In your previous comment, you demonstrated a much better understanding, and your arguments were likewise much better. This one sounds almost as an attack!

> Biologists for the large part disagree with you. It has no biological fact any more than saying that some dogs are short-haired and others are long-haired.

Either those biologists also deny that dogs have breeds and are painfully stupid, or they use "biological fact" differently than I do (I use it in the sense of "genetics").

> The reason why issues of identity don't concern you is that you seem to be part of a well known, large, and easily recognized subculture. You don't have to explain yourself to anyone because your identity is obvious to others.

I've no idea what you're trying to say here. I've been an abused "minority" most of my youth (before being a "geek" became cool), and I never had the need to explain myself. Most of those who scream about "identity" are not very tiny subcultures either.

> But look at the terms 'pretentious and fake' that you used. They are terms of identity, eg, people who act above their station are pretentious.

I use "pretentious" to mean "trying to impress by pretending", which is pretty much the dictionary definition that has nothing to do with identity.

> I get the idea that you are a social conservative, who believes that the terms you grew up with are somehow the correct terms and should not change.

If you say so... although I'm not convinced - I'm exactly the opposite of Wikipedia's description ("opposition to abortion, LGBT rights, gender equality"). I just oppose the politicization of speech; I oppose Pluto not being a planet any more and the widespread use of the word "terrorist" in media for the same reason.

> How did the term "geek" change, if not by force?

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

> Because I lived through the era when "geek", "nerd", and "dork" where synonymous, and movies like "Revenge of the Nerds" and "Real Genius" helped redefine what those terms meant in popular culture.

Aren't "geek" and "nerd" still synonyms? The only usage of "dork" I'm familiar with is as an insult, but then I'm not from the US so I haven't been exposed to the term a lot. The change of the meaning over generations isn't forceful, people simply die off.

> How do you reconcile your view that pride must be due to 'satisfaction about one's own actions and accomplishments' with your acceptance that someone may be 'proud of actions of other people'?

When you say "I'm proud of him", I understand that as (a) you think he can be proud of his accomplishments, or (b) you're proud of the influence you had on him that resulted in his accomplishments (e.g. parents being proud of their children). Being "proud of MLK" is fine, what he did was amazing, but being "proud to be black" is, as you suggested, illogical and unreasonable.

> As a reminder, the definition of "identity" I gave was in regards to 'what you consider to be a positive distinctiveness'.

This was regarding pride, not identity. Obviously, if we accept the premise that people should be proud of something they didn't do, they should also be ashamed of things they didn't do. Both of which are ridiculous.

>The difficulty with your purely descriptive interpretation is that it has no predictive power. [...] My identity is so tied in to being a programmer that I don't think I would accept even 3x my salary to stop being a programmer. [...] Your descriptive framework has no way to evaluate an emotional reaction like mine. [...] You expressed preferences. Preferences are at best the mildest form of identity.

I think this is it. What you call identity I call preferences (what you prefer). Further, I take goals (what you want) and actions (how you get it) into account.
For example, your goals are programming (gives you intellectual pleasure) and money (assuming you want to retire). But your preferences are programming > money, which explains you actions.
The difference is that I don't identify with my preferences, I observe or discover them. Then I adjust my actions to suit them. I've no attachment to them.

> You envy a woman's broader range - is it only your fear of social snubbing keeping you back?

That, and familiarity with male clothing.

> For that matter, there's a wide range of men's clothing styles. What keeps you from exploring them?

I avoid clothing that would be too much of a statement, which is how most people interpret fashion nowadays.

>And why wouldn't some feminists be sexually attracted to movie stars or athletes? I don't see how the desire to have equal rights for women in the workplace and in society has any bearing.

In addition to equal rights, feminists also try to abolish social roles. The irony being that it isn't working, as they still conform to them!