entrepreneur, [...], Taxpayer?
Most of these don't denote identity, they are just descriptions that allow us to stereotype people in some way and make better decisions faster. E.g. if I know someone is a Muslim, I can reasonably assume that s/he will observe Ramadan. Or if I know that a person is a Mets fan, I can infer the cause of his/her sadness if I know that Mets lost that day.
I do realize that some people strongly identify with their "identities", but I think that that kind of in-group behaviour originates from a lack of self-confidence and I consider it silly. It also often has very bad consequences, e.g. football hooliganism in the UK.
But in any case, most of the above are choices, not immutable facts. I'm a programmer because I know how to program and I do it often; if I started spending most of my time fishing, I'd be a fisherman instead. Perhaps a better example is the fact I consider myself a "geek"; but again, that's simply because my natural tendencies and interests fit the stereotypical description of a geek, and I distinguish true geeks (like myself or e.g. comic books fans) from the people that want to be geeks just because it's cool (e.g. because of Zuckerberg, or the influence of Big Bang Theory, or because it pays well) without actually having geeky interests.
Most of the above are fundamentally different from biological facts such as sex and race, in the sense that they arise from our choices, and can change over time. Instead, some people want to make sex a choice as well, so they made up the concept of "gender", and they intentionally conflate these concepts by suing the same categories (man/male can mean either sex or gender for them). Personally, I'm perfectly OK with a man being feminine, dressing up in stereotypically women's clothing, fitting the traditionally female social roles, etc. But he's still a man, biologically.
Not sure if this comment makes much sense, I just tried to gather a few thoughts I had about your comment.
Your views are your views. My examples were to give a hint of the identities that exist. Be aware that others do strongly disagree with you. Suppose my father had risked his life before I was born in order to save 25 people. I could be proud of his actions even though I had nothing to with it. If you do not call that feeling "pride", then do you have a better name? Or is your point that I should not have or express those feelings?
The gay pride parade in San Francisco, for example, is a celebration of the "the rebellion of LGBT patrons of the Stonewall Inn in New York City’s Greenwich Village in response to a routine police raid on June 27, 1969." In general, it is in honor of the many people who fought for rights and recognition, and support for those who still face difficulties in being LGBT in more than the descriptive name you want it to be. Eg, see http://chrisstedman.religionnews.com/2014/11/04/gay-pride-at... and http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2014/11/01/peter-boghossia... .
I believe it is both reasonable and appropriate to feel pride in those cases, even though it was not the product of direct work by those who feel pride. I think you will find that your views are in the small minority. Australian Prime Minister Rudd was "absolutely proud" of the Australian involvement in Gallipoli campaign, which happened decades before he was born. Similarly, US President Reagan, on the 40th anniversary of D-Day said of those who died while he was living in California, 'We will always remember. We will always be proud. We will always be prepared, so we may always be free.'
> Most of these don't denote identity, they are just descriptions
Yes, that's what I wrote.
I then followed it up with "identity comes into play when there are actions used to achieve what you consider to be a positive distinctiveness." I even gave an example of the difference between 'runner' as a description and 'runner' as part of an identity.
> E.g. if I know someone is a Muslim, I can reasonably assume that s/he will observe Ramadan
You have just described an example of identity.
People will often say that the newborn of two Muslim people is itself Muslim. That is a description.
When that child grows up, and voluntarily follows the rules around Ramadan, then ask that person "why are you fasting during the day?" The answer will be some variation of "I'm Muslim, and that's what we do".
That's both description and identity.
> Most of the above are fundamentally different from biological facts such as sex and race
Without loss of generality, I will assume that you were born biologically male. I agree, that is not identity, that is description.
Now you are an adult. Why do you not wear dresses, skirts, and other clothes that are typically worn only by women? For example, if you could get a nice blouse and skirt combination which fit you well, for only $80, how much more would you be willing to spend to get a shirt and slacks? And why?
We apply the name "transvestite" or "cross-dresser" for those people who dress in clothing that is typically used by the other gender. This can be purely descriptive. Perhaps you wear skirts because they are cheaper than slacks. Male train drivers in Stockholm wore skirts because the temperatures were too hot and the dress code allows skirts but not shorts. But if you ask a dress-wearing male why he is wearing a dress, and the answer is something like "I like the look", then that's positive and intrinsic distinctiveness, which is closer to what people mean by a transgender identity.
Or if you ask some men from the UK, apparently Stockholm men in general "dress like girls". http://www.thelocal.se/discuss/index.php?showtopic=18090
Part of your identity is what you wear. You likely do not wear dresses, even when there are advantages to doing so (lighter, easier to pack, cooler, cheaper, etc.). You likely never were put in the situation where you had to decide. Thus, you don't recognize that you have a straight-dresser identity because you've never thought of it. It's what you grew up with, so you think your choice is natural, when it's merely one of the culturally defined easiest choices.
Even inside the world of "male clothes" there are many identities. We see that in the phrase "must dress professionally", which is code for fitting into a certain cultural identity. If you ask someone in a suit why they wear a suit, "my job requires it" is more descriptive while "I am a manager" is more an expression of identity.
So you can see that a word can be used as a description, and can also be used as a form of identity.
