To Be or Not To Be (Identity Politics)

Speaker

Passerbye wrote: »

I think (he will have to confirm this) that Leitner's argument isn't that gender doesn't exist, rather, it shouldn't exist at all as it serves no valuable purpose and only serves to cause conflict and societal/self-limitation.

I wonder if someone somewhere has ever screwed up the courage to do a difficult thing by telling himself to be a man.

Passerbye

I've had some male friends who did this. One asked his current wife to marry him this way, actually. Another joined the military and started a new page in his life to have college money. They both seem to be doing fine.

I suppose the argument could be made, why do you need to tell yourself to 'be a man' in order to do these things? Why not just 'do them'?

Being devil's advocate here, of course, since Leitner's not around.

Speaker

Then I believe Leitner is refuted.

Passerbye

Look at my edit.

Speaker

It doesn't strike me as a material question. Leitner asserts that something is catagorically useless and negative, yet evidence exists that it is not.

Is taking on social identity roles necessary to help us to do difficult things sometimes?

Apparently for some people sometimes the answer is yes.

Passerbye

Yeah, I'm at the end of my ability to put myself in his shoes. I got a better insight on what he means, but I still don't agree with him.

Hopefully he'll come back soon so we can continue this, though.

Leitner

Speaker wrote: »

It doesn't strike me as a material question. Leitner asserts that something is catagorically useless and negative, yet evidence exists that it is not.

Is taking on social identity roles necessary to help us to do difficult things sometimes?

Apparently for some people sometimes the answer is yes.

I'll grant you that that's a positive I hadn't thought of. But it's problematic, firstly it sets up a dicotomy, they can do it because they're a man, which suggests that a woman couldn't. It strikes me that the opposite has certainly happened. And this benefit can easily be gained by various other forms of identity. "I'm going to take this on the chin and power through becase I'm a stoic Brit" or etc, without the clear downside.

ElJeffe

The connotation of "be a man" is often not "...as opposed to a woman" but rather "...as opposed to a little boy."

Just sayin'.

ElJeffe

OptimusZed wrote: »

ElJeffe wrote: »

Aegis wrote: »

I would tend to agree that current general political realities do affect the way in which identity politics is realized, but I would think that even given the retarded atmosphere in the US that there is still plenty of room for collective groups to function. Look at LGBT groups: they're organizing things quite well to advance their position. Efficacy wise, not very many successes yet, but as a political force I'd argue they're succeeding quite well.

Yes, but at the same time there is widespread sentiment that if you're gay and are not a liberal Democrat, you're doing it wrong. If you're conservative on every last issue there is and don't give two shits about marriage, you still better vote for the D on the ticket or you're a self-loathing sell-out. I mean, there's a shit-ton of people on these forums who are probably going to come in here and tell me, "Damn straight they're sell-outs." Because that person is gay, and gay rights uber alles.

I mean, I get that if you're gay, you're likely not a big fan of the party standing between you and equality. But I can also fathom someone who is gay and yet considers who he can marry to be less important than many other issues.

(Note that this argument is somewhat less effective when you consider the current Republican party and their tendency to be bugfuck crazy. Imagine it as it relates to the Pubs of fifteen years ago.)

Would you make the same argument regarding a successful black businessman that held otherwise Republican views and the Civil Rights movement?

I'm not trying to paint you into a corner, I'm honestly curious.

Depends on a lot of factors. Where does he live? Does the lack of civil rights across the nation affect him directly, given whatever region he happens to live in? (Since, for example, San Francisco != Alabama.)

There's also the part where the Civil Rights movement is really a terrible analogy to the current push for gay rights.

So yes, I may see a black guy in the 60s choosing to be a Republican as reasonable.

OptimusZed

ElJeffe wrote: »

Depends on a lot of factors. Where does he live? Does the lack of civil rights across the nation affect him directly, given whatever region he happens to live in? (Since, for example, San Francisco != Alabama.)

There's also the part where the Civil Rights movement is really a terrible analogy to the current push for gay rights.

So yes, I may see a black guy in the 60s choosing to be a Republican as reasonable.

Ok, so for you it's largely individualistic. He (being a gay man or a black man) should chose his allegiance based on what directly benefits him the most, regardless of whether the group that he identifies with (or with which others identify him) benefits from that choice.

Which is a perfectly reasonable stance, in a vacuum. I guess it's just not one that I would personally take.

