Thanks for this reply; it appears you spent a lot of time on it, and I appreciate it. I agree with some of your points and most of your examples, but on certain points my interpretations are different; I'll try to reply to your arguments and explain what I think.
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 http://econintersect.com/images/2014/11/15608366ztemp.png
[2] http://shirleymaya.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Beauty1.jpg 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 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 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 http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20774276,00.html
> in my view there is a clearly obvious biological fact that there are distinct races
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/ 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=L5sgAAAAIBAJ&sjid=4WgFAAAAIBAJ&pg=6787,5237177&hl=en 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.