The same holds with "male". It can be descriptive, but it's also used to describe identity. It used to be that males were secretaries, and males were nurses, so there's no intrinsic genetic basis for that choice. It wasn't until the Victorian era when that changed, as with Florence Nightingale's work to professionalize nursing roles for women. (Nightingale wrote ' In one sense, I do believe I am “like a man,” as Parthe says. But how? In having sympathy. ... Women crave for being loved, not for loving.' What a far cry from the current stereotype that women are all about nurturing and loving.)
If someone is a nurse because it was the only job that was available, then that's a more descriptive label. If a better paying job opens up tomorrow, that person might jump ship. But if the person answers "I am a nurse because I love caring for people in need" or "I come from a family of nurses and it felt like the best fit for me", then that's more an expression of identity.
Just like someone who is born female might want to wear "men's" clothing, someone born female might want to do things which are typically done by those born male. For example, a girl who enjoys getting dirty, climbs trees, plays with cars, and does other things which our culture associates with "boys" is sometimes called a "tomboy". This can be interpreted as purely descriptive, but it's not. As the girl gets older, that term gets increasingly used as a negative word meant to guide the girl into more gender appropriate roles. Some females will use "tomboy" as a form of identity, like this question at https://www.quora.com/My-husband-keeps-saying-that-I-am-not-... "My husband keeps saying that I am not a girl because I don't like girly things. I am a tomboy. I suck at emotions too. How do I explain him why I feel bad when he says that?" (Some of the answers in that are chock full of culturally coded gender stereotypes.) http://thefbomb.org/2013/06/tomboy-exceptionalism-im-not-lik... gives a different view on "Tomboy Exceptionalism."
As you say, "male" is a description that is applied to many people based on biological attributes. But "male" also means the set of cultural roles associated with being someone born a male. If someone born a female would prefer one of those typically male cultural roles, then that's often described as being a female who identifies as a man, or at least has a transgender identity.
> But he's still a man, biologically.
Exactly. Hence that has as little to do with one's identity as being right-handed or blue-eyed or straight-haired. But if you are born male, then you grew up in a culture which placed certain expectations on what it means to be a male in the culture, and you likely took one of those routes. It's easy to for you to identify as a man because the culture made that the easy option for you.
(We also have people who are straight-haired who curl their hair, and curly-haired people who straighten their hair. We have people whose hair is greying so they dye it to hide the grey, and people who dye their hair to try out a new look. All of them fall in the category of people who want to be different than how they were biologically born.)
BTW, race is not a "biological fact". It is first and foremost a social construct. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_%28human_categorization%2... .
Regarding your "geek" example, you regard it as an aspect of "natural tendencies and interests". This is an essentialist viewpoint. How do you know that you were born in that and only that way? A non-essentialist view is that as a child you had many different traits and propensities. The culture you grew up in supported some and rejected others, and so guided your development. In western cultures, it's generally more acceptable for males to be loners, and work on "hard" science, while females are expected to socialize and think that "math is hard - let's go shopping", or to go to college for an "MRS" degree.
If you as a baby were adopted into a different culture, you might well have ended up as a fisherman instead of a "geek", despite your beliefs in a natural tendency toward geekness.
Instead, you chose to take on the identity of a geek, including likely the clothing choices and attitudes. Nor is it a co-incidence that these 'natural tendencies' of yours happen to end up with you making similar choices to others. That's clear from looking at the history; geek styles change over time, and coherently. This is geek culture, and geek identity.
Another part of your identity as a geek is that you can tell who is a geek and who is not, and that others share your definition.
Being a geek is therefore part of your identity.
1. Race. I agree that to a large extent, "race" is defined and interpreted by humans, and there is no clear biological distinction, and whatever categories we try define are very fuzzy, overlapping and changing. However, in my view there is a clearly obvious biological fact that there are distinct races, e.g. white, black, Asian [1] [2]. Sure, the categories are somewhat arbitrary and were made up largely to group large numbers of similar people together, but I nevertheless find the concept of race useful. For example, it can be used as a description ("the black man" if there is one black and one white person), or to make certain assumptions (e.g. in Slovenia, a black or Asian person is almost invariable a foreigner, so I'd use English to address them). Also, I agree that the concept itself is a bit controversial, both because there are more and more people of mixed race, and that people use race to make useless, harmful distinctions (e.g. "black people are criminals", or "whites with dreads are appropriating black culture", or "my skin is white but I identify as black" as I mentioned before).
[1] http://econintersect.com/images/2014/11/15608366ztemp.png
[2] http://shirleymaya.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Beauty1.jp...
2. Geek. I don't see "geek" as my identity, but merely as a description; the description, of course, could instead be elaborated into "likes computers, dislikes group sports, introverted" and so on, but given that there are so many people that share this attributes that they even form groups and share common experiences and culture, a description such as "geek" is useful. In contrast, if someone is using "geek" just as an identity (i.e. "I don't like computers, I like sports, and I'm really extroverted, but I'm still a geek") without otherwise fitting the description, I find that pretentious and fake and hence I dislike it.
Note that not everyone might agree with above description of what constitutes a "geek" - even I could list many more attributes and I agree that not every geek fits all of them; but it's the same way with many other terms that nevertheless have broad, common usage, e.g. "object-oriented programming" [3] ; and they're still useful, in the sense that most people would agree with "C is less OO than Java, which is less OO than Python".
