On Identity
May 28, 2025•3,052 words
What is identity? A question wrongly posed. Identity, for example, in the realm of pure mathematics is something very different from the semantics of 'identity' in our common lives (and also much quibbled about).
A better question would be the following: What is personal identity? Ignoring the mathematically themed definitions, Merriam Websters' dictionary defines 'identity' as
- the distinguishing character or personality of an individual (individuality)
- the relation established by psychological identification
- the condition of being the same with something described or asserted
establish the identity of stolen goods
- sameness of essential or generic character in different instances.
'Personal identity' on the other hand is described as
the persistent and continuous unity of the individual person normally attested by continuity of memory with present consciousness".
This definition uses "Person" to describe the "personal" element of the term.
Person : human, individual
—sometimes used in combination especially by those who prefer to avoid man in compounds applicable to both sexes
- a character or part in or as if in a play : guise
- one of the three modes of being in the Trinitarian Godhead as understood by Christians
- the unitary personality of Christ that unites the divine and human natures
- archaic : bodily appearance
- the body of a human being
- the personality of a human being : self
- one (such as a human being, a partnership, or a corporation) that is recognized by law as the subject of rights and duties
- reference of a segment of discourse to the speaker, to one spoken to, or to one spoken of as indicated by means of certain pronouns or in many languages by verb inflection
The word itself, according to Alan Watts, is derived from the masks used in greek drama that wold amplify the sound "per-sona" - where the sound comes through, which is in line with the definition of "a character or part in or as if in a play : guise".
It is obvious from these definitions, that personal identity is a complex multifaceted relation between a hypothetical self, the body, consciousness, the observers, and god (which for all intents and purposes I shall regard as the very nature of existance or interospectable reality). Interestingly enough, consciousness and the self are themselves often identified or equalized to "personal identity" thereby rendering the definition circular. In the following I shall attempt to construct a different, practical definition that lends itself to discussing matters such as gender identity.
Identity as a relation
It is often argued, that personal identity is a pattern of thought and behaviour, either constructed by or inherent to an individual human being. "Be yourself", "Don't change yourself for others", "Stay true to yourself" (ger.: "Bleib dir selbst treu"), "finding yourself". All these scentences first and foremost differentiate between a 'self' and a not further specified actor who ought to protect, alter, construct, find or otherwise interact with this 'self' - implying the self is a state or object that can be defined, itself identified and pointed to. This humanist(ic) definition is inadequate, because it disregards environmental factors. The distinction between the self and an actor (in more modern terms, a program, and an operator) implies, a proxy between this self (the program) and the actual behaviour of the thing the operator operates thorugh the means of this program (the body). This is in itself contradictory, as the behaviour as a priori part of the definition, now becomes the result of this definition and would thereby (by definition of 'behaviour') interact with the environment itself - rendering (a) the actor impotent (or at least a proxy to behaviourally induced feedback) and (b) the environment an integral part in the process of self-construction.
As such, we need a different approach starting from this relationship and working backwards from there: Personal identity is a process subject to constant change inherent to any living thing, fully describing this entity within the environment it inhabits (which ultimately is all of the natural world). This description, as you may guess, is infinitely complex and cannot practically be stated. Attempts to do so abstract from the thing itself. However, this rarely is the focus of discussions centered around personal identity. More importantly, this stresses that change as well as incoherency in externally observable behaviour are implicit: the infinitely many responses to simuli are impossible to predict (read: rapid changes in personality may occur any moment and do not constitute a break in personal identity). Further, this implies, that stimuli both internal and external to the entity whose personal identity is inspected are an inherent part of the personal identic process. It is therefore impossible to discuss matters of personal identity without discussing the environment of the entity. (Note that by this definition, any complex living system exhibits some form of personal identity. Self aware consciousness is not a prerequisite. Additionally, entities part of other entities (such as the bacteria in a human body) both exhibit their own and constitute part of a more complex human personal identity.
This definition is by construction post-humanist and rejects the notion of a well definable, singular human being in and of its own account. It extends Marx' materialist definition of history and the role humans play within it to the human itself. I am well aware, that the term human is in itself a problematic one since its only common definitions draw arbitrary lines regarding the genetics or politics - yet for this discussion kindly refer to Matt Haylers "Posthumanism for the wounded, the unknowing, and the dependent" or my own account of "Radical Posthumanism against humanist passivity".
Since we now have a clear(er) understanding of the definition, I shall move on to use it to describe and detail my own nonbinary identity exemplary for the practicality of this definition. I do assume some familiarity with the topic and the current debate around gender identity, since this is an attempt to rephrase various personal discussions I have had using this definition.
