The Group And I

Identity groups are political constructs, nothing more.

I am a libertarian. I used to be a Libertarian. That subtle difference in typing, the mere pressing of the Shift key prior to typing "l," is significant, though many might not realize it. The difference is personal viewpoints vs group participation, and some time back, I decided that my political efforts would time better spent if I argued liberty at people who considered themselves something other than libertarians. As in, try to convert the major parties from within rather than push third-party candidates. The voting booth is a separate matter, it being a combination of political calculus, realization of the folly of my single vote based on where I live, and whatever passes for conscience inside my brain pan.

Libertarians' (small-l and big-L) favorite pastime is denouncing each other for insufficient purity. Even within the "libertarian" space/compound/silo/echo-chamber, the drive to individuality prompts reflexive separatism, and that's before we get into the navel-gazer subset of the "group" or the knee-jerk contrarians.

That "me before we" aspect of libertarianism is often derided by others, with level of derision rising in proportion to purported collectivist thinking (i.e. the more you move to the left on a single-axis political spectrum, or the more you move downward on the Nolan Chart. I call it 'purported' because I believe that most people who argue for the tenets of socialism do so from selfishness and either personal or vicarious benefit, whether conscious or subconscious.

This business of groups would be mere semantics but for the rise of identity politics, where "what you are" supersedes "who you are." We can argue "the smallest identity group is the individual" all day, but those who stand as champions for the oppressed minorities of various sorts do not actually care for small groups. The proof they don't lies in their wide-ranging efforts to combine identity groups into ever-larger clusters. Gays and lesbians have nothing in common and live social lives apart from each other, but they've (been) united for political purposes. Strength in numbers being the secret philosophy of identity politics, the gay and lesbian alliance has been piggybacked by bisexuals, transgenders, intersex, queer/questioning, asexuals... and "+," which is a catchall for everyone who isn't, in the language of identity politics, a cisgender heterosexual.

That piggybacking doesn't make a lot of sense, if we dare allow ourselves to actually think about it rather than simply quiver in fear of being called a bigot (or reject the whole shebang out of hand, which isn’t right either). What do transgenders have in common with gays or lesbians, for one example? "Gay" and "lesbian" are sexual orientations, as in men who are attracted to men, and women who are attracted to women. Transgender, on the other hand, is a declaration of "I was born with XY chromosomes but consider myself a woman," and vice-versa. It's not a sexual orientation, and you can find transgenders of “straight” and “gay” orientations (and beyond). Ditto for asexuals, who are the equivalent of atheists with regard to sexual attraction - it’s of no interest and not part of their lives.

And so on. Yes, these groups may have a common "enemy," as in those who'd deny them equal treatment under the law, and thus offer common cause on that matter, but politics aside, gays and lesbians and transgenders and the rest are distinct and disparate.

The next step lies in recognizing that the L or G or B or T or etc identifiers are merely single checkboxes on individuals’ (very long) lists. Identity warriors came up with a term, "intersectional," to roll up even more "strength in numbers" in their quest for political and cultural power, but the reality is that people are not merely their identities - singular or summed.

The falsehood of that illusion - that your labels specify who you are, which in practical terms means what your political views are - is most evident in the treatment of those who refute the "labels specify the politics" premise. The anger and vitriol aimed at blacks with conservative leanings, of pro-life women, of TERFs, of gays that reject the eradication of gender, and others who stray off the plantation shows us the fear that those who'd define our culture have of losing some of their members.

But, really, there is no "gay" viewpoint on things, nor does anyone have the right to decide what women are supposed to think or how they should vote. Ditto for men, for black men, for asian women, for feminists, for transgenders, for pansexuals, for South Asians, for Chileans, for Afrikaans, for Botswanans, for Inuits, for Canadians, for Estonians, for Native Americans (more accurately, for any of the 574 tribes that comprise "Native Americans" in the US), for Kazakhs, for the vertically-challenged, for the differently abled, for the obese large, or for the follicularly challenged. Identity politics would have us believe otherwise, and its bully tactics have succeeded in convincing many that they must vote as their group's (or groups') self-appointed spokespeople decide, but in reality we are individuals, capable only of individual thought and single-focus consciousness, making groups constructs that we can choose to join or align with.