Temporally, I'm not particularly attached to the word "geek". In particular, if my preferences ever change, I'll gladly admit that I no longer fit the stereotype of a "geek" and adopt a different fitting description shortcut. Admittedly, I'm probably less of a geek now then I used to be, because I've tried to be less introverted (not necessarily because it's my preference, but because I find it useful in achieving other goals); I still like math though :) Also, I'm perfectly happy if the word "geek" was used in a different way in the past (c.f. "gay"), or if it ever changes in the future. I would object a forceful redefinition of the word, such as what some people are attempting to do with "man"/"woman", because I perceive that as a political statement, indicative of a sort of "holier-than-thou" belief. Then again, my opposition to the redefinition of words is just as much of a political statement ("leave me alone and let me be") as others' attempts to redefine the words ("we're better" than you and our world is more ideal* than yours"). Pluto will always be a planet for me.
Also, I don't really care if I'm a geek because I was born that way, because I was intentionally raised that way, or because of some other non-genetic influences. Of course a lot of my preferences exist because of familiarity; but at the same time, I'm pretty open to trying new things, in fact I'm drawn to it. (More on this later...)
[3] http://www.paulgraham.com/reesoo.html
3. Pride. You can totally be proud of actions of other people, e.g. your father or your ancestors. But I don't think that you're justified about feeling better about yourself just because your ancestors are great; equally, I don't see a reason you should feel bad because your ancestors were shitty (e.g. "white guilt" [4] (especially when wielded as insult against white people that never enslaved, colonized or otherwise oppressed any other group of people, and were actually oppressed themselves, e.g. most Eastern European Slavic nations), or the idea that Germans should feel bad for what their ancestors did).
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_guilt
4. Identity. Most examples that you list I would classify as "description" or "preference" rather than "identity". I'll address the following ones: Muslim, manager, nurse, and male/female (regarding clothing and behavior).
I understand "because I'm a manager" as purely descriptive; s/he's just using the implied general knowledge about cultural/social standards about how managers (and the like) are expected to dress in most companies. Indeed, saying "because I'm a manager, and managers are required to wear suits" would be superfluous. There's also the social status that comes with being a manager that might be the reason someone mentions it. For example, a friend of mine has a graduated response to the question "what do you do"; he can answer either "I work in finance", "I work in a hedge fund" or "I'm a trader", depending on how much he wants the audience to know (or not know) about his income and/or wealth.
It's similar with a nurse; if someone said "I like being a nurse", I would understand this as an expression of preference, in the sense of "I like most things that come with the job of being a nurse" (e.g. caring people).
I'd say that being a Muslim is the most identity-like. In the strict sense, "Muslim" means "someone who believes in and lives according to Quran", so someone saying "I'm fasting because I'm a Muslim" would mean "I'm fasting because my preference is to follow the Quran and Quran says that I should fast during Ramadan." In a broader sense, "Muslim" is also a culture, so you might want to observe certain parts of the culture even though you don't believe in Allah.
A better example: "Jewish" is denotes a religion, a culture, and an ethnicity. So if someone says "he's a Jew", that might mean a biological fact ("he has a Jewish mother"), or a preference ("he likes living according to Jewish religion/culture"). Furthermore, people will pick and choose different traditions for different reasons; some eat Kosher, others only avoid pork, yet others eat everything; some are Orthodox, some insist on marrying Jews because that's what their parents expect of them, some just don't care. People do strongly identify with being a Jew, so it is an identity of sorts, but in the end, it's largely a voluntary choice.
The most obvious example where "Muslim" is used as a description is the finer distinction between "Sunni" and "Shia" Muslims; sometimes, they present a united front (e.g. when protesting depictions of Muhammad), at other occasions, they slaughter each other (now in Syria). We don't have any shortcut word for the description of "people who perform circumcision", but both Jews and Muslims fall under this description, and they present a unified front when necessary (e.g. when protesting the German decision to ban circumcision).
Finally, regarding male/female, masculine/feminine. Mostly as I said above, I consider these mostly descriptive. For example, I sexually I prefer women (because I like touching pussy, but not other dicks), but I prefer girls that "think like a man" - more analytically, less emotionally (IME men are more likely to be like that). So I totally don't get why "tomboy" would be considered an insult; my answer to the Quora question would be "you probably have no reason to feel bad about it!" On the other hand, I'm visually attracted to attributes that are stereotypically feminine: long hair, full lips, boobs.
I dress like a man (1) because I was brought up that way, so I'm used to it and it's very convenient for me, and (2) because it's useful - not necessarily useful just in ways you mentioned, but mainly socially useful - I'm aware of the fact that if I wore girly clothes, people would perceive me differently. Now, you might say it's bad and we're working on changing that perception, but in the area that matters most to many people - intersexual relationships - there's barely any change. Women still crave masculine men (even feminists [5]), while men still crave feminine women (in general; there are exceptions, of course). You can see that even in same-sex relationships - often one partner will be more masculine and the other more feminine! I don't otherwise have no attachment to the specifically masculine way of dressing, and sometimes I envy women their broader range of socially-accepted clothing.