Invisibility, Nonconformity, Agitation, and the Nonbinary
First and foremost, I want to stress that my definition of Nonbinarity is an inherently negative one (as in "not identifying with either of the binary poles"), something which has not gone without critique. Nevertheless I shal luse this definition as a matter of practicality on the way towards total obliteration of these categories altogether. With this out of the way, the rest of this section will be an argument how Nonbinarity is an identic relation and then a structured statement/question-response pattern focussing on matters debated in the aforementioned discussions. Note that the Statements are adjusted and anhanced by contextual information and mostly did not appear as is within these debates. In the following I will use "identity" as abbrevation for personal identic relation.
Nonbinarity as personal identic relation
Identifyig as nonbinary involves, as we have seen multiple components. To return to the analysis above, it involves the body, self perception, external perception, and behavioural patterns within the environment which all constantly feedback on each other. To understand this stance, we need to inspect the individual components.
The Body
Human bodies are multifaceted in their own way. There is a biological and a (highly) political component to them. First and foremost, what constitutes a human body itself is up for discussion: Debates around abortion, mental health, "dis"abilities, and even race politically weaponise this in various ways, either asserting or revoking 'humanity' based on arbitrary biological definitions. Similar discussions are held about sex and gender, debating what constitutes the categories male and female. These discussions often center in on chromosomes and a biological determinism between these and sex. However, modern biology alleges, that the matter is more complex. A staggering 1.7% of the population is assumed to be born with intersex traits. Hormone levels also vary widely within same chromosomal bodies and it is understood, that homone levels impact daily experience way more than chromosomes. This is directly connected to 'dysporia' (a term itself up for debate) - a feeling of having 'the wrong body' - in Trans- and Nonbinary persons, which itself can fluctuate wit hormone levels. Whereas for some, full transition is a 'solution' to this issue, or (more precisely) some seek to change their hormone levels to feel more 'at home', for many Nonbinary people this is not a way to go. There is no need for complex biological system to always zero in on one of two poles 'described' by chromosomes. In fact there is way more variation in cisgender person hormone levels as is traditionally assumed. These changes may be short and temporary or longer lasting and more pronounced. Trans- and Nonbinary people share that these changes are more pronounced and longerlasting than in cisgender persons.
We can therefore see, that, if we insist on categorizing not even by gender but by sex alone, male and female are insufficient.
Self perception
Selfperception is strongly (but not only) tied to hormone levels and outside feedback. However, it is not only informed by outside stimuli but also confined by them. While it is possible to mostly decouple self perception and happyness from external impressions (e.g. by meditation, etc.), humans, as stated by Marx, always operate within their environment. Should this environment therefore require or strongly suggest gendered self perception, the latter will be strongly informed by these suggestions or requirements. Cultural practices learned while growing up also strongly suggest the norms and self perception acceptable. Since self perception is a separate component in the identic relation, there is no inherent determinism. Oftentimes selfperception is only gendered sporadically in response to internal needs or external stimuli. However, self perception, by proxy of the learned cultural practices and norms is insofar inherently gendered, as a cis male identity influences inhowfar self projection into a (culturally) non male context may be precluded or be accompanied with unpleasant feelings. This break between cultured gender and nonbinary self perception is often experienced by Nonbinary persons. It seems to me, that, in cisgender persons there is no need for selfprojection into gender nonconforming stances. Therefore, this break between projected/imaginary/wished for self perception and actual self perception is not experienced at all. It is also important to stress that in Nonbinary persons, a gender nonconforming selfprojection is not just self projection into "the opposite (externally perceived) gender" but also includes the longing for queer-gendered or ungendered experiences which are difficult to imagine (see Behaviour within the environment for an explanation why that is).
External perception
One of the components most often precluded from the definition of personal identification is external perception. The wish/need to exclude this stems from a humanist approach to identity, as described before and in other essays. However it is, as stated above, an immensly important part of identity - especially for Nonbinary people. The reason for that can be found in the two components already described in combination with external perception.
We have but a limited amount of control on external perception, yet external perception intensly shapes how others interact with us. The massively gendered environment (see next section) which aggressively assigns gender to anyone we perceive excacebates this further. External perception shapes which spaces we are expected and allowed to be in, what actions we are expected and allowed to perform and how we are referred to or adressed. Since Nonbinary self perception in gendered spaces is inherently system-breaking (see next section) gendered external perception is not just a nuisance but can also be a threat (and can also be instrumentalized as one - see bathroom debates in the US).
'Biologically' induced gendered external perception is problematic in multiple ways. For one inherent gender norms shape what is considered 'consistant' and therefore expected behaviour. Additionally, tough, even the pure biodeterminism undermines bodily and self perceived gender, since these indentic components are respectively questioned or denied by the beholder/interpreter. This constitutes rendering parts of the identity invisible - a thread and even a death scentence in humanistic societies, since invisibility or erasure of identity is the precursor to dehumanization (see Radical Posthumanism).
Nonbinary persons are expecially driven to pronounce breaks in ther external perception: clothing, make up and pronouns are but a few examples for this. This is a coping strategy, trying to subvert the automatic (external) miscategorization, to prevent identity erasure by agitation.
