For example I could identify as a Police Officer. Is that problematic? — Andrew4Handel

No, it is knowingly, deliberately and demonstrably false. If you're pretending to be a police officer (no caps required for occupations) as a practical joke, in a theatrical performance or at a costume party, no problem. If you're doing it in the commission of a crime, serious problem.

Is it problematic if identify as the worlds greatest painter and just think I am an attractive genius? — Andrew4Handel

Many people have many delusions and self-delusions. They are not considered crimes or misdemeanours, and only sometimes considered mental illness.

do personal identities (which could include religious identities) have a special status and should they be challenged? — Andrew4Handel

By whom and in what context? If you identify as a police officer and try to arrest someone, they have a right to as for your ID; if you brought a suspect into the police station, the real officers on duty would certainly demand on what authority you did that. But I've never been required to prove parish membership when entering a church, and most people wouldn't be rude enough to question anyone's claim to be Muslim or Catholic. Of course if a minority religion is persecuted, its members would be challenged to prove they didn't belong to that religion, but I wouldn't blame them for lying.

To practice a profession or trade people should be required to present valid credentials; otherwise, let's just assume they are who- and whatever they say they are, until their true abilities and attributes are revealed. If it does no harm, I don't see why we should make it our business to identify other people.

Am I undermining the police force? — Andrew4Handel

Please don't put explosives under the police station building. If that's what you meant.

Obviously we probably cannot stop someone from mentally identifying as anything in the privacy of the mind but do personal identities (which could include religious identities) have a special status and should they be challenged? — Andrew4Handel

I think religious identities, special status and such are all socially imbued on a person. So there is a meaning to them beyond the silliness of being different due to a title. The public, the pnyotos, as the old Greeks called it, fears a person, or trusts a person or follows a person... these are not illusionary, but socially established.

So yes, you can challenge leaders, trusted people, loved people and feared people, but do be wary of the potential consequences.

The points about identifying as a different gender from your birth sex is that it is a) pretty common and b) isn't voluntary, and c) the test for it is mostly subjective.

There is no subjective test for being a police officer, I guess it is a common thing, but it is voluntary.

So yes, you can challenge leaders, trusted people, loved people and feared people, but do be wary of the potential consequences. — god must be atheist

You can challenge their credentials, their qualifications, their decisions and their motives - but if you don't believe their self-professed identities, how did they ever become leaders, trusted people, loved people and feared people?

You’re only taking one side of the social agreements into account. People identify others in particular ways and not always fairly. In fact it is often done deliberately in order to subjugate or take advantage of others.

People identify others in particular ways and not always fairly. — praxis

Any identity assigned by another person should be challenged asap. In the case a child's assigned identity, it takes years for the child to realize whether it actually fits or not. Sometimes a child designated 'stupid' or 'lazy' or 'ugly' or 'clumsy' grows into the assigned character, and doesn't realize that they ought to challenge it. This is less true of assigned gender, but more true of assigned ethnicity and religious denomination.

if you don't believe their self-professed identities, how did they ever become leaders, trusted people, loved people and feared people? — Vera Mont

Through their actions.

And why do you take it as given that I don't believe their self-professed identities? Did I say or imply that? Please point me to the spot in my text that tells you that.

a child designated 'stupid' or 'lazy' or 'ugly' or 'clumsy' — Vera Mont

Or identified a gender that doesn’t traditionally match their biology, making it quite clear that we can all make such distinctions, even from an early age.

And why do you take it as given that I don't believe their self-professed identities? — god must be atheist

In accordance with the OP question, that's what is being challenged.

Or identified a gender that doesn’t traditionally match their biology, making it quite clear that we can all make such distinctions, even from an early age — praxis

Yes, I didn't want to wade into that particular quagmire. Children are usually clear on their own gender identity by age 7 or sooner. But they may be conflicted about declaring that, for fear of ridicule, rejection or punishment. Or be convinced that they must be wrong, because their elders know best. Or try to conform, be what's expected and feel guilty if they fail. For pre-pubescents, the issue is further complicated by the cultural trappings of gender-assignment. Young children imitate their role models. While a an eight-year-old girl who is confident in her role feels fine wearing jeans and playing with trucks, a child who has been designated male may strongly desire to wear dresses and play with dolls, the better to fit the stereotype of the gender with which they identify.

Should we be able to identify however we like? Would that be problematic and is there an ethical dimension? Should identities be challenged?

For example I could identify as a Police Officer. Is that problematic? Does it entail I should have to do some police work? Am I undermining the police force?

Is it problematic if identify as the worlds greatest painter and just think I am an attractive genius?

Obviously we probably cannot stop someone from mentally identifying as anything in the privacy of the mind but do personal identities (which could include religious identities) have a special status and should they be challenged? — Andrew4Handel

And why do you (Vera Mont) take it as given that I don't believe their self-professed identities? — god must be atheist

In accordance with the OP question, that's what is being challenged. — Vera Mont

Vera, above my quote is the entire opening post. I only found references by the Opening Poster to professions, to some character details and to social standing. I think that's what he means by "self-professed identities", because his examples point exactly to those things. I answered him in kind. I can't see how it follows from there that I, like you claimed as given, don't believe in someone's self-professed identity. I am sorry, but it does not follow from that.