ElJeffe

MrMister wrote: »

ElJeffe wrote: »

I mean, I get that if you're gay, you're likely not a big fan of the party standing between you and equality. But I can also fathom someone who is gay and yet considers who he can marry to be less important than many other issues.

It's not just marriage. It's also adoption. It's the right to teach in public schools. It's the right to be taught about in public schools. It's hospital visitation. It's not being classified as disordered.

It would be one thing to be a gay Republican if all the Republicans did was have some fussy little policy decision that you disagreed with. But that is not the case. They are fixated on how little value you have as a human being, and it is the clarion call that they use to rally their troops.

Except not all Republicans feel that way. And what if you don't want kids, are a committed bachelor, and live in a fairly liberal region?

The point is that you're not going to find a party that matches up with your beliefs perfectly. As such, you need to decide which items are really important to you and which are less so. I understand why, for you personally, gay rights is the most important. And presumably, if the Pubs and Dems swapped all of their stated positions, every last one, except for their stances on gay rights, you would remain a Dem. ANd that's fine for you.

But you really don't see how someone might not define themselves so much based on their sexual preference that they would choose to embrace a party they disagreed with 99% of the time? Because if you can't even understand how someone might make that decision, I think you're being willfully myopic.

OptimusZed

ElJeffe wrote: »

But you really don't see how someone might not define themselves so much based on their sexual preference that they would choose to embrace a party they disagreed with 99% of the time? Because if you can't even understand how someone might make that decision, I think you're being willfully myopic.

But at the same time, it's a party that has members who would be pushing "stoning in the streets" legislation if they didn't think it would end them politically.

There's a difference between supporting individual, socially liberal Republicans (if those continue to exist in any true number), and signing on to the party as whole when it obviously contains at least a vocal minority of people that feel you're an affront to God that should be expunged from the earth by fire.

ElJeffe

OptimusZed wrote: »

ElJeffe wrote: »

But you really don't see how someone might not define themselves so much based on their sexual preference that they would choose to embrace a party they disagreed with 99% of the time? Because if you can't even understand how someone might make that decision, I think you're being willfully myopic.

But at the same time, it's a party that has members who would be pushing "stoning in the streets" legislation if they didn't think it would end them politically.

There's a difference between supporting individual, socially liberal Republicans (if those continue to exist in any true number), and signing on to the party as whole when it obviously contains at least a vocal minority of people that feel you're an affront to God that should be expunged from the earth by fire.

Yes, there is. What if, say, you're gay and pro-war? There's a vocal minority in the Dems who think that pro-war Republicans are evil war criminals. Better claim Independent?

I mean, I mostly agree with you. I just maintain that a rational gay person can be a Republican without being delusional, self-loathing, or crazy. I don't think it's that wild a claim to make.

ElJeffe

OptimusZed wrote: »

ElJeffe wrote: »

Depends on a lot of factors. Where does he live? Does the lack of civil rights across the nation affect him directly, given whatever region he happens to live in? (Since, for example, San Francisco != Alabama.)

There's also the part where the Civil Rights movement is really a terrible analogy to the current push for gay rights.

So yes, I may see a black guy in the 60s choosing to be a Republican as reasonable.

Ok, so for you it's largely individualistic. He (being a gay man or a black man) should chose his allegiance based on what directly benefits him the most, regardless of whether the group that he identifies with (or with which others identify him) benefits from that choice.

Which is a perfectly reasonable stance, in a vacuum. I guess it's just not one that I would personally take.

Actually, I'm not even saying that I would go that route. I'm just saying that I can see people doing so, and I wouldn't think they're crazy-ass sell-outs.

OptimusZed

ElJeffe wrote: »

OptimusZed wrote: »

ElJeffe wrote: »

But you really don't see how someone might not define themselves so much based on their sexual preference that they would choose to embrace a party they disagreed with 99% of the time? Because if you can't even understand how someone might make that decision, I think you're being willfully myopic.

But at the same time, it's a party that has members who would be pushing "stoning in the streets" legislation if they didn't think it would end them politically.

There's a difference between supporting individual, socially liberal Republicans (if those continue to exist in any true number), and signing on to the party as whole when it obviously contains at least a vocal minority of people that feel you're an affront to God that should be expunged from the earth by fire.

Yes, there is. What if, say, you're gay and pro-war? There's a vocal minority in the Dems who think that pro-war Republicans are evil war criminals. Better claim Independent?