[5] http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20774276,00.html
Biologists for the large part disagree with you. The examples you gave derive from a cultural interpretation based on certain phenotypes. It has no biological fact any more than saying that some dogs are short-haired and others are long-haired.
If it's not clearly obvious to biologists, then it's much more likely that you do not understand the issue.
> I don't see "geek" as my identity
As far as I can tell, you don't recognize the existence of identity as a principle, which leads you to reject the idea that you have multiple identities. The reason why issues of identity don't concern you is that you seem to be part of a well known, large, and easily recognized subculture. You don't have to explain yourself to anyone because your identity is obvious to others.
But look at the terms 'pretentious and fake' that you used. They are terms of identity, eg, people who act above their station are pretentious. An equivalent term not based in identity would be "incorrect", as in "I find that incorrect and hence I dislike it."
Or look at how you reject the idea of sports geeks, like http://thesportsgeeks.com/ . If you ever saw the series "Sports Night", the character Jeremy Goodwin is a portrayal of a sports geek.
> I would object a forceful redefinition of the word ["geek"], such as what some people are attempting to do with "man"/"woman"
I get the idea that you are a social conservative, who believes that the terms you grew up with are somehow the correct terms and should not change. The problem is that terms, culture, and people change. The change is most obvious as a baby grows into adulthood and decides which identities to take on.
The term "geek", of course, has changed several times. I don't know what "forceful" means. Is a geek pride day 'forceful'? Quoting from a 1998 article at https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1933&dat=19980416&id=... - "Dorks of the world, unite! ... Pocket-protectors are recommended ... it's time for geeks to come out of the cubicle ... 'There's a real pent-up desire to come forward'". Are the Stonewall Riots, which were part of the events that helped redefine "gay", not forceful?
How did the term "geek" change, if not by force? Because I lived through the era when "geek", "nerd", and "dork" where synonymous, and movies like "Revenge of the Nerds" and "Real Genius" helped redefine what those terms meant in popular culture.
> You can totally be proud of actions of other people ... I don't think that you're justified about feeling better about yourself just because your ancestors are great
It appears that you have changed your mind. Earlier you said 'I understand "pride" as a satisfaction about one's own actions and accomplishments, and as such I think that being "proud" to be black, or American, or Irish is stupid; be proud of the decisions you took and of the things you've accomplished, not of the way you were born.'
How do you reconcile your view that pride must be due to 'satisfaction about one's own actions and accomplishments' with your acceptance that someone may be 'proud of actions of other people'? Because to me it sounds like you don't have a good understanding for yourself of what pride means, and end up by using an argument that I've otherwise seen used mostly to dismiss "gay pride", "Indian pride", "black pride", "geek pride", etc. movements as being illogical and therefore unreasonable.
> I don't see a reason you should feel bad because your ancestors were shitty
As a reminder, the definition of "identity" I gave was in regards to 'what you consider to be a positive distinctiveness'. Feeling shitty is not positive, so your comments here are tangential to the topic of what identity means.
> s/he's just using the implied general knowledge about cultural/social standards about how managers (and the like) are expected to dress in most companies
Yes, "expected to dress" can be part of identity.
The difficulty with your purely descriptive interpretation is that it has no predictive power.
What would happen if tomorrow the job policies changed so that, starting next month, everyone had to wear evening gowns while at work? (Assume it's a company issued evening gown, made to order for each person, this is a non-customer facing job, and there is a changing room so people can change at the office.) Some people, including some men, wouldn't care. Others would. Some might quit, rather than see themselves as being a cross-dresser.
How do you interpret the protests that are likely to occur, using your descriptive framework?
Identity is a matter of degree. Suppose you told a programmer "if you quit your job I'll pay you the equivalent in income but you aren't allowed to program ever again." Some programmers would jump at the chance. I think about it in horror. My identity is so tied in to being a programmer that I don't think I would accept even 3x my salary to stop being a programmer.
Your descriptive framework has no way to evaluate an emotional reaction like mine.
You could apply the same economics framework to other identities. Those with a strong vegetarian identity (assuming no digestion issues) wouldn't eat a piece of bacon even if you offered to give them $1,000. Some might even prefer to die rather than eat meat. While those with a weak identity as a vegetarian might find it worthwhile. Or you can look at other enticements. The Jews were expelled from Spain in 1492. Some decided it was more worthwhile to stay, and became conversos. Some conversos was actually crypto-Jews, and continued to keep their Jewish identity despite the likely brutal consequences.
Your descriptive framework doesn't explain why the Jews in Spain didn't simply convert en masse to Catholics. The identify framework does.
> People do strongly identify with being a Jew, so it is an identity of sorts, but in the end, it's largely a voluntary choice.
Umm, yes. Identity is all about voluntary choice.
> stereotypically feminine
You expressed preferences. Preferences are at best the mildest form of identity. You might prefer long-haired women, but would likely not break up with someone who gets a haircut, nor would abstain from sex for years should short hair become popular again, such that effectively no available women have long hair.
> I dress like a man (1) because
Yes, dressing as a man is part of your identity. How is my statement incorrect? What would it take for you to start dressing like a woman all the time? You envy a woman's broader range - is it only your fear of social snubbing keeping you back?
For that matter, there's a wide range of men's clothing styles. What keeps you from exploring them?
