5 ms·

> But I do find it strange that people want to construct identities around what are ultimately just biological facts. That's an odd perspective to me, because

• matthewmacleod 8y ago
  I suppose that would be things that you willingly decided to engage with. Someone identifying as an “engineer” or a “problem solver” or a “musician” or a “good listener” or a “conservative”. Those make sense to me as forms of identity; sex and sexuality far less so.
• dschuetz 8y ago
  Well, that's an odd question. Sure, biological sex is an objective fact, but you can't call gender identity a fact. It's a part of a more complex identity which people unwillingly or willingly emphasize. I refuse to define my identity based on my sexual attributes, because it only concerns myself and a potential partner. For the rest of the world most of my attributes of identity are masked by other peoples' perception of my actions. People can identify my actions and my attributes as unique, and they have a shortcut label as a help to identify me - by my name. So, what if a person is not as unique as others? Do they need to emphasize some attributes to appear more unique, to be distinguishable? Why? They are unique in any way, objectively. But in their own eyes? I don't think so. So, there is a clear distinction between biological/physical attributes (facts) that are a non-disputable part of the identity of a person and subjectively perceivable attributes (perspectives). It's a fact that I'm a man, but things other than that don't really matter, because they are perceivable only subjectively. Identity is based not only on facts. It's also based on wishes, labels, lies and social constructs.