I mean, I mostly agree with you. I just maintain that a rational gay person can be a Republican without being delusional, self-loathing, or crazy. I don't think it's that wild a claim to make.

I think comparing anti-war Dems to anti-gay Reps is a little disingenuous. Even at their height, we aren't talking about huge levels of control in the party for the anti-war crowd, and while the protesters were quite clearly insane they weren't talking about denying freedoms to those who supported the war effort. The GOP has high ranking elected members comparing homosexual sex to bestiality and incest. The party platform seeks to deny them a basic right and effectively marginalize the gay community into non-personhood.

There are pretty stark differences. This isn't a disagreement on taxation or war policy, it's one side treating you like a person and the other like an abomination unto god.

Aegis

I don't necessarily see how the degree or influence a particular ideological sect within a broader party really matters to ElJeffe's point. Political identities are intrinsically multi-variate beasts and since a given individual may rank some of his own values more important than others, it isn't conceivable that he would still identify with an identity that doesn't mesh completely with aspects of his own.

Alternatively, political identity could be maintained as a local phenomenon where these individuals are finding differences with their local political organizations compared to the national one, making the choice even less repugnant than it would appear if one only looks at the national Republicans.

ElJeffe

What Aegis said.

OptimusZed

Aegis wrote: »

I don't necessarily see how the degree or influence a particular ideological sect within a broader party really matters to ElJeffe's point. Political identities are intrinsically multi-variate beasts and since a given individual may rank some of his own values more important than others, it isn't conceivable that he would still identify with an identity that doesn't mesh completely with aspects of his own.

Alternatively, political identity could be maintained as a local phenomenon where these individuals are finding differences with their local political organizations compared to the national one, making the choice even less repugnant than it would appear if one only looks at the national Republicans.

I would hope that the degree or influence of a group that actively seeks to demonize and marginalize you within one party would have some sort of a bearing on your decision making when it comes to choosing an affiliation. Maybe it's just me, but if I was faced with a party that contained a sizable mass of people who felt that I was devilspawn for having brown eyes, as a brown-eyed man I would be extremely reluctant to support that party. Particularly if the party had already organized around measures to ban brown-eyed people from marrying.

Aegis

And what happens when a group does consider you devilspawn for the traits you listed, but also considers you a saint because of the fact that you have blond hair? Do you not identify with the group because they don't respect one aspect of your identity or do you stay with the group because they do identify with an alternative aspect of your identity?

OptimusZed

Aegis wrote: »

And what happens when a group does consider you devilspawn for the traits you listed, but also considers you a saint because of the fact that you have blond hair? Do you not identify with the group because they don't respect one aspect of your identity or do you stay with the group because they do identify with an alternative aspect of your identity?

I honestly have trouble conceiving of a situation in which I am reviled by a sizable and highly courted aspect of a group for something beyond my control and sticking around because of my stance on tax policy or the war.

There's a fundamental disconnect there. Sure, I might share this view or that view with you, but when push comes to shove you're either thinking of me as a subhuman or preparing to throw me under the bus to get votes from those who do.

Pony

Aegis wrote: »

And what happens when a group does consider you devilspawn for the traits you listed, but also considers you a saint because of the fact that you have blond hair? Do you not identify with the group because they don't respect one aspect of your identity or do you stay with the group because they do identify with an alternative aspect of your identity?

well, it depends on how important those aspects are to you, and what the functional outcomes will be of supporting this group on those aspects

to give an alternate example: I'm a bisexual man. I support non-heterosexuals having the right to marry and being treated as equals to heterosexuals. Yet, in the past I have been reluctant to align myself with gay rights movements and such.

Why?

Because a lot of homosexuals hate bisexuals. Even though they are quick to use the "LGBT" moniker, a lot of the "L's and G's" don't like the "B's and T's". GLAAD, don't forget, stands for the "Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation".

Not "non-heterosexuals", gays and lesbians.

It's a central part of their ideology that they are fighting for homosexual rights, not non-heterosexual rights.

In the subcultures of the gay community, bisexuals are generally treated with a mixture of disgust, contempt, fear, and distrust.

In my passionate, idealistic youth I would attend gay rights events only to find out as a bisexual I was essentially not welcome. While they had no stated, official policies discriminating against me (often just the opposite!) in practice bisexuals suffer a great deal of mistrust and bigotry from homosexual activists.

