There's a category you missed, where people say "As a ____, I have a strong incentive to oppose this policy; yet I believe this policy is so just, I support it anyway. So you can trust that this policy is just".
For example, you might see "As a police officer, I believe body cams are a good policy that will keep cops honest", and to me at least that has a lot more weight than proposals to impose responsibility on police from people who hate cops. Because from someone who hates cops, they might be proposing a policy that really is a good idea, or maybe they're proposing it just to make cops lives harder. From a police officer, I can be pretty confident they're not just proposing to make the cops' life harder.
And it's useful to have shorthand heuristics on who to trust, so I can read summaries of the arguments/research instead of doing it myself. Because on a lot of issues, which policy is better ultimately comes down to empirical research on which is better, not just moral arguments; and reading and judging the quality of empirical research takes a while. It's much better to have trusted people who can tell you what the research says than expecting every individual to judge the literature themselves. And someone's identity can tell you if they're worth trusting.
Other examples in this sort of category: "As someone currently applying to immigrate, I think immigration is too easy to get permission for", "As a soldier, I think the government funds the military too much", "As a white man, I think racism and sexism against minorities and women are major problems", etc. Of course just because you're arguing against your self-interest doesn't mean you're actually correct or honest. Especially if you're a "token" talking head who gets paid a lot by one political side or the other to espouse views against your self-interest, and get paid more than you'd lose from those policies being implemented. But I think it is a fair justification to put some extra weight on the likelihood someone's being honest.
A white guy who declares that unjust discrimination against racial minorities and women is rife in this country is not necessarily speaking against his self-interest. I'm a white guy, and I could say that to others in a public or private setting and broadcast it in social media without fear that I would consequently be deprived of any material advantage. To the contrary, it might well earn me credit for being just and compassionate and boost my self-esteem, which could be the primary motive for my promiscuous declarations in that vein.
It'd earn you disadvantage in the sense that you're increasing minority's relative prestige/likelihood they'll be hired at the expense of white people's, the group you're in. But yes like I said, that hardly means you're actually being honest, since the rewards you get for holding those opinions can outweigh the detriments you suffer as a member of the group you're working against.
Get real. Widespread acceptance of that opinion might have important social/political consequences, but nothing that I -- a single individual without celebrity status, high authority, or political leverage -- might say in that vein would have any perceptible effect on employment of any racial or ethnic group or on my income or net worth.
I suppose the wisest use of ones identity in a discussion is to acknowledge ones own ignorance or potential biases. "As a Dane, I'm not very knowledgeable about Swedish politics, so correct me if I'm wrong..."
I hate nothing more than fixation on identity -- what you supposedly "are" -- as opposed to what you do. But I'd point out that the defensive use of identity as a cautionary signal is often appropriate, because a lot of conversations are really just attempts to establish ingroup solidarity. For example, if some non-Catholic wants to talk to me about Catholic sex abuse, they are likely testing me for whether I'm willing to join them in establishing Catholics as the outgroup. If I signal agreement, it means that we're going to bash Catholics for a while, and probably avoid talking about the equally prevalent sexual abuse among other religious and non-religious communities and identify groups (Jews, Muslims, 2SLGBTQIA+, and so on). So if I want to avoid the awkwardness of explaining that I'm not an anti-Catholic bigot while my interlocutor is in the middle of some anti-papist rant, it is actually diplomatic of me to say something like, "As a Catholic...". Even if I'm not!
If the topic of discussion is whether people should be free to burn their country's flag with impunity the issue can't be resolved through logic. If A maintains that publicly burning the US flag should be outlawed (and the Constitution amended accordingly if necessary to that end) because "the USA is a great country and burning the flag is a spiteful act and an affront to patriots, especially those who served in this country's military in a theatre of war," B might disagree for stated reasons of his own but couldn't prove A's argument wrong by logical analysis, as it rests on value judgments.
As a person with an identity, I find this article wrong.
As a person with various identities (usurer, ex-con, philanderer), I find this article correct.
There's a category you missed, where people say "As a ____, I have a strong incentive to oppose this policy; yet I believe this policy is so just, I support it anyway. So you can trust that this policy is just".