In the concluding paragraph, I took personal identities to mean something more fundamental than wearing a badge or saying you're a doctor when you chat up a woman in a bar. I concede it was a somewhat ambiguous question.
BTW - I didn't assume that didn't believe them; I assumed that you thought they could be challenged. As in, "Now, Mr. Wright, if that is your real name, when did you last see the deceased?"

No, it is knowingly, deliberately and demonstrably false. — Vera Mont

Which could be said for a range of identites.

Many people have many delusions and self-delusions. They are not considered crimes or misdemeanours, and only sometimes considered mental illness. — Vera Mont

What are the ramifications of this? In your opinion. If you care to comment?

I used the Police officer example to suggest how personal identities can be problematic and that we might want to (pardon the pun) Police them.

Is it problematic if identify as the worlds greatest painter and just think I am an attractive genius? — Andrew4Handel

I think the painter example is useful to think about for a minute. (By the way, for the record I'm only focusing on this specific example at the moment and my analogy should not be preemptively extended too broadly).

You can think you are the best painter in the world, and that you produce great art. Let's say you make several art pieces, and go stand in a gallery with them proudly displayed. "I'm the best artist in the world," you proudly tell people who walk by, "and here I have produced the greatest art ever made. Look!"

While certainly not modest by any means, you are free to have that opinion about yourself and your artwork, and to make such claims about both.

Now imagine someone walks by, looks at your artwork, and says, "This isn't great art. Why, my 5 year-old can draw better than this. And for the record, [some other artist] is the best artist in the world."

Is this person entitled to their opinion? Of course. Should they be allowed to express that opinion? Yes. Equally as much as you can express yours. [Edit: We might suggest they phrase it in some more sensitive way, admittedly; the above example was pretty blunt!]

This can be generalized as "You should be able to say X, but others are allowed to say ~X." This forms the very basis for civilized discussion, where, ideally, growth and learning can happen.

* * *

But now going back to the example, what happens? If enough people tell you this, you may start to doubt your formerly-sky-high opinion of yourself. "Maybe I should have a little humility and practice a bit more," you may decide.

OR you could stubbornly press on and disagree with everyone else. You against the world! The struggling, misunderstood artist! You will probably be famous after you're dead, like other great artists!

This is an example of how there are (at least) two identities at play in any social interaction. The self-concept of an individual (how he sees himself), and the other-concept of the person interacting with him. Much like my Ship of Theseus discussion, these things will be different.

Furthermore, identity is a two-way street. It's a conversation that we have with others around us. We get our cues about a lot of things related to ourselves from those around us. We exist in community. In a similar way that we rely on others for physical survival (farmers to grow the food we eat every day, ex.), we see ourselves reflected back through them as a mirror. A lot of that is a good thing. Some can be harmful. But even negative feedback about oneself can be taken and turned into something positive.

Like if someone tells you that you suck as an artist. Maybe you feel hurt at first, and they should have expressed it more kindly, true. But upon further reflection you realize you do kinda suck, and it spurs you to become better.

The "identity is a two-way street" thing goes the other way, too. How you project yourself out into the world influences how others think of you. It isn't the only factor, but it's a strong one. This is why conmen and snakeoil salesmen exist.

You’re only taking one side of the social agreements into account. People identify others in particular ways and not always fairly. In fact it is often done deliberately in order to subjugate or take advantage of others. — praxis

That is a good point but I was talking about personal identities as opposed to imposed identities, social identities and stereotypes.

While there is a clear problem with imposing false identities on others it is somewhat inevitable arguably.

If we were discussing stereotypes and imposed identities I would say that other peoples evaluations would only be relevant to us if they have a professional capacity ( and even then with caution) Like an exam moderator/scorer, a doctor diagnosing something etc but we can't stop people drawing opinions about us.
It happend to me a lot (Judgements made on me) and now I think we have to develop confidence in our own identity (unless someone is being clearly oppressed) and not be swayed easily by other peoples assessments of us.
I think we now have a situation where people are encouraged not to question peoples identities and affirm them without criticism.

The "identity is a two-way street" thing goes the other way, too. How you project yourself out into the world influences how others think of you. It isn't the only factor, but it's a strong one. This is why conmen and snakeoil salesmen exist. — tomatohorse

No, conmen exist because they are willing deceive and cheat others, taking advantage of the cooperative aspects of society for their own selfish gain.

That is a good point but I was talking about personal identities as opposed to imposed identities, social identities and stereotypes. — Andrew4Handel

The point is that we make many distinctions automatically. If a man looks like a man but behaves exactly like a woman then we tend to think of them as a man in appearance and a woman in gender.

@praxis I would argue that it's coming from the same underlying root though.

If nothing else, they are projecting about themselves, "Believe me and what I tell you about [whatever they're trying to sell or convince about]; I'm trustworthy."