It was so pervasive I simply could not continue to support these movements or attend their events, in fact it actually made me dislike them and in fact in some instances oppose them purely out of spite and anger.

I imagine that so-called "log cabin Republicans" suffer the same sort of internal conflict.

Passerbye

OptimusZed wrote: »

ElJeffe wrote: »

But you really don't see how someone might not define themselves so much based on their sexual preference that they would choose to embrace a party they disagreed with 99% of the time? Because if you can't even understand how someone might make that decision, I think you're being willfully myopic.

But at the same time, it's a party that has members who would be pushing "stoning in the streets" legislation if they didn't think it would end them politically.

There's a difference between supporting individual, socially liberal Republicans (if those continue to exist in any true number), and signing on to the party as whole when it obviously contains at least a vocal minority of people that feel you're an affront to God that should be expunged from the earth by fire.

There are plenty of perfect nice, personable, intelligent people in the world who identify as Christians, go to church every Sunday, and read the Bible frequently. Are these people to leave Christianity just because certain groups on the fringe interpret the Bible in a way which is drastically different from their own interpretation?

OptimusZed

Passerbye wrote: »

OptimusZed wrote: »

ElJeffe wrote: »

But you really don't see how someone might not define themselves so much based on their sexual preference that they would choose to embrace a party they disagreed with 99% of the time? Because if you can't even understand how someone might make that decision, I think you're being willfully myopic.

But at the same time, it's a party that has members who would be pushing "stoning in the streets" legislation if they didn't think it would end them politically.

There's a difference between supporting individual, socially liberal Republicans (if those continue to exist in any true number), and signing on to the party as whole when it obviously contains at least a vocal minority of people that feel you're an affront to God that should be expunged from the earth by fire.

There are plenty of perfect nice, personable, intelligent people in the world who identify as Christians, go to church every Sunday, and read the Bible frequently. Are these people to leave Christianity just because certain groups on the fringe interpret the Bible in a way which is drastically different from their own interpretation?

Religious identification is different than political identification. While your choice of religion will say a lot about your personal beliefs, they're not going to have a direct effect on the lives of others who don't hold those views. They're self-contained things.

A political party exists to rework the world (or their chosen corner of it) in their own image. So by belonging and supporting a party, you are helping push the philosophies and views of that party toward becoming the law of the land. Your choice of religion doesn't have the same implication for the rest of your city/state/country.

Aegis

OptimusZed wrote: »

Aegis wrote: »

And what happens when a group does consider you devilspawn for the traits you listed, but also considers you a saint because of the fact that you have blond hair? Do you not identify with the group because they don't respect one aspect of your identity or do you stay with the group because they do identify with an alternative aspect of your identity?

I honestly have trouble conceiving of a situation in which I am reviled by a sizable and highly courted aspect of a group for something beyond my control and sticking around because of my stance on tax policy or the war.

There's a fundamental disconnect there. Sure, I might share this view or that view with you, but when push comes to shove you're either thinking of me as a subhuman or preparing to throw me under the bus to get votes from those who do.

I suppose this is somewhat of my underlying point that I'm wrangling over. What you are describing is the prioritization of one aspect of identity (gender) over another aspect of identity (political). Is it simply the lack of control of the former that elevates that form of identity above the political identity, or is it a personal value choice prioritization?

Passerbye

OptimusZed wrote: »

Passerbye wrote: »

OptimusZed wrote: »

ElJeffe wrote: »

But you really don't see how someone might not define themselves so much based on their sexual preference that they would choose to embrace a party they disagreed with 99% of the time? Because if you can't even understand how someone might make that decision, I think you're being willfully myopic.

But at the same time, it's a party that has members who would be pushing "stoning in the streets" legislation if they didn't think it would end them politically.

There's a difference between supporting individual, socially liberal Republicans (if those continue to exist in any true number), and signing on to the party as whole when it obviously contains at least a vocal minority of people that feel you're an affront to God that should be expunged from the earth by fire.

There are plenty of perfect nice, personable, intelligent people in the world who identify as Christians, go to church every Sunday, and read the Bible frequently. Are these people to leave Christianity just because certain groups on the fringe interpret the Bible in a way which is drastically different from their own interpretation?

Religious identification is different than political identification. While your choice of religion will say a lot about your personal beliefs, they're not going to have a direct effect on the lives of others who don't hold those views. They're self-contained things.