For example, you might see "As a police officer, I believe body cams are a good policy that will keep cops honest", and to me at least that has a lot more weight than proposals to impose responsibility on police from people who hate cops. Because from someone who hates cops, they might be proposing a policy that really is a good idea, or maybe they're proposing it just to make cops lives harder. From a police officer, I can be pretty confident they're not just proposing to make the cops' life harder.
And it's useful to have shorthand heuristics on who to trust, so I can read summaries of the arguments/research instead of doing it myself. Because on a lot of issues, which policy is better ultimately comes down to empirical research on which is better, not just moral arguments; and reading and judging the quality of empirical research takes a while. It's much better to have trusted people who can tell you what the research says than expecting every individual to judge the literature themselves. And someone's identity can tell you if they're worth trusting.
Other examples in this sort of category: "As someone currently applying to immigrate, I think immigration is too easy to get permission for", "As a soldier, I think the government funds the military too much", "As a white man, I think racism and sexism against minorities and women are major problems", etc. Of course just because you're arguing against your self-interest doesn't mean you're actually correct or honest. Especially if you're a "token" talking head who gets paid a lot by one political side or the other to espouse views against your self-interest, and get paid more than you'd lose from those policies being implemented. But I think it is a fair justification to put some extra weight on the likelihood someone's being honest.
A white guy who declares that unjust discrimination against racial minorities and women is rife in this country is not necessarily speaking against his self-interest. I'm a white guy, and I could say that to others in a public or private setting and broadcast it in social media without fear that I would consequently be deprived of any material advantage. To the contrary, it might well earn me credit for being just and compassionate and boost my self-esteem, which could be the primary motive for my promiscuous declarations in that vein.
It'd earn you disadvantage in the sense that you're increasing minority's relative prestige/likelihood they'll be hired at the expense of white people's, the group you're in. But yes like I said, that hardly means you're actually being honest, since the rewards you get for holding those opinions can outweigh the detriments you suffer as a member of the group you're working against.
Get real. Widespread acceptance of that opinion might have important social/political consequences, but nothing that I -- a single individual without celebrity status, high authority, or political leverage -- might say in that vein would have any perceptible effect on employment of any racial or ethnic group or on my income or net worth.
I suppose the wisest use of ones identity in a discussion is to acknowledge ones own ignorance or potential biases. "As a Dane, I'm not very knowledgeable about Swedish politics, so correct me if I'm wrong..."
You can always disregard the identity stuff because it’s unfalsifiable
Is your statement unfalsifiable? If so, can I disregard your statement?
No, because if the identity stuff wasn’t unfalsifiable then it wouldn’t apply.
I hate nothing more than fixation on identity -- what you supposedly "are" -- as opposed to what you do. But I'd point out that the defensive use of identity as a cautionary signal is often appropriate, because a lot of conversations are really just attempts to establish ingroup solidarity. For example, if some non-Catholic wants to talk to me about Catholic sex abuse, they are likely testing me for whether I'm willing to join them in establishing Catholics as the outgroup. If I signal agreement, it means that we're going to bash Catholics for a while, and probably avoid talking about the equally prevalent sexual abuse among other religious and non-religious communities and identify groups (Jews, Muslims, 2SLGBTQIA+, and so on). So if I want to avoid the awkwardness of explaining that I'm not an anti-Catholic bigot while my interlocutor is in the middle of some anti-papist rant, it is actually diplomatic of me to say something like, "As a Catholic...". Even if I'm not!
If the topic of discussion is whether people should be free to burn their country's flag with impunity the issue can't be resolved through logic. If A maintains that publicly burning the US flag should be outlawed (and the Constitution amended accordingly if necessary to that end) because "the USA is a great country and burning the flag is a spiteful act and an affront to patriots, especially those who served in this country's military in a theatre of war," B might disagree for stated reasons of his own but couldn't prove A's argument wrong by logical analysis, as it rests on value judgments.
Identity is a form of argumentum ad verecundiam, as in, "I have a PhD, so ..."
I can identify with this article.