No one should have the right to say "you are X, therefore you should behave and think speak and vote as X is expected to (by us)." That people do so all the time does not validate that behavior in the slightest.

Nature offers us the concept of a hive mind, where groups of bees or ants behave with far greater "wisdom" than individuals. Science fiction has glommed onto the concept, but taken it a large step beyond nature, in ideating such as Star Trek's Borg (more examples here), which are a collective consciousness operating via multiple individuals.

But, that's science fiction, and the notion of a collective consciousness or "group brain" is mere fancy. Collectivists, such as our domestic Marxists and socialists of various flavors, pretend to "consensus" and "common good," but in reality put their own brains in charge of however many other persons they can convince to subordinate individuality to them.

That's not to say that individuals cannot be like-minded. Labels exist and are used for a reason - to claim "I am a libertarian" is to give those within earshot a baseline for presuming my viewpoints on a range of political topics, and perhaps an initial insight as to my thinking process and how I live my life.

But, political labels are not identity labels.

To note that I am a white man tell you nothing about my beliefs - political, cultural, religious, or otherwise. When people presume beliefs based on identity labels, they mislabel those labels (pun intended) as political. When people group individuals based on one variable (such as sexual orientation, or ethnicity, or skin color, or chromosomes), they are then apt to assume their beliefs, and then take the wholly inappropriate next step of deciding which of those beliefs are proper and which are "traitorous." Being a white male does not mean someone should presume I think as their expectation of "white male." Yes, there are "masculine" behavioral traits - they are impelled by chemistry, which is in turn specified by our DNA. But, are there "white" behavioral traits that aren't pure construct? Is my thinking determined by my skin color, or my XY chromosomes?

No.

That goes for every other identity group out there. Yes, there are some tendencies in some groups, born of culture. There is a basis for the "tiger mom" stereotype, and for many others. But, tendencies are not universal truths, nor are they exclusive. People who share identity markers can ally for strength-in-numbers and for common cause, but they do not become the single voice of those identities. Moreso, they can disagree, often widely, on other political matters. It is incredibly insulting to expect gays and lesbians to be anti-gun-rights simply because the Left is where their push for equal treatment under the law has found a better home.

Humans are tribal, and it's natural to seek group affilations (and protections - strength in numbers again). Those groups work better when they are organic, when individuals choose to put themselves in. When they are top-down decreed by a small group of Best-and-Brightest, however, they dehumanize us and insult our individuality. Just consider "AAPI," or "Asian American and Pacific Islander." "Asian American" was coined at Berkeley in 1968 for, you guessed it, strength-in-numbers:

In 1968, students of Asian heritage, Yuji Ichioka and Emma Gee, first coined the term Asian American in Berkeley, California, at UC Berkeley, to unify their efforts for political and social recognition—and command respect.

It expanded to AAPI a few decades later, no matter that Mongolians and Maoris, Sri-Lankans and Koreans, Uyghurs and Aborigines have vastly different cultures.

Similarly, the catch-all "Christian" wasn’t part of the vernacular until the middle of last century. People would name their church or denomination, e.g. Catholic, Anglican, Orthodox, Presbyterian, Methodist, Lutheran, LDS, and so forth, not simply say "I'm a Christian." But, that strength-in-numbers and common-cause dynamic prompted the amalgamation, no matter how at-each-others'-throats these denominations have been across centuries. Similarly, Shia and Sunni have deep-running doctrinal differences, and enough animosity to have killed each other by the millions, but they're accreted domestically under the "Muslim" banner.

The bottom line? Groups are conveniences, not mandates, and in this context, are mere political constructs. A group such as the Catholic Church can require certain beliefs as part of membership, but you can leave such groups. If you are a gay man, however, no one can require you to believe as a "gay man should." Your identity does not define you, no matter how hard people from both sides of the aisle try to convince you. Our brains function individually, meaning that each of us is, all outside demands notwithstanding, an individual, not a slice of a homogeneous pie.

Next time someone tries to bully a belief of yours that doesn't align with an expectation based on your "whats," give them some what-for.