I think you could say part of oneâs identity exists outside of the person.
That doesnât really make sense to me. It would imply that some part of who you are is defined by outside perception, and I definitely donât agree with that, especially considering that there are an indefinite number of outside perspectives, and some number of those perspectives could definitely be mutually exclusive with others, making it impossible for them both to be correct.
Simple analogy: if a triangle is viewed âface-onâ by one person and directly âedge-onâ by another, the former will perceive it as a triangle, and the latter, as a line. Something canât be a line and a triangle simultaneously, so how can these outside perspectives both be any part of what defines the identity of that object?
chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world â¨3⊠â¨weeks⊠ago
Every person who knows you has a concept of you in their minds. This is a part of your identity which you donât have direct control over, you can only negotiate with them over that.
This concept is intuitively known by everyone. Itâs why people are negatively affected when others misgender them.
Itâs also true in a formal sense. Part of your identity exists in the formal documents and information about you. This is the part that is vulnerable to identity theft which is painful in ways beyond the financial losses people incur as victims of this crime. Having to prove you are who you say you are is extremely exhausting and traumatizing to deal with despite essentially consisting of a bunch of paperwork and phone calls.
damnedfurry@lemmy.world â¨3⊠â¨weeks⊠ago
Yes, of course.
I donât agree with calling that concept âidentityâ. Others âconcept of youâ is just that, their idea of you. That does not define you, in any way.
Actually, I think this bolsters my point, not yours. The whole reason being misgendered is a negative experience is because that personâs âconcept of youâ is wrong. They see you that way, but that is not the way you are. Your identity comes from you, and you alone.
In the end, itâs obvious we have different definitions of âidentityâ and thatâs what our disagreement is rooted in. I define identity as the sum of what comprises oneâs sense of self.
dvoraqs@lemmy.world â¨3⊠â¨weeks⊠ago
I think youâre being too strict with your definition of an identity because it is not just one thing. Identities are multi-faceted and fluid. I think that you ignore an important part of the picture when you ignore perceptions of you as part of your identity. They add to a conceptual cloud that around you that is you and how you come across to others. I rather like to avoid oversimplification which I feel you are falling for, although I still do believe that oneâs own identity is most important of those and ought to be respected by others.
Have you seen the Clayton Biggsby sketch on the Chappelle show with the blind black white supremacist? He had no knowledge of being black, but I think most people would still argue that it formed a major part of his identity regardless of his own concept of himself.
To nuance your previous point, being misgendered is a negative experience because that personâs âconcept of youâ does not agree with yours, becoming a point of conflict between you two and even inside yourself, not necessarily because they are wrong (although you are free to have that opinion). Sometimes people close to you will know you better than you know yourself.
damnedfurry@lemmy.world â¨2⊠â¨weeks⊠ago
But Iâd argue that allowing those perceptions to shape your identity, to any extent, is equivalent to forfeiting part of who you are to them, and allowing others to define you. That seems really unhealthy to me.
I have, and yeah, I guess I just donât see it that way. His identity ironically clashed with his biology, but it doesnât make sense to me that an aspect of yourself you have literally no knowledge of can be considering part of your âidentityâ.
Maybe I just see the concept of âidentityâ as borne of, and residing fully in, oneâs own consciousness.
chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world â¨3⊠â¨weeks⊠ago
What happens when a person has a brain injury causing retrograde amnesia, or dementia, or Alzheimerâs disease and forget the details of their lives? Are those forgotten aspects of their identity just gone? Or can they live on through their loved ones? What happens when we die and lose all possible sense of self? Is it like we never existed in the first place?
damnedfurry@lemmy.world â¨3⊠â¨weeks⊠ago
You can indeed become a completely different person when afflicted with Alzheimerâs, dementia, or a brain tumor. It doesnât retroactively change who you were before, of courseâŚbut it can absolutely fundamentally change you.
I know this first-hand.
I never asserted that identity is immutable, nor that only that it is not defined by outside perception of other people.