{"id":13,"date":"2026-01-26T23:53:42","date_gmt":"2026-01-26T23:53:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/cscage.net\/?page_id=13"},"modified":"2026-01-27T00:48:35","modified_gmt":"2026-01-27T00:48:35","slug":"exclusion-an-issue-with-human-identity","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/cscage.net\/index.php\/exclusion-an-issue-with-human-identity\/","title":{"rendered":"Exclusion: An Issue with Human Identity"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p>What do these words have in common:&nbsp; Heterosexual, Homosexual, Bisexual, Asexual, Pansexual, Omnisexual, Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Liberal, Moderate, Conservative, Constitutionalist, Loyalist, Royalist, Environmentalist, Socialist, Communist, Capitalist, Evolutionist, and Creationist?&nbsp; The answer:&nbsp; They, as well as many others, are all <em>self-created terms<\/em> used as human concepts to define and describe people.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Humans constantly seek definition and understanding while still needing kinship and acceptance, but in a larger scale we seek individuality at a reckless pace.&nbsp; As a result, we constantly redefine who we are on a categorical level in order to shape our perceived self-image.&nbsp; At the most specific level we divide ourselves as individuals by nomenclature or \u201cname\u201d.&nbsp; Take the example of a man named \u201cJohn Michael Smith II\u201d.&nbsp; That name specifies an individual within the \u201cSmith\u201d family, who is named John, that is also named Michael, who has only one direct ancestor with the same name.&nbsp; In a sense you might argue that the full name could be &nbsp;Animalia&gt;Chordata&gt;Mammalia&gt;Primates&gt;Hominidae&gt;Homo&gt;Homo sapiens&gt; Smith&gt;John&gt;Michael II.&nbsp; This scientific name refers objectively to a specific individual.&nbsp; As we step beyond the individual however, we covertly drop objectivity and instead rely on a subconscious \u201cpeople sorting\u201d.&nbsp; Initially we do this to ourselves.&nbsp; If our friend John Michael Smith II is only attracted to women and is himself a man (forgive the non-inclusion of the non-binary genders for the sake of simplicity) he might describe his preference as heterosexual.&nbsp; Should he one day realize and self-acknowledge, an attraction towards another individual man, however, a new word will join his mental self-identity: &nbsp;<em>except<\/em>.&nbsp; It is this word that I want to address.&nbsp; All of these categorical titles though obfuscated by objectivity are actually derogatory and divisive.&nbsp; Heterosexual could be defined as, \u201cHuman, except, having a general preference in sexual or romantic partner that is of the opposite to their gender\u201d.&nbsp; Just as homosexual could be defined as, \u201cHuman, except, having a general preference in sexual or romantic partner that is of the same gender\u201d.&nbsp; As we become more specific, we discover more \u201cexcepts\u201d.&nbsp; Here is my point:&nbsp; When we interact with other humans, by seeking to identify and categorize people, we are inherently asking, \u201cHow are they different?\u201d&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; As humans, it is our nature to understand by division; to categorize.&nbsp; Yet, when we are the ones being categorized, we resent it.&nbsp; \u201cWell, I tend to vote Democrat\/Republican, except\u2026\u201d or \u201cI consider myself _____, except\u2026\u201d.&nbsp; Only when a category exists that exactly matches our perceived self-image are we content to accept the categorization.&nbsp; Yet, we do not offer the same courtesy to others that we expect and demand.&nbsp; How many times have you said, \u201cAll Democrats\u201d or \u201cAll Republicans\u201d?&nbsp; How many times can you think of when you have used the word \u201call\u201d referring to another human when it was accurate?&nbsp; \u201cAll\u201d is understood as an over-generalization and is generally and frequently accepted to be so.&nbsp; Yet, how often when you use it to refer to a category to which you do not identify, do you think of it literally?&nbsp; Imagine for a moment how history might have changed if when two peoples met, they looked for similarities instead of differences.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Whenever humanity has imagined scenarios and civilization beyond earth, we generally stand united as a planet and frequently as a species.&nbsp; The subtle suggestion here is, according to our own expectation if we are going to expand beyond the earth we will first need to unite.&nbsp; I believe the first step towards that goal, is to cease asking how we are different, and begin asking how we are the same.&nbsp; In order to begin that outlook we must be aware and sensitive to our categorizing of people; to stop seeking words that imply \u201cexcept\u201d.&nbsp; To turn a phrase, we need to change \u201c<em>except<\/em>\u201d into \u201c<em>accept<\/em>\u201d.&nbsp; This is not a call to action, but rather a call to <em>consideration<\/em>. Now is the time to initiate the self-awareness required to foster these changes in human cognition, and through it, our interaction and behavior.&nbsp; It is quite easy to reject Republicans or Democrats or homosexuals or heterosexuals as it has a very low cost to our perceived self-image.&nbsp; It is considerably more difficult to objectively reject John Michael Smith II, a fellow human.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>What do these words have in common:&nbsp; Heterosexual, Homosexual, Bisexual, Asexual, Pansexual, Omnisexual, Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Liberal, Moderate, Conservative, Constitutionalist, Loyalist, Royalist, Environmentalist, Socialist, Communist, Capitalist, Evolutionist, and Creationist?&nbsp; The answer:&nbsp; They, as well as many others, are all self-created terms used as human concepts to define and describe people.&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Humans constantly seek definition [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-13","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/cscage.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/13","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/cscage.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/cscage.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cscage.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cscage.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=13"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/cscage.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/13\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":68,"href":"https:\/\/cscage.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/13\/revisions\/68"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/cscage.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=13"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}