To what extent does identity affect whether you "have any say" on an issue?

I agree that in principle, male legislators should have little or no say in making laws that restrict women’s rights to make medical decisions about their reproductive health situations. I do want my voice and vote to suggest and support that kind of “identity” limit.

But that issue is not just about “identity”. It’s also about perspective, personal experience, knowledge, and self-representation.

Similarly, I think legislators and voters who know almost nothing about certain topics, should have little or no say about laws where such knowledge and understanding would be crucial to making sensible.laws. In my own case, I note that laws about computer technology and gaming are sometimes ludicrous to me, as they seem to have been drafted and agreed upon by legislators who don’t know much at all about the subject, and/or are being willfully ignorant and using that as an excuse/act so they can do what their corporate sponsors/blackmailers/string-pullers want them to do.

I think it should probably also extend to laws about workers’ rights, minimum wage, health care access, and other issues – people who need support from such laws, should not be represented by rich legislators who can’t even relate to struggling with our economy and health care “systems.”

I also would like to see laws made for and by “the people” rather than for and by large corporations and their lobbyists.

@Zaku. Great answer! You said everything I wanted to express and more!

If someone knows you, and you have a questionable reputation could affect something you might say on an issue.

I think everyone has an opinion on many topics. Should their opinion count? Sometimes. Take the abortion example used. There is the view that it is the woman’s body and choice so men should not have a say. However, there was a man present when that baby was started. So really, he is already into the process. He may want a child. He may not. If the child is born, he will be financially responsible for the next 18 years for that child. So yes, he should have a say in it.

If you decide you are gender fluid, should I have a say in that? No. But if legislation is being passed that can impact me or my family (such as unisex bathrooms only) I should most definitely have a say.

I don’t think the concept of “identity” is as useful as people think it is.

@seawulf575 can claim “identity” in an absurd attempt at claiming victim because of “unisex bathrooms”, but he would never use that logic to argue for workers’ control of the means of production. He wouldn’t claim that the people we bomb should have a say in whether or not they get bombed.

Even something as simple as abortion – if you were to really create a valid “identity” that should be only voice to be heard – what would it be? Pre-menopausal cisgender females who are sexually active with fertile cisgender males?

When you limit who has a say in something because of what they are and not who they are it’s a big problem. That said I believe a certain baseline knowledge of a topic should be required for legislation. We get quite a lot of nonsensical or even damaging laws simply because people don’t know what the hell they are doing but have strong, uninformed and often just wrong opinions on something. I don’t think abortion is a concept that is so foreign that an average male cannot understand it. It’s silly to exclude them and the whole premise that they not participate in the topic is absurd. People know about health risks, consequences and what life is. The debate here is more driven by religious objection than what gender you are. Really, both males and females comprise both sides of that issue so I don’t get this other than “Males legislating what females do with their bodies” is a clever sounding debate point. Take another contentious issue: guns. This is something that people are so terribly ignorant of yet have strong opinions on and usually legislate through emotion and base pandering. The laws we have on the books often don’t make sense, they’re sometimes completely nonsensical, ineffective or even cause harm regardless of what side you see this issue from. The whole issue of legislators pandering to their base is a massive problem and frankly transcends any identity issues clouding their judgement. They may very well likely KNOW their actions are wrong but they don’t care if it will get them elected again.

If what a person does has a detrimental effect on others then others have a right to intervene.

On the abortion issue, those in favor of it say that women have a right to their own bodies. Those who oppose abortion say that it is not just about the woman, that the embryo is fully human and has a right to live.

An example that is more clear-cut is the anit-vaxxers’ claim that they have a right to do what they want regarding their bodies. The problem with this is that those who are not vaccinated pose a risk to others.