Does Privilege Allow Me to Speak Openly About Identity?

I don't know how to respond.  Really.  It mainly just seems like frustration.  Then there is indignation or something along those lines.  Something like "how can they do that?" or rather "do we let her get away with that?".  I really don't know how to respond.  I think pointing lights and cameras promotes a warped view, but vilifying them feeds their ego and continues their victim mentality.

Could it be mental illness?  Could it be falsified truth?  Can that even be a thing?  Or can it be accepted objectively from the outside.  And if so, could it also possibly be accepted from within as well?  I believe that truth can be absolute, but we do not have to impose our own ideas of truth on others.  In fact, any effort to do such a thing can often make push "them" in the opposite direction.

This is the question that plagues me the most now: If how you choose to identify (racially or otherwise) now can be so multifaceted in the present, why can't how you chose to identify formerly be just as diverse?

I think that is perhaps my main qualm with all of this.  I mean, sure, how we choose to identify is largely up to us.  However, I believe that we have to somehow come to sort of agreement as to what identity means and learn to understand reasoning behind identity.  From there I think (hope?) we can have healthy conversations about what it means to be who we are.  Does that even make sense?  Clearly identity is a complicated issue.

At present, I believe in the feminist theory of intersectionality and I believe this has been a pretty monumental development in human thought.  However, I also feel that we do not know (nor will we ever) everything about ourselves and our nature.  I can be a man, a heterosexual, a teacher, a student, white, Christian, intellectual, estadounidense, and more all at once and I believe the same for my neighbors across the bayou or oceans away.  However, I believe healthy conversations about identity must have an agreed upon definition or idea as to what constitutes true identity.

Surely privilege plays a large role in this conversation and the degree to which any of us can choose to identify one way or another.  I may be able to say one thing about who I believe I am and that may be out of the question (in the public's eye) for you.  Think Caitlyn Jenner vs. Rachel Dolezal.  There is clearly a difference in public perception and their stories can divide a country like Moses and the Red Sea.  However, why is that?  Is it privilege?  Is it about who they were or how they identified prior to their very public transformation?  I don't know.  I really have more questions than answers at this point.

I don't want to fall down a rabbit hole here, but will you bear with me for a moment here.  Let's say someone chooses to identify as a chair.  Do we allow that person to claim that identity?  If so, what does that mean for us and what does that mean for it (them?)?  As I said, I've got more questions than answers at this point, but I think transparent and authentic dialogue promotes mutual understanding and increases rates of empathy.

So, going back to the chair example, if that person chooses to identify as something like an inanimate object, can we first ask the pre-transitional individual to help us to understand their reasoning?  Can we come to an agreement as to what identity means for us both even if we do not agree with who they claim to be?  I believe that if this is possible then we can continue to live with a "live and let live" mentality instead of a culture of fear (mongering).

Anyway, that's just the way I feel I had to let something out of the verbal vein for a moment or two.  If you have any feedback or are curious about my additional thoughts, feel free to reach out.  However, please note that I choose not to engage in hostility whenever possible.  Thank you.