>>12
>are you referring to "identity as defined by other people (and wrt social norms)"?
Sort of, yeah. It's the idea that "you" don't exist, either because "you" is a social construct, or because "you" are an individual under constant flux in a sort of panta rhei kind of deal (you know, the whole "No one steps in the same river twice," kind of thinking). So to say that "you" have some sort of quality (be in gender, sexual orientation, race, etc.) is largely meaningless, as these things can never really define you. A sort of nihilist perspective then uses negation theory to define identity in a kind of negative sense, which is where things like queer theory come into play - that is, "I" don't exist in any positive sense of the term, but instead have the property of "not straight/cis," which is called "queer." Then there's a critique of that, saying that is just another sort of positivist identity even if acquired through negation, and that instead you should just fuck who you like fucking and stop trying to think of identities, negative or not, to describe it.
This is all convoluted by society's projection of identities. For example, even if you don't identify as any identity, if you get your head bashed in because you were walking down the street not wearing something that a "man" should wear, socially defined reality is forced upon you. Which is why identity politics is a touchy issue: it's hard to find the line between rejecting these notions, yet acknowledging these problems are real and dealing with them.