![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
sissy-bloke.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
transI would guess that lots of us would agree that someone is whatever gender they say they are, but what kinds of identities is that logic suitable for?
Someone claiming "I am a cat-lover" would probably be pretty uncontroversially accepted as a cat lover.
Whereas a lot of people would balk at agreeing that someone who says "I am a pineapple" is indeed a pineapple. (Obviously I'm using a silly example, somewhat less silly ones to follow.)
What is it that makes one identity true by virtue of claiming it and one unclaimable?
What about the following examples?
"I am a geek" said by someone who does not like sci-fi, play computer games or know how to program.
"I am a surfie" said by someone who does not know how to surf and has their surfboard bolted to the roof of their van.
"I am a mathematician" said by someone who has not done any maths at university.
"I am a doctor" said by someone who does not have an MD or Phd.
"I'm a millionaire" said by someone who does not and never has had a million dollars/pounds/yen/euros.
"I'm rich" said by someone who earns minimum wage and has about $2 in the bank.
"I am Bill Gates" said by anyone who is not the founder of Microsoft.
Are they claimable or not and what is it that makes the difference? What is it about gender that makes it true by virtue of claiming it, when other things aren't? Or are they?
Edited to add "controversial" tag and to clarify that I am not trying to say that someone claiming any of the above examples cannot actually be what they claim - some of those claims may be perfectly valid and I'm trying to tease out what makes an axis of identification something that is based on what a person says and what doesn't.
Edited to change my original examples. I tried to use examples that would prompt discussion, but I realised belatedly and thanks to some commenters that they would probably prompt discussion about things that were unrelated to my original question and had the potential to cause shit-storms, for which I apologise. I hope the examples I've used now are less controversial, but please pick me up if I've mis-stepped.
Someone claiming "I am a cat-lover" would probably be pretty uncontroversially accepted as a cat lover.
Whereas a lot of people would balk at agreeing that someone who says "I am a pineapple" is indeed a pineapple. (Obviously I'm using a silly example, somewhat less silly ones to follow.)
What is it that makes one identity true by virtue of claiming it and one unclaimable?
What about the following examples?
"I am a geek" said by someone who does not like sci-fi, play computer games or know how to program.
"I am a surfie" said by someone who does not know how to surf and has their surfboard bolted to the roof of their van.
"I am a mathematician" said by someone who has not done any maths at university.
"I am a doctor" said by someone who does not have an MD or Phd.
"I'm a millionaire" said by someone who does not and never has had a million dollars/pounds/yen/euros.
"I'm rich" said by someone who earns minimum wage and has about $2 in the bank.
"I am Bill Gates" said by anyone who is not the founder of Microsoft.
Are they claimable or not and what is it that makes the difference? What is it about gender that makes it true by virtue of claiming it, when other things aren't? Or are they?
Edited to add "controversial" tag and to clarify that I am not trying to say that someone claiming any of the above examples cannot actually be what they claim - some of those claims may be perfectly valid and I'm trying to tease out what makes an axis of identification something that is based on what a person says and what doesn't.
Edited to change my original examples. I tried to use examples that would prompt discussion, but I realised belatedly and thanks to some commenters that they would probably prompt discussion about things that were unrelated to my original question and had the potential to cause shit-storms, for which I apologise. I hope the examples I've used now are less controversial, but please pick me up if I've mis-stepped.