Behaviour within the environment
This is closely tied to external perception with the twist that this is about the (social) environment itself and not about an individual interpreter, perceving a person of the identity in question. Capitalist humanist society has (under the pretext of biodeterminism) decided, that male and female are acceptable sexes and for a long time eradicated social gender at all. At last social gender is becoming more visible, due to pressure from the repressed. However, Nonbinary identity oftentimes is still ignored, repressed or confined to the realms of "personal preference" rather than "personal identity". There are myriads of intensly gendered spaces with accepted gendered behavioural patterns starting from changing rooms and toilets ranging to bueroracy, sports, and professions. Even if individuals have managed to keep gender stereotypes from informing their perception of gender-non-conforming persons, gendered spaces reintroduce these stereotypes as a "natural norm", implicitly acting upon all individuals in this space, Nonbinary or not. The physical reality often serves to justify stereotypes or biases and are seen as monolithic, natural and not fit to change - a phenomenon also befalling the national state-capitalistic world order by the way. Binary gender is viewed as a natural, logical step from chromosomes, since otherwise we would have structured society and our spaces differently and the nonbinary option would consequently be visible. But since it is all but possible to instantly identify nonbinary persons as such - their 'physical' existance is precluded (read: nonbinarity is viewed as a preference instead of an identity).
Nonbinary persons utilize various coping strategies to try and break these binary gendered spaces. These are therefore not the result of personal preference or but an act of resistance against norms and traditions, but rather affirmative, identity (re-)constructing actions, that, if unperformed would result in identity erasure and again dehumanization. Coping strategies such as passing (ensuring external perception to conform to the one chosen of the binary gender poles) is a different coping strategy, that can be utilized to achieve a self perceptive break, between the nonbinary self perception (along the lines of "it's all drag") by 'constructing' a safe external perception (that does not fully conform to the self perception). While this strategy might utilize gender stereotypes, it is not about constructing a gender stereotypical identity, but rather to break it in a socially accepted way.
Discussion
"To be Nonbinary is to reject gender stereotypes. It is in itself therefore not different to cisgender persons with progressive ideology, rejecting the same."
This confuses ideology with identity. While ideology obviously does influence self perception, identity is (as we have seen) far more complex. It touches not just on self perception, but also on the body itself, external perception and behaviour. Cisgender persons rejecting gender stereotypes do have common ground with Nonbinary persons on the intellectual level. They may even have practical common ground, in that it is possible to minimize gender stereotypical categorization and assertions for Nonbinary and Cisgender people alike. Cisgender persons may even experience variations in hormonal levels, etc to some degree. However, as stated, these variations tend to be more impactful in gender-non-conforming individuals. Additionally, as stated, cisgender people do not seem to long for/need gender-non-conforming self-projection and self perception, something that is at the gore of nonbinary selfperception.
Similarly, breaking up gender roles and stereotypes is a common fight, yet for different reasons. While cisgender women primarily fight for liberation, nonbinary persons fight to be seen and accepted in the first place. Note that it is not about which fight is of greater importance or superior in any way - but it is neccessary to acknowledge the difference, since ignoring it would render the struggle of nonbinary people pointless.
"Cis-Women wearing cis-male clothing is essentially the same as Nonbinary people trying to 'pass'."
This simplifies identity to either internal or external perception (or both) and excludes the other indentic components. As described above passing is more than simply "clothing a certain way because one feels like it or because one wants to be perceived as less feminine, etc.". It is mostly about creating a safe break from the gender binary perceivable only by oneself to the ends of satisfying the need for a gender-non-conforming identity and the need of safety in public spaces. Apart from passing, it is true, that there are elements that are shared between both behaviours: Intentfully constructing a break between socially assigned and perceived gender, internally as well as externally, maybe even on the grounds of bodily hormone levels, etc. these experiences can be quite similar. This is also where the fight for e.g. womens' liberation overlaps with the fight to be seen. However, from a nonbinary perspective, the fight is not about being able to wear whatever one wants and to look as one wishes. The fight and intent instead is to be recognized as not within the gender binary, to be accepted as something else. To have accepted the need for this differentiation until this distinction is no longer of importance.
"the generic masulinum is most inclusive"
The generic masculinum works by trying to alter external and self perception thorugh 'eradicating' gendered speech in the behavioural component by defaulting to male forms. This may be a fine solution, after we have had the emancipatory fights necessary to lastingly obliterate binary gender. However, until then, this is not a viable solution: We have seen, that all these three components constitute a part in their own right within the personal identic relation. As such, they all have a role to contribute to this relationship on their own and are not fully dependent on the other factors. And as binary gender is implicit in all these components for most individuals (nonbinary or not) this does not solve the problem. Worse: it procludes efforts to highlight the need for this fight and might reinforce traditional patriarchical stereotypes and behaviours i those not sensitised to gender stereotypes.
Queerness, Theory, Essay, Thoughts