Embed Notice

Here's a thought.

The identitarian left speaks of "identity" in near-sacral tones, in that they seem to consider it a fundamental, immutable part of a person, perhaps even a foundational part of the human psyche.

But we know very well that in practice identity is anything but immutable. This is especially the case with identity concepts beyond just "I, me and myself", concepts that denote belonging in this or that thing or group. At best it has some sort of long-term stability (in some cases life-long), but it can also be fleeting and situation-dependent.

We know this, because we see it all around us. Yet, the identitarian left has made the questioning of any identity into something akin a new mortal sin.
Yes, some identities are very dear to people, and having the basis of those identities be compromised can be very uncomfortable. And if one hasn't yet grasped the idea that other people's opinions on one's identity don't really matter, questioning can also be very uncomfortable.
But such discomfort does not justify treating personal identities as inviolable, innate truths.

Where did this idea come from?
And how come practically nobody points out its obvious counterfactual nature?