
Why I Identify as Mammal - pavornyoh
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/10/24/why-i-identify-as-mammal/?ref=opinion
======
tomp
Is it only me or does anyone else not "identify" as anything (expect my
individualistic self)?

I'm a man by biological fact, not by identifying as one. Same with race,
species, etc. Personally, I find the idea as someone "identifying" as another
sex just as ridiculous as a completely white person "identifying" as black.
Fact is, if you're white, no amount of convincing, shaming and delusion will
change that.

~~~
strangecasts
_Personally, I find the idea as someone "identifying" as another sex just as
ridiculous as a completely white person "identifying" as black_

This isn't a valid comparison, and it's a really shitty thing to say, to boot.

~~~
tomp
Why not? What's the main difference? Are you saying you would find a white
person saying they're really black normal?

~~~
atom-morgan
> just as ridiculous as a completely white person "identifying" as black

I would say no.

------
dTal
Nobody else seems to be very positive on this article, so I'll shoot: This
article puts into words something that I've always intuitively felt, and very
articulately as well. I think it particularly hits the nail on the head when
it notes that "Thinking of ourselves as primates strikes a little too close to
home. It’s like being told you look like your brother; nobody wants to hear
it."

The only addendum I would make is that I feel there ought to be some place in
this viewpoint for avians as well; I can't justify it on the basis of
biological similarity, but it's something I feel all the same.

~~~
dalke
The mammal and birds that everyone thinks of first are "charismatic". Mammals,
especially the young, look cute to us. (Cuteness appears to be tied to
neoteny.) You'll note that the three mammals after the primate quote are bear,
squirrel, and whale. Two of the three are on the charismatic megafauna list,
and squirrels are often considered cute.

Later on there's "pigs, whales and naked mole rats". Of the mammal species
listed, only is an unfamiliar animal, and rarely considered cute.

Too bad more non-cute mammals weren't on the list. How many people think of
the promiscuous monkey, or the Philippine tarsier - both primates - as being
'close to home'? What of bats, and the brown rat?

I think most people would identify with many avians before identifying with a
bat.

~~~
plonh
Not all humans are cute, either.

~~~
dalke
Point taken.

I looked at a list of "ugliest mammals". The #1 of some of the lists was Sam
the Chinese Crested dog. See
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_%28ugly_dog%29](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_%28ugly_dog%29)
.

------
twic
There's a book called Five Kingdoms which is a listing of every phylum of life
on earth, with pictures and descriptions:

[http://www.microscopy-
uk.org.uk/mag/artmay98/fiveking.html](http://www.microscopy-
uk.org.uk/mag/artmay98/fiveking.html)

It's fantastic.

Years ago, I got a copy, and read it from cover to cover. After however many
pages of bacteria and protoctista, dozens of phyla of weird, unimaginable,
almost alien single-celled organisms, I eventually got to the animals. The
first phylum is the placozoa, these little guys:

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trichoplax_adhaerens](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trichoplax_adhaerens)

And I felt a surge of emotion. Here, finally, was something like me! After
visiting the extraordinary world of single-celled life, placozoa seemed like
family.

------
dalke
> the mammalian talent for live birth

Monotremes are egg-laying mammals so the author is identifying with placental
and/or marsupial mammals, and not mammals as a whole.

("Technically correct - the best kind of correct.")

~~~
Mz
Some snakes give birth instead of laying eggs.

~~~
dalke
Other criteria exclude those snakes. The author said:

> But there is a danger in pushing the borders of affiliation so far out that
> they no longer have any resonance. Placing an emphasis on our mammalian
> identity is a reasonable compromise between a restrictive anthropocentrism
> and a vapid all-inclusiveness.

> Mammalian awareness embraces our affinity with our hairy and milky fellow
> mammals,

Snakes neither have hair nor provide milk to their young.

~~~
Mz
Uh, yeah, I realize that. I guess maybe I should have said something like
"Nifty off topic observation/ did you know?" kind of thing. (Or, you know,
kept my mouth shut.)

------
dibbsonline
The author says they chose to identify as a mammal, but I'm pretty sure if you
are choosing then it's not real.

~~~
dalke
Do you mean that these are all granfalloons, and fundamentally meaningless?

Otherwise, the type of identity here is the same as the other identify choices
mentioned: race, gender, "religion, political party, sexual orientation, even
species". (I assume the last includes furries.)

The problem of course is that most people consider some of those to be a
karass, making them real enough in our consensus model of the world.

~~~
thescribe
The choice to identify as as a mammal may be a 'bad faith' choice in the
Sartreian sense.

~~~
dalke
Now we just need dibbsonline to clarify.

------
camelNotation
I find it ironic that in order to remove the false idea of human
exceptionalism, a human does what no other species is capable of doing (self-
identify as something).

This is not about fair treatment of animals or a "realistic" view of our place
in the world. This is about abdicating responsibility. Refusing to admit that
human beings are exceptional doesn't elevate the value of animals. It lowers
our own. It means that, as mere mammals, we are not reasonably bound to any
sort of behavioral code or sense of virtue (including ethical treatment of our
kindred animal counterparts). Like it or not, we have the unique ability to
make or break this planet and the only way to save it is to hold ourselves to
a higher standard, not a lower one.

~~~
dalke
How in the world does this raise or lower our standards?

I've heard similar arguments before. In fact, we have a long history of people
arguing for exceptionalism, only to find that those views are not worth
believing.

We should not grant voting rights to women because rather than elevating their
position it will lower the exceptional position of men.

We should not grant freedom to black slaves because rather than elevate their
position it will lower the exceptional position of white people.

Atheists and apostates reject the the behavioral code set by divine sources
and think that humans are mere animals, not exceptional beings endowed by
divine sources as good stewards of the Earth. They abdicate responsibility so
must be punished.

We are at the center of the universe, and those who say the Earth revolves
around the Sun are trying to destroy our exceptional place in the cosmos.

Your argument sounds equally as faulty as those sketches.

------
briholt
Relevant:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimal_group_paradigm](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimal_group_paradigm)

------
jrl5432
I don't think this article is relevant or convincing. None of the arguments
were particularly good and the author gave me no reason to care. I expect a
higher standard of quality on hacker news.

------
kobayashi
Is this supposed to illustrate the ridiculousness of SJWs and their views on
self-identification? If so, it doesn't do it for me. I'm left wondering what
is the point of the article.

~~~
spacehome
Sufficiently advanced SJ is indistinguishable from parody.

------
lgas
I identify as John.

~~~
dalke
(tongue-in-cheek humor ahead)

Freds have organized for at least 15 years, with yearly marches in Miami, and
slogans like 'Fred Is Not a Four-Letter Word,' and 'Better Fred Than Dead.' \-
[http://www.miaminewtimes.com/calendar/king-mango-
madness-635...](http://www.miaminewtimes.com/calendar/king-mango-
madness-6359454)

The Stephen/Steven/Stephanie/Esteban/s etc. organized to support evolution.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Steve](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Steve)

I'm sure if you look hard enough, you can find a group of like-minded people
who identify as John.