A political party exists to rework the world (or their chosen corner of it) in their own image. So by belonging and supporting a party, you are helping push the philosophies and views of that party toward becoming the law of the land. Your choice of religion doesn't have the same implication for the rest of your city/state/country.

My point is, I don't think that groups which are as large as the Dems and the Pubs can genuinely be described as pushing all of their values and views equally across the entirety of their voting bases, same as Christianity in the US. How many Pubs actually think secession is a good idea, for example?

Who's to say that sexual identification, or even gender identification, shouldn't be treated the same way as religious identification? That is, kept a personal matter for both heterosexuals and otherwise?

I think the only problem I could conceivably see with gender identity is how it can affect sexual identity and all the resulting silly legislation that's necessitated as a result.

Pony

Passerbye wrote: »

OptimusZed wrote: »

ElJeffe wrote: »

But you really don't see how someone might not define themselves so much based on their sexual preference that they would choose to embrace a party they disagreed with 99% of the time? Because if you can't even understand how someone might make that decision, I think you're being willfully myopic.

But at the same time, it's a party that has members who would be pushing "stoning in the streets" legislation if they didn't think it would end them politically.

There's a difference between supporting individual, socially liberal Republicans (if those continue to exist in any true number), and signing on to the party as whole when it obviously contains at least a vocal minority of people that feel you're an affront to God that should be expunged from the earth by fire.

There are plenty of perfect nice, personable, intelligent people in the world who identify as Christians, go to church every Sunday, and read the Bible frequently. Are these people to leave Christianity just because certain groups on the fringe interpret the Bible in a way which is drastically different from their own interpretation?

The Republican Party opposes non-heterosexual marriage as a matter of policy. While only some elements of the fringe may believe homosexuals are monsters that should burn in hell or mentally ill people who need to be "cured", the fact nonetheless remains that Republicans, as a matter of official policy and party goals, oppose the progression non-heterosexual rights.

They simply do. This is inarguable. A person might support Republican principles while cheerfully ignoring this fact, but that's choosing to ignore an aspect of the official Republican platform and its goals as a party.

So, yes, I think if a non-self-hating non-heterosexual person wanted to be personally honest and consistent with their beliefs and values, it would behoove them to separate themselves from the Republican Party itself even if in all other ways they adhere to the Republican viewpoint.

Unless you believe that the importance of other Republican values outweigh the fact that they want to take your rights away.

That requires some level of "pragmatism" that almost borders on cognitive dissonance, in my view.

A person can be a Christian without being a Catholic or being a Mormon. A continuing source of contention between my mother and I is her self-identification as a "good Catholic". My mother, who is most definitely a good Christian, believes a great many things that are essentially directly contrary to Catholic doctrine and she disagrees with the Catholic Church on many things (in fact, many of her personal beliefs are essentially Jewish values).

Yet, she self-identifies as Catholic because she does go to a Catholic church, is part of that church's community, and supports the Church as an idea, even if she disagrees with a lot of what it's upper echelons hold as official policy and goals.

I think this is absurd, but I try not to argue with her about it because the functional and pragmatic reality of her self-identification and being part of her church community is ultimately a positive one, and she herself is not really helping to further policies and actions of the Catholic Church that she actually opposes.

OptimusZed

Aegis wrote: »

OptimusZed wrote: »

Aegis wrote: »

And what happens when a group does consider you devilspawn for the traits you listed, but also considers you a saint because of the fact that you have blond hair? Do you not identify with the group because they don't respect one aspect of your identity or do you stay with the group because they do identify with an alternative aspect of your identity?

I honestly have trouble conceiving of a situation in which I am reviled by a sizable and highly courted aspect of a group for something beyond my control and sticking around because of my stance on tax policy or the war.

There's a fundamental disconnect there. Sure, I might share this view or that view with you, but when push comes to shove you're either thinking of me as a subhuman or preparing to throw me under the bus to get votes from those who do.

I suppose this is somewhat of my underlying point that I'm wrangling over. What you are describing is the prioritization of one aspect of identity (gender) over another aspect of identity (political). Is it simply the lack of control of the former that elevates that form of identity above the political identity, or is it a personal value choice prioritization?

I think it's really that I'm unlikely to be denied civil rights based on my tax stance, or how I feel about medicare. But my sexuality (or eye color, or whatever) leads these people to believe I should have my rights abridged. That I should prioritize the other things I believe over being treated like a second class citizen blows my mind.