> Women still crave masculine men
What the ... ? Seriously? You linked to a People magazine article about two people? How is that proof of anything?
If it's proof, why don't you accept my example of how some UK men think that the men in Stockholm "dress like girls" as a counter-example? One of the comments in that thread posits the exact opposite as you, saying "to get a girl..look like a girl lol".
And why wouldn't some feminists be sexually attracted to movie stars or athletes? I don't see how the desire to have equal rights for women in the workplace and in society has any bearing.
> Biologists for the large part disagree with you. It has no biological fact any more than saying that some dogs are short-haired and others are long-haired.
Either those biologists also deny that dogs have breeds and are painfully stupid, or they use "biological fact" differently than I do (I use it in the sense of "genetics").
> The reason why issues of identity don't concern you is that you seem to be part of a well known, large, and easily recognized subculture. You don't have to explain yourself to anyone because your identity is obvious to others.
I've no idea what you're trying to say here. I've been an abused "minority" most of my youth (before being a "geek" became cool), and I never had the need to explain myself. Most of those who scream about "identity" are not very tiny subcultures either.
> But look at the terms 'pretentious and fake' that you used. They are terms of identity, eg, people who act above their station are pretentious.
I use "pretentious" to mean "trying to impress by pretending", which is pretty much the dictionary definition that has nothing to do with identity.
> I get the idea that you are a social conservative, who believes that the terms you grew up with are somehow the correct terms and should not change.
If you say so... although I'm not convinced - I'm exactly the opposite of Wikipedia's description ("opposition to abortion, LGBT rights, gender equality"). I just oppose the politicization of speech; I oppose Pluto not being a planet any more and the widespread use of the word "terrorist" in media for the same reason.
> How did the term "geek" change, if not by force?
Was the mainstream media screaming that the term should be used in a certain way, and shaming those who disobeyed?
> Because I lived through the era when "geek", "nerd", and "dork" where synonymous, and movies like "Revenge of the Nerds" and "Real Genius" helped redefine what those terms meant in popular culture.
Aren't "geek" and "nerd" still synonyms? The only usage of "dork" I'm familiar with is as an insult, but then I'm not from the US so I haven't been exposed to the term a lot. The change of the meaning over generations isn't forceful, people simply die off.
> How do you reconcile your view that pride must be due to 'satisfaction about one's own actions and accomplishments' with your acceptance that someone may be 'proud of actions of other people'?
When you say "I'm proud of him", I understand that as (a) you think he can be proud of his accomplishments, or (b) you're proud of the influence you had on him that resulted in his accomplishments (e.g. parents being proud of their children). Being "proud of MLK" is fine, what he did was amazing, but being "proud to be black" is, as you suggested, illogical and unreasonable.
> As a reminder, the definition of "identity" I gave was in regards to 'what you consider to be a positive distinctiveness'.
This was regarding pride, not identity. Obviously, if we accept the premise that people should be proud of something they didn't do, they should also be ashamed of things they didn't do. Both of which are ridiculous.
>The difficulty with your purely descriptive interpretation is that it has no predictive power. [...] My identity is so tied in to being a programmer that I don't think I would accept even 3x my salary to stop being a programmer. [...] Your descriptive framework has no way to evaluate an emotional reaction like mine. [...] You expressed preferences. Preferences are at best the mildest form of identity.
I think this is it. What you call identity I call preferences (what you prefer). Further, I take goals (what you want) and actions (how you get it) into account. For example, your goals are programming (gives you intellectual pleasure) and money (assuming you want to retire). But your preferences are programming > money, which explains you actions. The difference is that I don't identify with my preferences, I observe or discover them. Then I adjust my actions to suit them. I've no attachment to them.
> You envy a woman's broader range - is it only your fear of social snubbing keeping you back?
That, and familiarity with male clothing.
> For that matter, there's a wide range of men's clothing styles. What keeps you from exploring them?
I avoid clothing that would be too much of a statement, which is how most people interpret fashion nowadays.
>And why wouldn't some feminists be sexually attracted to movie stars or athletes? I don't see how the desire to have equal rights for women in the workplace and in society has any bearing.
In addition to equal rights, feminists also try to abolish social roles. The irony being that it isn't working, as they still conform to them!
> There is a wide consensus that the racial categories that are common in everyday usage are socially constructed, and that racial groups cannot be biologically defined
That quote is followed by several references. The only one which isn't to a book is http://www.americananthro.org/ConnectWithAAA/Content.aspx?It... :
> "Race" thus evolved as a worldview, a body of prejudgments that distorts our ideas about human differences and group behavior. Racial beliefs constitute myths about the diversity in the human species and about the abilities and behavior of people homogenized into "racial" categories. The myths fused behavior and physical features together in the public mind, impeding our comprehension of both biological variations and cultural behavior, implying that both are genetically determined. Racial myths bear no relationship to the reality of human capabilities or behavior. Scientists today find that reliance on such folk beliefs about human differences in research has led to countless errors.
Yes, I believe you are making an error by assuming that "race" is meaningful in this discussion. (We are not talking about forensic anthropology, which is one of the few contexts where it has some meaning.)
Most emphatically, "black" is not a meaningful racial category. Black skin is only one of many phenotypes that could be used to split up people into groups. Why not blood type (which is a discrimination issue in Japan)? Ear shape? Lactase persistence?
