people sharing an identity aren't homogenous no group of people are exactly alike even though they share characteristics no experience of culture is identical, no experience of disability is identical, no human is identical ‘if you’ve met one autistic person, you’ve met one autistic person’ we are all individuals with varying appearances, beliefs, motivations, lifestyles, etc we may just generalise and categorise in order to connect with those we feel can relate to us best people will use the identity markers and labels that they feel best fit their complex human experience and they are the authority on that exceptional cases being overidentification with an aspect of humanity that genuinely has nothing to do with your experience such as so-called ‘transracialism’ but these cases are complex and rare language has meaning and it’s important to consider other interpretations but usage changes over time and definitions are descriptive, not prescriptive ...
species definitions are arbitrary the whole taxonomy is fundamentally arbitrary, but still useful - based on handy indicators - common genetic material - common ancestry - common behaviour - common appearance - common features and forms - common environment? a fun example of this is the Scrotifera, whose commonality lies in their scrotums this view plants us more firmly into relation with the animals around us ...