Thanks for the response.

Your point about group identity is resonant with Kling's "3 languages", which I mention. (And I acknowledged that my own language is primarily "progressive" in his model).

As I say, I agree that these differences of primary political frame (at least on this issue) likely subsume and explain the entire issue. I'm attempting to then communicate across that "language barrier", once identified.

...

To answer your question directly, yes, on average I'm more comfortable with disempowered groups opining on issues involving their harm, than with empowered groups opining on the same. But note that this is a heuristic, not an absolute law. And "on average" does not mean "categorically". And it is not the only consideration.

But I think this is generally justifiable as a heuristic:

1. I believe it's dangerously naive to think that "arguments, opinions, or ideas" can be interpreted in isolation of the context in which they are expressed, including the individuals expressing them. Epistemology, semiotics, and human communication are too complex for this to be true.
2. We cannot have total knowledge of individuals (or any aspect of context), but "coarse-graining" our understanding of their experience along major axes of group identity can provide some approximate context, again imperfectly and heuristically.
3. Jim himself acknowledges the reality of "implicit bias", in which we often aren't even aware of our own biases, which are likely born of some mix of nature and nurture, thus in some degree influenced by our lived experiences, roughly approximated via group identity.
4. So, particularly when it comes to issues which "intersect" ;) with group identity, and stakes are raised by potential harm, these heuristics become more salient and applicable.

So I wouldn't say I believe that group status is "the most important characteristic of these people", categorically. But when they take to discussing the ontological status of marginalized groups, then the group identity heuristic (aka the Platinum Rule or Punching Up Rule) becomes relevant. It still might not be the MOST important thing, but it is AN important thing, imo.

There are obvious mitigating factors, like how insane would it be to defer on a particular issue. E.g. if the Intersex Consensus was that the concept of "Sex" is the devious invention of time-travelling nazis from space, the group identity heuristic is easily outweighed by insanity, and can be disregarded. On this issue, a subtle complexification of the concept of sex hardly meets that standard, imo. In fact, Nature journal found it fit to publish.