What you call 'breeds' for dogs would correspond more to the ethnic Icelanders or the Ashkenazi Jews, who are often studied because of their relatively isolated genetic heritage. It does not correspond to race.
At this this point it's up to you to demonstrate - with reference to recent peer-reviewed literature and not imagery from decades old text books or pop culture magazines - that there is a useful genetic definition behind race. I've provided plenty of evidence to back my position. It seems to me that all you have is your belief that you are right.
Quoting now from you:
> I never had the need to explain myself
That is not strong counter-evidence. A nun, wearing a habit, does not need to explain to people that she is a member of a religious order. A beggar on the street doesn't have to explain the role of a beggar. If you fit into your cultural role, and especially if it is a culturally acceptable role, then there's little need to explain yourself.
Do note that I wrote "well known, large, and easily recognized subculture". You somehow interpreted that to exclude minority groups. It does not. A minority group, like blacks in the US, can still meet my qualifiers. An example of a minority group which does not is the Hmong population in the US.
> proud to be black
I do not believe that you have read the links I gave, which explain why it is incorrect to interpret this as 'I am proud to have black skin'; though the links were about LGBT and not black skin, the principle is the same. I shall quote from the second of those links:
> LGBT pride does not mean being proud of having been born lesbian, gay, bisexual, or trans.
> It means being proud of having survived.
> It means being proud of living in a homophobic, biphobic, transphobic society — a society that commonly treats us with contempt at best and violent hatred at worst — and still getting on with our lives. It means being proud of flourishing, in a society that commonly thinks we’re broken.
Again, the emotion you hear from me is the tired frustration of tracking down and linking to relevant resources, only to conclude that it's going to waste.
You write:
> pretentious" to mean "trying to impress by pretending", which is pretty much the dictionary definition that has nothing to do with identity
Here are some examples to show that they are more often coupled than I would expect if "pretentious" had nothing to do with identity:
"Self and Pretence: Playing with Identity" - http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9833.2008....
"A person who assumes a false identity makes a false pretence to which this section applies ..." - http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/sa/consol_act/clca1935262...
"The story humorously illustrates the differences between Mrs. Johnson and her shy younger daughter Maggie, who both still adhere to traditional black culture in the rural South, and her educated, successful daughter Dee, or "Wangero" as she prefers to be called, who scorns her immediate roots in favor of a pretentious "native African" identity." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everyday_Use
"This is because saying ‘pretentious’ is a way of sharpening the borders of your identity, and most people can recognise this instantly. Calling someone pretentious is most commonly code for “this person cares more about appearances and trends than I do”. Because the other person is never really the true focus of the comment, though, it’s more important message is “I care about appearances and trends the correct amount”. ... People who say 'pretentious’ a lot, though, have fallen for a trick: they think that the best way to shore up your own identity is by bringing down people who identify differently. " - http://becausegoodbye.tumblr.com/post/42707760044/on-the-wor...
You'll notice the last one is making my exact point, and much better than I did. You should read that link.
A dictionary defines words, but only rarely gives usage hints. For example, consider the words 'graveyard' and 'cemetery'. Both mean the same thing. But in the mid-1900s England, the former was more likely to be used by someone in the upper class. This was part of the "U and non-U" discussion on social dialects, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U_and_non-U_English . General purpose dictionaries are not going to record that distinction, just like a general purpose dictionary won't go into the deeper conceptual nuances of how 'pretentious' is used. That's not the point of most dictionaries.
You therefore cannot use a lack of a specific dictionary definition as negative evidence for a connection.
> I'm exactly the opposite of Wikipedia's description [of social conservative] ("opposition to abortion, LGBT rights, gender equality")
The Wikipedia page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_conservatism starts:
> Social conservatism is a group of political ideologies centred around preserving traditional beliefs, attitudes and philosophy, in the face of social progressivism. The aims of social conservatism vary from organisation to organisation, and from country to country.
That is the definition I was meaning. The one you quoted refers specifically to social conservatism in the United States, which is only a facet of what social conservatism means as a general term.
As social conservatism is a rather vague definition, I explained my meaning further as 'believes that the terms you grew up with are somehow the correct terms and should not change'. This is 'preserving traditional beliefs, attitudes and philosophy', yes? And I believe you consider this aspect of social progressivism as politicization of speech, so I still believe I used the term correctly, and compatible with the Wikipedia definition.
Quoting again from you:
> Was the mainstream media screaming that the term should be used in a certain way, and shaming those who disobeyed?
I have no idea of what you're talking about. The other term was "gay", yes? Yes, I believe there was a concerted effort by the LGBTQ movement to use the word "gay" (or "lesbian and gay") instead of "homosexual", and that made its way into mainstream media. You can see a reflection of that in Google n-grams: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=gay%2Clesbian%... . But I don't know what 'screaming' and 'shaming' has to do with the mainstreaming of the term 'gay', and suspect you are alluding to something else entirely.
Of the Big 6 that make up mainstream media in the US, I'm aware of how News Corporation screams and shames people for wanting to use terms (like "marriage") in new contexts. Is that what you are referring to?
