August 24, 2008

• The problem with self-identification

  It's common to hear in liberal circles, especially those related to LGBT (LGBTTSPPPQQGAA, etc.) issues and social justice in general, that identity should be based on subjective, rather than objective features, that we should be able to define ourselves, and not be defined by others.

  At first glance, this seems like a good thing; the idea of having your identity defined by other people seems problematic, even repugnant. It seems to destroy your own sense of free will and self-actualization.

  But on a deeper analysis, this really need not be the case. We don't have to say that we allow other-identification, that we are defined by whatever other people want to call us; on the contrary, we can adopt objective definitions that will be applied universally, regardless of what we or others think. We can be defined by who we are and what we do, rather than how we or others feel like labeling us.

  This is better since it allows the identifications to actually mean something; the words can then actually describe particular states of being, thinking, and acting, rather than whims of how we might choose to name ourselves. It would become incoherent for me to describe myself as a "woman" or "straight," because plainly I do not fit the definitions of these words.

  One way to achieve this would be to drop labels altogether; I'm not completely opposed to the idea. It seems that in certain circles it might be inconvenient, but I think we would get used to it. We could even have terms for the few cases where it does matter, but for the most part not use them (for instance, we can talk about people being "short-haired" or "long-haired," but we don't all think of ourselves as defined by these terms; you don't feel a need to "come out" as longhair).

  An alternative, perhaps even easier to implement, would be to adopt official definitions of the labels we are going to use, and then apply them consistently---even if it means denying people the right to self-identify.

  For instance, we could say something like this: "Men are human adults with penises. Human adults who have penises are men, those who are not human adults or do not have penises are not men." We might ask: Does this mean that, if you lose your penis to injury or surgery, you stop being male, or stop being a man? Yes, I think it does! You have ceased to satisfy the ordinary definition of the term "man." You are no less of a person for it; you may still have every bit as much value as a being, every bit as much opportunity to contribute to society; you may even still have a substantial portion of your sexuality intact. But you are no longer a male adult human, and ought to come to accept that. Have you lost "masculinity" in the process as well? If there is indeed such a thing, I don't know how we could deny that you have lost it. Maybe there isn't such a thing, and we should just deprecate the concept; as far as I can tell, "masculine" just means something like "in conformity with stereotypes associated with adult human males in our society," which is a frankly stupid concept to bother with. (Indeed, I think it's silly that we have separate words "man" and "woman" that we tend to use rather than say, "adult," or "person," so that we find ourselves specifying the gender of every person we meet or describe; but if we're going to do that, let's at least be coherent about it.)

  To take a less controversial example: "Gay men are men whose sexual desires and behaviors are almost invariably oriented toward other men." This means that, no matter how hard you may insist that you are "straight," or that you are "queer" but not "gay," if you have a penis, and you have sex only or nearly only with other people who have penises, you are gay. It's simply what the word means; you should be prepared to describe yourself using language that other people understand. "I'm not gay, I'm just a man who has sex with men" is a formal contradiction---and should be pointed out as such. When people say things like this, normally we just mumble, "Hm, that's interesting; he chooses not to self-identify in the ordinary fashion"; I think it's about time we started saying, "No, sir, what you just said makes no sense."

  We could even do the same thing with nationality: "Americans are persons who hold citizenship in the United States of America." If you don't hold citizenship in the United States of America, you are not an American; this is not an insult, it's just a fact. You're no less of a person; you're just not an American. If you're a permanent resident of the USA, we might say you're almost an American; you're certainly a lot closer than most. But if you're old enough to vote in the United States and you're not allowed to, you're really not quite an American. You don't have the full rights and responsibilities afforded to an American. (One might argue in this regard that children are not quite citizens either, and that "American child" is almost as odd a sentiment as "Christian child"---see Dawkins for discussion of the latter.)

  This also means that words which are almost only used in self-identification (because no one has a clue what they mean anyway, if they indeed mean anything at all), like "queer" and "pomosexual," should probably be deprecated. If you're going to have a word for something, it ought to be a word with a reasonably cohesive meaning that most people know and understand. Some people use "queer" to mean "gay," some to mean "gender non-conforming" (again, whatever that means), some to mean "sexually non-conforming in general" (in which case foot fetishists and people who don't masturbate are "queer"), and others to mean simply "not straight"; so why not use these words instead?

  I think the main reason people resist this is that, unfortunately, there are powerful connotations associated with these words. If I say to someone, "you're not a man," and that person believes that ey is a man, ey will take this to be an insult. It is not; I mean the sentence in the same tone as I would mean the sentence, "you are not blue-eyed," speaking to someone with brown eyes. But this is not likely to be the tone in which my words will be heard. In the same way, if I say to someone, "you're not straight," or "you're not an American," these will also be taken as insults, even if they are intended merely as factual clarifications of definition. It is seen as good to be a man, good to be straight, good to be an American.

  On the other hand, there is one sense in which this is true. Men, straights, and Americans have more rights and privileges than the majority of people. It probably is better to be an American than to be a Saudi, simply for the increased rights and freedoms granted to a citizen in a (theoretically) secular (partially) representative democracy rather than a (largely) theocratic (almost) total monarchy. But it is better still to be a Swede, and live as a citizen in an actually secular actually representative democracy, especially given its far superior economy and health care system. And even here, we must note that there is no statement of inferiority associated with "you are a Saudi," any more than there would be associated with "you are in handcuffs." I would rather not be in handcuffs (usually... *wink*), but being put in handcuffs doesn't make me a bad person; it's just better not to be put in handcuffs.

  Furthermore, it shouldn't be better to be a man, better to be straight, or better to be an American. This is morally unfair. Every human being, indeed, every sentient being of comparable intellectual capacity in the universe, ought to have the same rights and privileges. It is wrong that we allow Saudi Arabia to persist in being structured as an absolute monarchy; it is wrong that we allow men to marry women but not other men; it is wrong that we offer raises and promotions preferentially to males over females.

  So it seems quite likely that people self-identify in ways that will allow them to join, to greater or lesser degree, privileged groups (this seems especially significant with closet gay men, who will often identify as "straight" probably in order to be seen and treated with the privileges of being straight); so perhaps I'm really arguing against the wrong problem---admittedly this one seems a lot easier to fix.

  [By the way, that half-facetious acronym stands for "lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual, transgender, straight, pansexual, pomosexual, polysexual, queer, questioning, genderqueer, asexual, and allied," all of which are terms I've actually heard people use.]

  • 7:21 am
  • 1 Comment