> 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 de

> 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.