If you’ve followed this blog regularly, you know that the misappropriation of words is a favorite topic of mine. Today I’d like to discuss the misuse of “identity.” Some people misuse it deliberately, but writers can fall into accepting it as it’s misused. Hopefully this post will help in avoiding that pitfall.

“Identity” is a straightforward word. It means “who someone is.” We can talk about the identity of someone who committed a crime, a case of mistaken identity, a secret identity for a superhero, establishing your identity, and identity theft. Some people, though insist that your identity is your group membership: your skin color, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, etc. Interestingly, people on the “left” as well as white supremacists like to promote this view.

These characteristics are a part of your identity, of course, but they don’t constitute your identity. It’s the difference between “You are a heterosexual female Romanian-American” and “A heterosexual female Romanian-American is what you are.” It treats people not as individuals but as interchangeable members of a group.

An employer may give you a form asking you to check off the group you belong to. If it lets you opt out, the alternative is typically something like “I choose not to self-identify.” You’ve given your name, your address, and your social security number, yet the people who create these forms claim you haven’t identified yourself if you don’t specify a group membership.

Other words, such as the ones for particular personal characteristics, are more informative. Be cautious about the word “race,” though. It reflects a scientific error that’s long been refuted. Humans can’t be divided into genetic subclasses in any meaningful way. Terms such as “white,” “black,” and “Asian” have only rough meanings based on convention. They have a lot of social impact but little biological meaning. At least words for fractional “identities” like “mulatto” and “quadroon” have fallen out of usage.

Talking about group membership as “identity” is a cheap shortcut that leads to unwarranted assumptions about individuals, aka stereotyping. It puts limits on people and leads to the belief that a person’s superficial characteristics tell you everything you need to know. It takes more effort to learn about people’s individual identities, but it’s worth it. Avoiding the “identity” trap lets you avoid bad writing.

(Grammarly tells me “individual identities” is redundant. It’s right.)