If you’re out there arguing against identity policing, that’s great. While you’re at it, try making room for people like me, too.
This post explains how defenders have been lured into an essentialist framework, what the problem is, and how to fix it.
[Crossposted to Pillowfort. Preview image: Tire Track in Concrete by Darren Hester (GrungeTextures), licensed under CC BY-NC 2.0.]
This is a followup post to A Case for a Convergence-Divergence Spectrum, so if that terminology is new to you, start there.
Previously, I explained convergence and divergence as a gradient, a subjective judgement, and a matter of degree. For example, I’d map myself on the divergent end of the spectrum — with a narrow, specific orientation rather than more broadly-encompassing one. However, that also comes with a few caveats.
[Crossposted to Pillowfort. Preview image: Spiral Selfie by Howard Ignatius, licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.]
Introducing “convergence” and “divergence” might seem like introducing unnecessary jargon into an already jargon-heavy ecosystem, but whatever you want to call it, a concept like this is necessary in order to address a certain lexical gap. This is a subject that people are already talking about — and without a dedicated term for it, they’re being hobbled by terminology that wasn’t designed for the purpose.
In this post, I explain into the nature of the problem, where it might’ve came from, and a possible solution. Written for the January 2022 Carnival of Aces.
[Crossposted to Pillowfort.]