3 ms·

I'm not sure it is a fact, I mean, these days there are heterosexual people who call themselves queer.

mgrthrow 4y ago
Well, queer encompasses more than just gay and lesbian people. Non-binary people can be queer, heterosexual trans people can be queer, asexual people can be queer. Same with polyamorous people.
- tekla 4y ago
  Literally anyone can be queer. Its a meaningless tag.
  - kelseyfrog 4y ago
    Literally anyone can be Christian, but that doesn't make it a useless tag. It's a linguistic and mental shortcut that has utility despite the relative ease of application.
- hypoqtech 4y ago
  Doesn't that make it not a fact then, if people can just opt in and out to being queer?
  - nicoburns 4y ago
    I would argue that no identity is a fact. All identities are beliefs on the part of the person doing the identifying. To identify something as X is to express the belief that it is X.
    - kelnos 4y ago
      Unless we're getting to some deep metaphysical stuff, I don't think I buy that. Yes, some identities are solely based on belief. But others are indeed based on facts: someone might identify as "basketball player" because they play basketball. Or they might identify as "tall" because they are in the top 10% of people for height. The height example might sound silly, but there are people who are somehow "proud" of these sorts of traits that they have no control over. Certainly the situations can sometimes change: the basketball player might stop playing basketball and no longer identify as such. And I suppose someone who has never played basketball in their life could adopt the identity of "basketball player" if they wanted to, but... that's fine, that would be a case where that particular person's identity is based on a belief (or delusion).
      - nicoburns 4y ago
        I'm not talking about what the identity is based on. I'm talking about what the identity itself is. I think this is useful to help clarify the difference between "X has the identity Y" and "X is Y" which otherwise seem very similar. The former means that "someone believes (or many people believe) that X is Y".
    - narag 4y ago
      This reminds me a class very long ago, when the teacher wrote two contradictory definitions of style in the blackboard, one saying that style is what the authors have in common with their school, the other saying that style is what the authors have that others don't. Of course, those were defining two different concepts: the style of a school and the personal style. To be precise, identity is very easy to define: it's to be you, instead of anyone else. Until someone invents some kind of brain trasplant, it's impossible to transfer consciousness, so your identity is your body, more specifically, your brain. That would include your memories that, although can be erased by trauma or illness, are mostly very strongly rooted. Outwards, it would expand to your habits, your chemistry, your beliefs. All that can change, but it's difficult. So it's more your personality than your identity. Then there is "identity" that isn't. More like being part of a group, so it's parallel situation to that of style. You identify yourself with a group, you define yourself as the sum of the groups you include yourself in. Identity is very much about individuality. "Identity" seems to be the opposite: the inabilty to be someone on your own.
mdp2021 4y ago
> who call themselves In which sense? Because 'queer' means "eccentric" - many would describe as that. For that matter, people call themselves "gay" for "joyous". Incidentally: the queer use of 'queer' predates that of 'gay' (just a piece of trivia).
- yuuu 4y ago
  > For that matter, people call themselves "gay" for "joyous". Uh... I don't think people do that anymore.
  - mdp2021 4y ago
    They do, and some will absolutely do (to some it is important to "assess" language) - it really depends on what you mean with "people" (of course I meant a subset). What happened there is, in the succession of editings I left that 'people' there in a way that happened to be ambiguous. I made a composition error out of inattention.
    - yuuu 4y ago
      The subset you're talking about is the union of extremely non-native English speakers and native English speakers over 120 years old.
      - mdp2021 4y ago
        No. It is not a matter of being «native». It may be your mothertongue of not: it is an approach transversal to all (this class of) languages. It is the set of those people who intend to speak English, though surely not the language in use among the English. "Currently typical" English does not mean "good" English. Edit: On the contrary, «native English speakers» are the one who will follow that: they are the ones supposed to have absorbed more English (and relevant) literature. I have just checked and I see the terms employed correctly in Joyce, in Wilde, in Chandler, in Hammett, in Paul Johnson, in Niall Ferguson, in Woody Allen, in Spike Milligan. As absolutely expected: there is the gathering of the Assessors.