> What you call identity I call preferences
If you wish to accept it that way, then feel free. Whenever you hear someone say "I identify as a man" then translate it as "I strongly prefer to take on the cultural roles more commonly associated with males." When you here someone say "I am a Muslim" then translate it as "I strongly prefer to follow Muslim customs".
Be sure to always think of it as a "strong preference", in roughly the same way that "strong folkways" become "mores" when talking about social norms. It's different enough to warrant its own term.
> I avoid clothing that would be too much of a statement
So like many geeks, part of your identity is to not make a statement through your clothes. This is itself a statement. Others can look at your clothes to infer you might be a geek. Thus your clothing choice helps establish your identity so you don't have to explain it to people.
> I observe or discover them
Remember that everyone else is as disinterested and objective as you are. Just about everyone thinks they've made a rational, objective decision for how to reach their goals.
Also note that your choice of goals are part of your identity. Some people born female have the goal of taking on traditionally male gender roles, and they do the best actions they can to achieve those goals.
It seem like you understand the basics of identity theory, with the minor proviso that you don't like the word "identity".
Now explain this: how do you understand Kennedy's "Ich bin ein Berliner" speech? Does "civis Romanus sum" make sense to you? When Kennedy said 'Today, I believe, in 1962 the proudest boast is to say, "I am a citizen of the United States.", do you have no conceptual framework for interpreting it? And when he ended with "Today, in the world of freedom, the proudest boast is Ich bin ein Berliner!" - do you really not know what it means?
These are all phrases of shared identity, but are difficult to explain using your goal-oriented or preference framework.
Which echos my complaint earlier that 'your purely descriptive interpretation ... has no predictive power'.
(I noticed that you didn't try to interpret the protests that are likely to occur from my evening dress scenario, using your descriptive framework. Is this a tacit admission that descriptive definitions are not appropriate for describing reactions to change?)
> In addition to equal rights, feminists also try to abolish social roles.
I'm a feminist. I totally all for social roles. There are teachers, construction workers, programmers, mayors, judges, dancers, greasers, metalheads, members of the KISS army ... see the long list I gave before. While I don't want there to be dickheads, my concern as a feminist is that gender and gender preference should not restrict someone from taking on one of these social roles, excepting a handful of cases with a bona fide occupational qualification.
Patrick Stewart is a feminist. He also supports social roles like acting, piano playing, and car enthusiast, based on his Wikipedia page.
I can't even figure out why what you say makes sense. Who thinks there will be only one social role in the grand feminist utopia? Have you perhaps picked on an extremist view that doesn't reflect what the vast majority of feminists believe? Or have you only understood what feminism means through the words of its detractors?
Or, they recognize that the phenotype variations on which humans assign labels of "race" have less to do with the real genetic variations in the population than you (and many others, to be fair) assume. Traditional concepts of race have some correlation with genetic reality (in that both are correlated with geography of ancestry), but the idea you raise of a "biological fact" of "distinct races" is inaccurate.
Or, as one paper put it:
Genetic variation is geographically structured, as expected from the partial isolation of human population during much of their history. Because traditional concepts of race are in turn correlated with geography, it is inaccurate to state that race is "biologically meaningless." On the other hand, because they have been only partially isolated, human populations are seldom demarcated by precise genetic boundaries. Substantial overlap can therefore occur between populations, invalidating the concept that populations (or races) are discrete types. [0]
[0] Royal, Charmaine DM, and Georgia M. Dunston. "Changing the paradigm from 'race' to human genome variation." Nature genetics 36 (2004): S5-S7.
Edit: But that doesn't mean that the concept itself isn't useful.
Then its very odd to suggest that those who disagree with the claim that "there is a clearly obvious biological fact that there are distinct races" are "painfully stupid"; that the concept and perception of race has a loose correlation to real genetic variation, and that descriptors of race may occasionally have use (even in a biological context), is a very different thing than a "clearly obvious biological fact that there are distinct races".
> in my view there is a clearly obvious biological fact that there are distinct races
Or is it:
> Oh, I'm definitely not saying that different races are distinct [...] But that doesn't mean that the concept itself isn't useful
Because you started with the first, retreated to the second in the face of evidence that the first wasn't true, and then have come around to this weird position where you seem to say that the second justifies the first (despite the fact that they directly contradict each other.)
There are men. There are women. These people belong to different, distinct sexes. There are people who are both/neither/mixed.
There are people who are black. There are people who are white. There are people who are Asian. These people belong to different, distinct races. There are also people who are of mixed race.
Of course, different people and cultures are going to perceive races and sexes differently... For example, Obama is black in the US but would probably be white in Kenya. Similarly, it used to be the case that doctors would operate on mixed-sex children and make them single-sex (usually female), but now they often leave them mixed-sex. Regardless, there appears to be practically no confusion about the non-ambiguous single-sex and single-race people.
So yes, the popular views of race are based in biology, as they have for hundreds of years. But the choice for what constitutes a race is arbitrary. It could been on hair type, or eye color, or height, or relative length of the fingers, or blood type or any of many other factors. If you choose a different set of factors, you end up with different races. Is there an Irish Race, as in https://archive.org/details/storyofirishrace00macmrich ? And of course the Aryan race - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan_race - has long been the favorite of scientific racism.
In US history, look at Bhagat Singh Thind. His US citizenship was challenge in United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind (1923) because, while pure Aryan, and Caucasian, he wasn't white.
