Video transcript:
Identity as it pertains to human beings is an interesting concept [1]. What, after all, makes a person that person? Perhaps most essentially, which components of a human being can be subtracted or added without affecting that person's identity? Perhaps one of the most basic and fundamental discriminations made by humans is that between male and female individuals. Yet in a study by Joel et al. [2] involving fMRI scans of the brains of both male and female subjects showed that this division does not extend to the brains of individuals. In fact, this study showed a distinct mosaic of features and patterns for each subject.
We can thus conclude that every individual has a unique brain structure, which presumably affects an individual's identity in some fashion. We can also conclude that the suggestion of a base identity in the form of a male or female person has no basis in reality. What sex chromosomes and related do affect are one's genitals, one's reproductive organs and along with it one's chances of being colour blind or getting specific types of cancer. Much of which is simply due to the presence of back-up copies of genes on the second X-chromosome which can compensate for defective or recessive genes on the first X-chromosome.
Here an interesting question is that of whether identity is affected by the alteration of one's body, or the experience of the alteration. In the case of a traumatic injury, such as the loss of a limb, the effect is both physical and psychological. The traumatic experience itself, followed by the recovery from the loss and the continuing reminders of one's loss in daily life, all of it form challenges, but does this change one's identity? What if said limb could be miraculously restored, just the way it was before?
Obviously our experiences will affect the way in which we will respond to future events, but does this change who we are, as in our ego and sense of self? Here the question that presents itself is whether a person's identity can be considered to be permanent, or changing. If we consider the concept of 'personal development', then it seems reasonable to assume that a permanent identity is impossible, and thus that what we perceive as our 'identity' is ever-changing, following our experiences in life.
If we take that reasoning, and then apply it to the concept of what is known as 'identity politics' [3], we can see the formation of a highly problematic picture. Defined according to Merriam-Webster as: 'politics in which groups of people having a particular racial, religious, ethnic, social or cultural identity tend to promote their own specific interests or concerns without regard to the interests or concerns of any larger political group'.
The terms which come to mind at such a description are 'tribalism', 'nationalism', as well as 'discrimination'. Each of which should be rather familiar terms to most, along with their negative connotations. It uses discrimination to segregate individuals based on quantifiers such as skin colour, sexual preferences, cultural and ethnic background, and so on. This type of discrimination is explicitly forbidden in Article 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [5], which reads:
"Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty."
At this point we have to consider whether positive discrimination, inverse discrimination, or its more euphemistic term of 'affirmative action' [6] is truly the solution to what ultimately is a problem which can be summarised as the annihilation of the individual. Instead of accepting that any human being is their own person, and can freely choose with whom and how they associate with others, they instead are subjected to discrimination before they are even born, whether it is about their biological sex, involves their biological parents, concerns the environment and circumstances of their birth and upbringing, or any of a countless other factors.
Article 1 of the Declaration of Human Rights reads: "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."
If we are to accept this, and strive to make it into a reality, then the practice of identity politics, 'positive' discrimination and other forms of discrimination, nationalism and related can never be compatible with such a basic statement. Even as one declares human beings to be the equal of one another, the other declares that some are more or less equal than others.
To this I can add my own experiences to further the theory that a direct consequence of identity politics when it comes to biological sex and the associated (binary) social role, or gender, is that it too is merely a way to eradicate the individual.
As I fought for years within the medical and political systems of my own country of birth to learn the physical identity of my body, and to establish an official identity within the rigid political system, I got offered essentially three choices: the first was to maintain the male identity which I had been assigned at birth, but which matched poorly with my outward appearance. The second was to accept the pseudo-scientific theory [7][8] of transgenderism which I found myself steered towards by the medical professionals whom I consulted, the acceptance of which would have resulted in me having my body remoulded to fit a socially acceptable female pattern using invasive surgery.
The third option was to keep fighting for a third option, which ultimately materialised in the medical finding that my body is in fact that of a true hermaphrodite, as in the intersex condition. Unfortunately, this physical identity is heavily contested and barely known, and carries no official weight in society. Thus it is that to the world I am now of the female persuasion, even as my body is that of a hermaphroditic intersex individual, and my mind is that of my own. The latter two of which are quantifiers which society and with it identity politics do not discriminate on, rendering them practically useless and requiring suitable substitutions which are recognised by identity politics.
Thus it is that we reach this impasse in a rather dystopian system. If nations can sign the Declaration of Human Rights, yet practice identity politics and nationalism, with discrimination not only allowed but even encouraged by the supporters of both, then what hope does the individual have? The individual isn't a group. While groups are made up out of individuals, the latter should only be in the former out of their own volition.
There are only two types of groups which we can find ourselves a part of without explicitly applying for them, and out of these only one type which robs us of our individuality. The latter type consists out of any groups which we get forcibly grouped into, whereas the only group which we all find ourselves in and which we can never leave, but which leaves our individuality intact is that of humankind itself.
Ultimately, it is the human identity that connects all of us.
Maya
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_identity
[2] https://www.pnas.org/content/112/50/15468?fbclid=IwAR1yvJl4c2vdLroc_gu23Blx2Cv1RwfJswrqhvT7ljoV5Wus6tClqKgIQpA
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_politics
[4] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/identity%20politics
[5] https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/
[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action
[7] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-pseudoscience/
[8] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pseudoscience
