Identity Politics

But how are they differentiated? When you take away the identities provided by nations, genders and so on, what are you left with to call an individual, other than a collection of likes and dislikes?

Your last three words make all the difference.

Unless you want to be just a number.

As opposed to a free man?

Likes and dislikes are ephemeral. That's not a person. That's not identity.

Ephermal? Speak for yourself!

Don't people like the things they form their identity politics around?

Or dislike them, but yes.

I suppose this is just reminding me of my reservations about E-Prime. That is, it's all very well talking about what somebody does, but that's not the same as talking about who they are.

Of course the being is often the result of the doing, over a long period of time.

Precisely. The two are not unrelated, and one can argue that they are synonymous, but to do so and to strip away the anchors of national identity, gender, sexuality and similar traits is to render a changeable person without any identity at all.

Of course, the fallacy there is assuming those markers are the only things that can give a person grounding.

People are different, and should be treated differently.

However that does not mean they should be treated worse or better.

^^ True, though I'd imagine for some that may well be the case.

We're all individuals, and we're all human beings. In between those levels, we all belong to various categories of people. I see nothing wrong with that - the problem is when we call one category better or worse than another.