I see a lot of stuff that argues over the definition parameters and validity and such, of identities, what they mean, and why people have them.
On one side, nature. The idea that people are "born" a certain way due to bran chemistry and neural structures and that conflates with all manner of unproven things, on mostly unproven bases (the brain structure studies aren't as scientifically sound as they would like to think, and haven't been cross-referenced, as far as I can tell, with other studies that invalidate both their conclusions and the entire basis of the initial study. Nobody knows enough about neuroscience and the meanings of differences in brain scans to be as definitive as these researchers are trying to be.)
On the other side, nurture. The idea that people are products of their environments, and environment/socialization is a big factor in making people who they are, the messages they absorb, the behaviors they are compelled to imitate, which presumes all manner of social constructs that don't exist in real life yet are assumed to exist in the same way/same forms because of the general outcome (for instance, the myth of "shared girlhood" and the idea that all small humans absorb socialization of one form or another in the same way as everyone else as these passive receivers of external things that most of them may not even understand.)
What about individual choice? Why is this not considered in nature vs. nurture debates? Why is choice seen as less valid and less inherent than either nature or nurture? Why the assumption that humans are passive recipients of either biology OR socialization? Does anyone wonder if, maybe, people are the way they are because they personally prefer it, and chose to be? Is personal choice somehow less a part of inherent being than biology or socialization?
I understand the fear of attributing deep-seated aspects of personhood to choice, i.e, "if you chose to be this marginalized identity, why can't you just choose not to be?" and then trying to alter human choice via brainwashing. But this is also demeaning the importance and power of choice. The choices one makes are just as much an inherent part of them as anything else. Trying to force and finagle someone into making choices that they wouldn't otherwise make is to psychologically mutilate them. Even if those choices are not the choices someone else would make. Even if those choices are considered "wrong."
The ability to choose, i.e, agency, is what makes humans human. We can even alter the evolution of our own species, consciously, via free will and choice. Humans can make themselves whatever they choose to, because they chose to. Humans can do this, have had to do this, to compensate for our lack of claws or wings or keen senses. The spear was invented to compensate for a lack of talons or canines--what humans could not obtain by natural endowment they obtained by invention and tools. Agency. Without agency, we would not even be here.
The only "human nature" is the ability to choose and self-define, regardless of circumstance or bio/neurological limitation.
So maybe people are the way they are because they chose to be. That is just as valid as being "born-this-way," imo. Their choice is an inherent part of them--why would they have chosen something that doesn't matter to them? If it wasn't important, why would a choice have been made in the first place? Why would they have seen green or blue and chosen green, Green Green definitely 100% green, instead of...meh, whichever.
Why focus on imperatives, be they biological or social, with all this agency going on that is capable of trouncing almost any imperative or limitation because that's what it's meant to do?