The laws at the time said only "free white persons" and "aliens of African nativity and persons of African descent" could become United States citizens by naturalization.
In the Supreme Court decision which stripped Thind of his citizenship (quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Bhagat_Singh_... ; emphasis mine):
> Associate Justice George Sutherland said that authorities on the subject of race were in disagreement over which people were included in the scientific definition of the Caucasian race, so Sutherland instead chose to rely on the common understanding of race rather than the scientific understanding of race.[4] Sutherland found that, while Thind may claim to have "purity of Aryan blood" due to being "born in Village Taragarh Talawa near Jandiala Guru, Amritsar, Punjab" and having "high caste" status, he was not Caucasian in the "common understanding", so he could not be included in the "statutory category as white persons".[6] The Court reiterated its holding in [Ozawa v. United States],[citation needed] explaining that the words "free white person" in the naturalization act were "synonymous with the word ‘Caucasian’ only as that word is popularly understood," pointing out that the statutory language was to be interpreted as "words of common speech and not of scientific origin, . . . written in the common speech, for common understanding, by unscientific men."
So while it's true that biological factors have long been used to assign race, the choice of which factors to use as you yourself say is socially determined. Hence race is socially constructed.
There's no useful genetic basis for saying there is a "black" race, other than as an expression of a phenotype. The diversity of people with black skin is entirely too large for that characterization to be useful.
Stop using definitions of race that were discredited decades ago.
I feel similarly to the video: My gender is not especially important to me, and it's therefore just kind of 'default', but that doesn't mean other people feel the same way.
I just have a rather hard time relating to those people.
This isn't a valid comparison, and it's a really shitty thing to say, to boot.
Care to give us an explanation why? let's have a debate without name calling and insults, maybe you can enlighten the people who do not "get it".
I would say no.
The only addendum I would make is that I feel there ought to be some place in this viewpoint for avians as well; I can't justify it on the basis of biological similarity, but it's something I feel all the same.
Later on there's "pigs, whales and naked mole rats". Of the mammal species listed, only is an unfamiliar animal, and rarely considered cute.
Too bad more non-cute mammals weren't on the list. How many people think of the promiscuous monkey, or the Philippine tarsier - both primates - as being 'close to home'? What of bats, and the brown rat?
I think most people would identify with many avians before identifying with a bat.
I looked at a list of "ugliest mammals". The #1 of some of the lists was Sam the Chinese Crested dog. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_%28ugly_dog%29 .
http://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/mag/artmay98/fiveking.html
It's fantastic.
Years ago, I got a copy, and read it from cover to cover. After however many pages of bacteria and protoctista, dozens of phyla of weird, unimaginable, almost alien single-celled organisms, I eventually got to the animals. The first phylum is the placozoa, these little guys:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trichoplax_adhaerens
And I felt a surge of emotion. Here, finally, was something like me! After visiting the extraordinary world of single-celled life, placozoa seemed like family.
Monotremes are egg-laying mammals so the author is identifying with placental and/or marsupial mammals, and not mammals as a whole.
("Technically correct - the best kind of correct.")
> But there is a danger in pushing the borders of affiliation so far out that they no longer have any resonance. Placing an emphasis on our mammalian identity is a reasonable compromise between a restrictive anthropocentrism and a vapid all-inclusiveness.
> Mammalian awareness embraces our affinity with our hairy and milky fellow mammals,
Snakes neither have hair nor provide milk to their young.
Otherwise, the type of identity here is the same as the other identify choices mentioned: race, gender, "religion, political party, sexual orientation, even species". (I assume the last includes furries.)
The problem of course is that most people consider some of those to be a karass, making them real enough in our consensus model of the world.
This is not about fair treatment of animals or a "realistic" view of our place in the world. This is about abdicating responsibility. Refusing to admit that human beings are exceptional doesn't elevate the value of animals. It lowers our own. It means that, as mere mammals, we are not reasonably bound to any sort of behavioral code or sense of virtue (including ethical treatment of our kindred animal counterparts). Like it or not, we have the unique ability to make or break this planet and the only way to save it is to hold ourselves to a higher standard, not a lower one.
I've heard similar arguments before. In fact, we have a long history of people arguing for exceptionalism, only to find that those views are not worth believing.
We should not grant voting rights to women because rather than elevating their position it will lower the exceptional position of men.
We should not grant freedom to black slaves because rather than elevate their position it will lower the exceptional position of white people.
Atheists and apostates reject the the behavioral code set by divine sources and think that humans are mere animals, not exceptional beings endowed by divine sources as good stewards of the Earth. They abdicate responsibility so must be punished.
We are at the center of the universe, and those who say the Earth revolves around the Sun are trying to destroy our exceptional place in the cosmos.
Your argument sounds equally as faulty as those sketches.
Freds have organized for at least 15 years, with yearly marches in Miami, and slogans like 'Fred Is Not a Four-Letter Word,' and 'Better Fred Than Dead.' - http://www.miaminewtimes.com/calendar/king-mango-madness-635...
The Stephen/Steven/Stephanie/Esteban/s etc. organized to support evolution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Steve
I'm sure if you look hard enough, you can find a group of like-minded people who identify as John.