But really, that line was fairly minor in terms of my larger points. If you have any discussion on those I'd be interested to hear what you think. Going back to the whole, "we can discuss differences in ideas for the greater good," thing ;)

I would argue that it's coming from the same underlying root though. — tomatohorse

The intent to deceive?

Not the intent (which is 1st person, solely within their own mind), but rather the mechanism by which they are able to accomplish their deceit. Communicating ideas about themselves and having it influence the ideas of the other party, about the deceiver.

Are you suggesting that being trans is necessarily deceitful?

Nope, not what I'm saying.

If a man looks like a man but behaves exactly like a woman then we tend to think of them as a man in appearance and a woman in gender. — praxis

I personally don't and I don't know who you are referring to exactly. If I mistake someone for the opposite sex it is usually based on physical appearance and usually women with short hair and a less curvy figures.

I don't have a gender identity and apparently that is being called "Agender." I am a tall bald gay male who is not very flamboyant but may give off signals.

My interests include baroque music and this/philosophy/learning but I don't like sports or cars and typical male interests but I also don't like fashion/make up and soap operas. If I did I wouldn't consider that my gender identity. I preferred the company of girls when I was a young boy. Now I prefer my own company.

I also couldn't do a high maintenance identity trying to convince people I was x. But a lot of people seem to find it harder to be themselves than try and conform.

The intent to deceive? — praxis

There is the intent to deceive and then the intent to project an image that one prefers for ones self. A civilian dressing as police officer could be an intent to deceive.

But wearing make up, certain clothing, or things to project an identity could be an attempt to project or enhance one's self identity.

Someone might be deceiving one's self however in self presentation. We can deceive ourselves and hence portray a false image of ourselves not reflecting some facts about us.

I don't have a gender identity and apparently that is being called "Agender." — Andrew4Handel

You’re Agender but don’t identify as Agender??? :chin:

You’re Agender but don’t identify as Agender? :chin: — praxis

I would be labelled agender by someone else. It is a bit like atheism relying on theism.

I can't make sense of the non grammatical form of gender.

I think there is a difference between desiring to be X and the ability to be X. If I desired to appear more of a typical man I probably couldn't and that would probably mean trying to project a (gender?) image through aping someone else.

Now imagine someone walks by, looks at your artwork, and says, "This isn't great art. Why, my 5 year-old can draw better than this. And for the record, [some other artist] is the best artist in the world."

Is this person entitled to their opinion? Of course. Should they be allowed to express that opinion? Yes. Equally as much as you can express yours. — tomatohorse

This is the problem. You might not want to hurt someone by contradicting them but you also might not want to lie. It becomes a problem when you are forced to call someone the worlds greatest painter.

Maybe we have a moral obligation to affirm other peoples identities to spare them suffering but it becomes a farce if you are only falsely confirming their identity whilst holding the opposite view.

Many people have many delusions and self-delusions. They are not considered crimes or misdemeanours, and only sometimes considered mental illness. — Vera Mont

What are the ramifications of this? In your opinion. If you care to comment? — Andrew4Handel

Worst case? Truly horrendous. One guy's delusion is that the Jews conspired to thwart his artistic ambition and his nation's aspiration to greatness, so he drags a nation into a disastrous war and genocide... with the resultant creation of a truly problematic new state where all the great global powers are locked in a fifty-year standoff, which eventually explodes in sporadic violence in a number of far-away countries, and a series of small but destructive local wars - all because a nation went went along with, shared in, the delusion.
Another guy's delusion convinced many generations of otherwise decent people that their beloved deity would sentence them to eternal torment for breaking his nonsensical rules.

Most of the time, it's harmless fantasy, with no ramifications.

I used the Police officer example to suggest how personal identities can be problematic and that we might want to (pardon the pun) Police them. — Andrew4Handel

Claiming to have an occupation or rank you do not have is not a personal identity; it's a simple deception or role-play or joke, depending on the circumstances. Unless you actually believe you are are a cop and try to arrest people, in which case you may be committed or arrested, depending on the consultant's verdict.
We've been over this. Why would anyone's job-description be their personal identity?
Now, if you believe you're a reincarnation of Gandhi or King Arthur, that actually is about personal identity; that's real mental illness.

This is an example of how there are (at least) two identities at play in any social interaction. The self-concept of an individual (how he sees himself), and the other-concept of the person interacting with him. — tomatohorse

The question probably is to what extent should one influence the other.

I think it is probably impossible to force someone to think something abut you. Such that we have limited control over other peoples minds without deception and coercion.

So the problem for me is any attempt to enforce someone else's opinion on someone else's identity.

Some identities seem to be for public consumption indeed. Some people make more effort to convey an identity to the public than others but this can lead to greater public rejection.

Why would anyone's job-description be their personal identity? — Vera Mont

I am surprised you asked this.

A lot of peoples jobs are part of their identities and a valued part of their life. Finding out someone is a nurse could make you think they were a caring humane person and is part of their life history.

That is why some people convey a fake identity because it is an identity they wanted or it is an identity that is useful to them at some time. Such as evading capture or identity through elaborate disguise