That's why you should never embrace the identity others give you

Existence exists isn't enough to seprate identity from definition

however, everthing that exists influences at least one other existant... covers that defficency

others only can DEFINE you

a definition is external

Not really

and identity is internal

only YOU know those unique attributes and methods

But I think it's a good simplification

but other's reference the label

Nah, you can't really know yourself and that's the funny thing

the definition

other's can't know your 'identity'

And most people know about themselves less than others

to them, they only need the minimal set of traits that sets you apart from the set of entities they have encountered

Others can identify you as for example, an enemy or a member of an outgroup. If they can do it then it's in the realy of possibility

so if a person never encounted a black kid before and you are black, that is sufficient to identify you from the others

the point is the is the set of comparison for the other person and the set of comparison for you

And to you, you don't need any traits, is that what you mean?

Sorry I haven't slept and just finished a paper my brainz don't work properly

what i mean it is only the mimimum required given a variable set of comparison

the baby can use any label they like for the cat

they only need to differentiate it from the dog

It's an abstraction of the cat.

correct

it's a representation

which is only 'good enough' to seperate it from other representations they have accumulated

That's why the abstraction of concepts from physical referents is an crucial basis of knowledge.

But identity is something that's identifiable so on the very basic lingual level it is still possible to

You’re referring to what is known as a “ schema ” in psychology terms by Piaget

The reason why I vehemently oppose individuals who seek to reverse the process.

as the set of representations expands, more traits are required to differntiate and identify an entity

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schema_(psychology)

yup

but rand described those concepts decades before they were published in psychological journals

Piaget describes these in the 20s

Gender was always an abstracted concept from the two, physical referents of male and female physiology.

He was way before Rand

but there is a diffrence between a 'slot and a signal'

To reverse the process and claim primacy in mind over reality is the very definition of insanity.

gender is a relative reference