Press Middle To Enable Fast Scrolling
Just two observations on identity I found telling …
Zinnia Jones wrote:At the time, I made sure to clarify that I didn’t see myself as trans – not because I felt there was anything bad about being seen as trans, or because I saw this as some kind of affront to my identity, but simply because I didn’t want others to think that I could speak for trans people. Back then, I didn’t feel that my identity or my experiences were similar enough to trans people that I could legitimately speak as one of them, rather than just doing my best to advocate on their behalf. […]
Interesting that in all cultures some gang decides what their gang label means and who protect it fiercely from freeloaders and subversive elements that could “corrupt†it. It's another variant of the now familiar theme and suggesting that those people there really are, at heart, sheeples with authorities proper, who have set up defined ways of advancing in their hierarchy, who can speak and who can't speak for the tribe and so forth all of which is rationalized after the fact with some flimsy excuses. I find it rather bizarre that gender configurations, once no longer fixed, can be staked off by some gang, too, and someone must, it seems, first have permission to use the label. That would explain the perplexing situation that there are seemingly endless variants and names floating about. And it seems their respective communities each try to mark their territory — outsource or assimilate whole label groups according to their respective agenda.
In another thread, the art thread on Ophelia Bensons' with Matt Dillahunty, I found some other identity idea (I wanted to note):
Jason Thibeault wrote:I have to second what Ophelia said about “eating our ownâ€. While I’m definitely an atheist, I am an intersectional one, which means I do not automatically count someone as part of my in-group just because they’re an atheist. Being intersectionally-minded means I consider all the axes on which I can agree or disagree with someone without counting them part of the tribe and excusing poor behaviour in one respect because they’re solid in another.
While I’m glad Adam claims to be a feminist and has done work for feminist causes, and I’m glad he reacted appropriately to the objections that were raised in person, I’m not sold on the way he actually tried to address those objections, and I’m further irritated that we’re now having to defend our objections on perception of women in the movement, and having to repeatedly clarify (to people like D4M10N, and now you, Matt) that it’s not about mere nudity or prudery. I thought the practice of steel-manning someone else’s argument was fundamental to being part of this community, and I dislike when arguments are intentionally misconstrued, especially when they’re entirely arguments about perception. Giving a misperception about an argument about perception hurts us all, intersectional atheists or not.
Wasn't “intersectionality†about a specific set of challenges that arise when some individual is a member of several categories, like —say— homeless and disabled, gay and black and so forth? It's not a topic I know much about, however I am quite confident that the folk who researched and came up with the idea would maintain that Thibeault has nothing to do with intersectionality, because that one isn't a label, but a model to capture sets of circumstances.
The whole idea of thinking in identity axis' for agreeing or disagreeing is completely assinine and has really no place in a community of critical thinkers (if it were such a thing). With charitable reading it could mean “not accepting a position because the group says so†— that's not even wrong. You are not agreeing that reality doesn't feature deities because you call yourself an atheist, and the group demands this view from you: it is the exact other way around. You aren't convinced reality features deities, hence when queried, your views come back with the label “atheisticâ€, and hence the category name is “atheistâ€. If you no longer think that, because you found Jesus, then, when queried, your views come out as “theisticâ€.
Thibeault also does typically SJW posturing again by assigning to himself the fancy freeform “intersectionality†label where, apparently the structure is given and agreed upon and then indeed forms an ingroup of social justice warriors. Otherwise his pointing out that he doesn't agree with some group on the basis of traditional label categories just underscores that he thinks in groups, but just replaced it with an updated concept. Also, only a half truth since no discernible disagreement materialized with his intersectional authoritarian movement.
By contrast, I doesn't even cross my mind to think about whether my views are in agreement with some groups. My views inform what categories best capture them, not the other way around. Discordianism is almost a complete anti-thesis which allows everybody to form cabals and make up the contents at will, and subvert them at will. It's a nonsense label that almost defeats itself, wouldn't it contain this particular premise. But these two views above, from Thibeault and Jones also strike me as the opposite of the familiar “stray cat†ideal that was once held up as typical for atheists.
What is conspiciously missing in Jason's description is individuality and pluralism, where individuals with complex views cooperate in one area, disagree in another and who are rather part of networks, not groups. There, the identity-label is not an all encompassing thing that envelopes the whole individual, but instead someone is part time this and part time that and together with others to form strategic alliances. Thibeault's and Jones' views remind me of culturalism (which includes both the christian/righ wing version, as well as the multi-culture version of the left) — a view where cultures are treated dominant over individuals, where cultures have wants that need to be catered to and where indivuals are thought of as belonging and trapped in their culture.
It is really comical that the FreeThought faction seems to be about people who really do think “top down†(and in authoritarian etc fashion). They are the flock of sheep, maybe a “horde†but certainly not stray cats. And no matter which way PZ Myers bends it, this isn't in the tradition of free thinkers and their ideals. It's literally counter factual to the name they gave themselves.
