[part 2 - who knew there was a size limit to HN comments?]

> I'm exactly the opposite of Wikipedia's description [of social conservative] ("opposition to abortion, LGBT rights, gender equality")

The Wikipedia page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_conservatism starts:

> Social conservatism is a group of political ideologies centred around preserving traditional beliefs, attitudes and philosophy, in the face of social progressivism. The aims of social conservatism vary from organisation to organisation, and from country to country.

That is the definition I was meaning. The one you quoted refers specifically to social conservatism in the United States, which is only a facet of what social conservatism means as a general term.

As social conservatism is a rather vague definition, I explained my meaning further as 'believes that the terms you grew up with are somehow the correct terms and should not change'. This is 'preserving traditional beliefs, attitudes and philosophy', yes? And I believe you consider this aspect of social progressivism as politicization of speech, so I still believe I used the term correctly, and compatible with the Wikipedia definition.

Quoting again from you:

> Was the mainstream media screaming that the term should be used in a certain way, and shaming those who disobeyed?

I have no idea of what you're talking about. The other term was "gay", yes? Yes, I believe there was a concerted effort by the LGBTQ movement to use the word "gay" (or "lesbian and gay") instead of "homosexual", and that made its way into mainstream media. You can see a reflection of that in Google n-grams: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=gay%2Clesbian%... . But I don't know what 'screaming' and 'shaming' has to do with the mainstreaming of the term 'gay', and suspect you are alluding to something else entirely.

Of the Big 6 that make up mainstream media in the US, I'm aware of how News Corporation screams and shames people for wanting to use terms (like "marriage") in new contexts. Is that what you are referring to?

> What you call identity I call preferences

If you wish to accept it that way, then feel free. Whenever you hear someone say "I identify as a man" then translate it as "I strongly prefer to take on the cultural roles more commonly associated with males." When you here someone say "I am a Muslim" then translate it as "I strongly prefer to follow Muslim customs".

Be sure to always think of it as a "strong preference", in roughly the same way that "strong folkways" become "mores" when talking about social norms. It's different enough to warrant its own term.

> I avoid clothing that would be too much of a statement

So like many geeks, part of your identity is to not make a statement through your clothes. This is itself a statement. Others can look at your clothes to infer you might be a geek. Thus your clothing choice helps establish your identity so you don't have to explain it to people.

> I observe or discover them

Remember that everyone else is as disinterested and objective as you are. Just about everyone thinks they've made a rational, objective decision for how to reach their goals.

Also note that your choice of goals are part of your identity. Some people born female have the goal of taking on traditionally male gender roles, and they do the best actions they can to achieve those goals.

It seem like you understand the basics of identity theory, with the minor proviso that you don't like the word "identity".

Now explain this: how do you understand Kennedy's "Ich bin ein Berliner" speech? Does "civis Romanus sum" make sense to you? When Kennedy said 'Today, I believe, in 1962 the proudest boast is to say, "I am a citizen of the United States.", do you have no conceptual framework for interpreting it? And when he ended with "Today, in the world of freedom, the proudest boast is Ich bin ein Berliner!" - do you really not know what it means?

These are all phrases of shared identity, but are difficult to explain using your goal-oriented or preference framework.

Which echos my complaint earlier that 'your purely descriptive interpretation ... has no predictive power'.

(I noticed that you didn't try to interpret the protests that are likely to occur from my evening dress scenario, using your descriptive framework. Is this a tacit admission that descriptive definitions are not appropriate for describing reactions to change?)

> In addition to equal rights, feminists also try to abolish social roles.

I'm a feminist. I totally all for social roles. There are teachers, construction workers, programmers, mayors, judges, dancers, greasers, metalheads, members of the KISS army ... see the long list I gave before. While I don't want there to be dickheads, my concern as a feminist is that gender and gender preference should not restrict someone from taking on one of these social roles, excepting a handful of cases with a bona fide occupational qualification.

Patrick Stewart is a feminist. He also supports social roles like acting, piano playing, and car enthusiast, based on his Wikipedia page.

I can't even figure out why what you say makes sense. Who thinks there will be only one social role in the grand feminist utopia? Have you perhaps picked on an extremist view that doesn't reflect what the vast majority of feminists believe? Or have you only understood what feminism means through the words of its detractors?