Well, queer encompasses more than just gay and lesbian people. Non-binary people can be queer, heterosexual trans people can be queer, asexual people can be queer. Same with polyamorous people.

tekla 4y ago
Literally anyone can be queer. Its a meaningless tag.
- kelseyfrog 4y ago
  Literally anyone can be Christian, but that doesn't make it a useless tag. It's a linguistic and mental shortcut that has utility despite the relative ease of application.
hypoqtech 4y ago
Doesn't that make it not a fact then, if people can just opt in and out to being queer?
- nicoburns 4y ago
  I would argue that no identity is a fact. All identities are beliefs on the part of the person doing the identifying. To identify something as X is to express the belief that it is X.
  - kelnos 4y ago
    Unless we're getting to some deep metaphysical stuff, I don't think I buy that. Yes, some identities are solely based on belief. But others are indeed based on facts: someone might identify as "basketball player" because they play basketball. Or they might identify as "tall" because they are in the top 10% of people for height. The height example might sound silly, but there are people who are somehow "proud" of these sorts of traits that they have no control over. Certainly the situations can sometimes change: the basketball player might stop playing basketball and no longer identify as such. And I suppose someone who has never played basketball in their life could adopt the identity of "basketball player" if they wanted to, but... that's fine, that would be a case where that particular person's identity is based on a belief (or delusion).
    - nicoburns 4y ago
      I'm not talking about what the identity is based on. I'm talking about what the identity itself is. I think this is useful to help clarify the difference between "X has the identity Y" and "X is Y" which otherwise seem very similar. The former means that "someone believes (or many people believe) that X is Y".
  - narag 4y ago
    This reminds me a class very long ago, when the teacher wrote two contradictory definitions of style in the blackboard, one saying that style is what the authors have in common with their school, the other saying that style is what the authors have that others don't. Of course, those were defining two different concepts: the style of a school and the personal style. To be precise, identity is very easy to define: it's to be you, instead of anyone else. Until someone invents some kind of brain trasplant, it's impossible to transfer consciousness, so your identity is your body, more specifically, your brain. That would include your memories that, although can be erased by trauma or illness, are mostly very strongly rooted. Outwards, it would expand to your habits, your chemistry, your beliefs. All that can change, but it's difficult. So it's more your personality than your identity. Then there is "identity" that isn't. More like being part of a group, so it's parallel situation to that of style. You identify yourself with a group, you define yourself as the sum of the groups you include yourself in. Identity is very much about individuality. "Identity" seems to be the opposite: the inabilty to be someone on your own.

mdp2021 4y ago

> who call themselves In which sense? Because 'queer' means "eccentric" - many would describe as that. For that matter, people call themselves "gay" for "joyous". Incidentally: the queer use of 'queer' predates that of 'gay' (just a piece of trivia).

yuuu 4y ago
> For that matter, people call themselves "gay" for "joyous". Uh... I don't think people do that anymore.
- mdp2021 4y ago
  They do, and some will absolutely do (to some it is important to "assess" language) - it really depends on what you mean with "people" (of course I meant a subset). What happened there is, in the succession of editings I left that 'people' there in a way that happened to be ambiguous. I made a composition error out of inattention.
  - yuuu 4y ago
    The subset you're talking about is the union of extremely non-native English speakers and native English speakers over 120 years old.
    - mdp2021 4y ago
      No. It is not a matter of being «native». It may be your mothertongue of not: it is an approach transversal to all (this class of) languages. It is the set of those people who intend to speak English, though surely not the language in use among the English. "Currently typical" English does not mean "good" English. Edit: On the contrary, «native English speakers» are the one who will follow that: they are the ones supposed to have absorbed more English (and relevant) literature. I have just checked and I see the terms employed correctly in Joyce, in Wilde, in Chandler, in Hammett, in Paul Johnson, in Niall Ferguson, in Woody Allen, in Spike Milligan. As absolutely expected: there is the gathering of the Assessors.