User:JamesEG/ABMOS/Identity

So, let's say that you want to consider yourself a member of some predefined characterization. Ignore any over-arching certifications, condonences, conferrations, or any such recognition from peers. It could be a Cowboy, or a Nerd, or a Doctor, or even a Gender, as they all differ only in extent, not by intent. Per autarchial principles (here denoting ‘authority for oneself’, not a synonym for ’autocracy’), that is your prerogative: for the sake of a pursuit of truth, one must be able to define and create concepts, alone and at odds if necessary. Let's also say that some group disagrees with your assertion; that is their prerogative also, per the same considerations.

If you want others to tolerate your profession, you all are on the proverbial two-way street: compromise is necessary. Each should tolerate the other's prerogative as that of peers. This is the reason for the dichotomy of Public and Private realms of existence. Remember, also, that on the grade of mutual interfaces, from tolerance, acceptance, and up to embracing, tolerance is the only requirement which doesn't disturb the balance and go too far into infringing the others' rights by becoming at best hypocritical, and at worst fascist.

Take, for example, a biological male (Exhibit A) who wishes to define themselves (excusing the inadequate pronoun) as a Woman. What would that compromise entail? They need a theater for this thought-experiment, so make it a forum of social exchange (Exhibit B). Membership in this group abides by some criteria, and one criterion is that the applicant be a Woman. When Exhibit A presents their interest to Exhibit B, what should Exhibit B do? The politically permitted response depends on one more bit of information: whether they are a Public or a Private group.

A private entity is owned by some governing body that should have due guarantees of privacy, including in this example decisions regarding membership. A public one, on the other hand, is owned by the public (or an agency answerable to the public, in a ‘republican’ system). As the public realm ought to provide a babylonic nexus for otherwise disparate parties, one of its duties is to the federal inclusion of parties at their points of common interest.

Now, if Exhibit B advertised for membership in a public forum, and did not explicitly state their incorporation as a private entity, they have no conceivable recourse to deny the contribution of Exhibit A — unless Exhibit A is disqualified for reasons of the common peace, et al, et cetera. (Note the use of the word ‘contribution’: because that's what it is with a public forum, and not merely an allocated slot in some roster.)

Of course, who ever said that the human race was logical?