OptimusZed

Passerbye wrote: »

OptimusZed wrote: »

Passerbye wrote: »

OptimusZed wrote: »

ElJeffe wrote: »

But you really don't see how someone might not define themselves so much based on their sexual preference that they would choose to embrace a party they disagreed with 99% of the time? Because if you can't even understand how someone might make that decision, I think you're being willfully myopic.

But at the same time, it's a party that has members who would be pushing "stoning in the streets" legislation if they didn't think it would end them politically.

There's a difference between supporting individual, socially liberal Republicans (if those continue to exist in any true number), and signing on to the party as whole when it obviously contains at least a vocal minority of people that feel you're an affront to God that should be expunged from the earth by fire.

There are plenty of perfect nice, personable, intelligent people in the world who identify as Christians, go to church every Sunday, and read the Bible frequently. Are these people to leave Christianity just because certain groups on the fringe interpret the Bible in a way which is drastically different from their own interpretation?

Religious identification is different than political identification. While your choice of religion will say a lot about your personal beliefs, they're not going to have a direct effect on the lives of others who don't hold those views. They're self-contained things.

A political party exists to rework the world (or their chosen corner of it) in their own image. So by belonging and supporting a party, you are helping push the philosophies and views of that party toward becoming the law of the land. Your choice of religion doesn't have the same implication for the rest of your city/state/country.

My point is, I don't think that groups which are as large as the Dems and the Pubs can genuinely be described as pushing all of their values and views equally across the entirety of their voting bases, same as Christianity in the US. How many Pubs actually think secession is a good idea, for example?

Who's to say that sexual identification, or even gender identification, shouldn't be treated the same way as religious identification? That is, kept a personal matter for both heterosexuals and otherwise?

I think the only problem I could conceivably see with gender identity is how it can affect sexual identity and all the resulting silly legislation that's necessitated as a result.

But electing Republicans, and as a party member that would be exactly what you were doing, helps them push all aspects of their agenda, not just the ones you agree with. So whether or not you support them on taxes or the war, they're still going to be using the seats you helped them get to prevent you from gaining or keeping the right to marry.

You can kind of pick and choose your particular religious tenets, or just pack up and pick a new religion, and none of your previous support is actively eroding your rights. You can't do the same with political parties, I'm afraid. The party platform is the party platform, and supporting them is supporting a specific set of legislative priorities.

Aegis

OptimusZed wrote: »

Aegis wrote: »

OptimusZed wrote: »

Aegis wrote: »

And what happens when a group does consider you devilspawn for the traits you listed, but also considers you a saint because of the fact that you have blond hair? Do you not identify with the group because they don't respect one aspect of your identity or do you stay with the group because they do identify with an alternative aspect of your identity?

I honestly have trouble conceiving of a situation in which I am reviled by a sizable and highly courted aspect of a group for something beyond my control and sticking around because of my stance on tax policy or the war.

There's a fundamental disconnect there. Sure, I might share this view or that view with you, but when push comes to shove you're either thinking of me as a subhuman or preparing to throw me under the bus to get votes from those who do.

I suppose this is somewhat of my underlying point that I'm wrangling over. What you are describing is the prioritization of one aspect of identity (gender) over another aspect of identity (political). Is it simply the lack of control of the former that elevates that form of identity above the political identity, or is it a personal value choice prioritization?

I think it's really that I'm unlikely to be denied civil rights based on my tax stance, or how I feel about medicare. But my sexuality (or eye color, or whatever) leads these people to believe I should have my rights abridged. That I should prioritize the other things I believe over being treated like a second class citizen blows my mind.

I can agree with this line of reasoning in part due to the obvious fact of self-identification in part being done to satisfy a person's interests, of which being denied civil rights is somewhat counterproductive. However, material interests are not necessarily the only interests involved in self-identification and one could conceivably prioritize non-immediate material benefits of particular group identification over current potential material implications.

There's also the potential for realizing that this civil rights movement is inevitable (which seems to be the indication even if it'll take time) and thus a group whose policies are counter to that is impotent and will eventually change on that particular policy.

MrMister

ElJeffe wrote: »

But you really don't see how someone might not define themselves so much based on their sexual preference that they would choose to embrace a party they disagreed with 99% of the time? Because if you can't even understand how someone might make that decision, I think you're being willfully myopic.

It has to do with dignity and self-respect. Sometimes you don't associate with people who spit in your face, even if there's some practical upshot you could gain.