
Isn’t it satisfying to know the names of things? I just got back from a backpacking trip to the Sierra Nevada with a bunch of geologists. I learned that those pink rocks are full of piemontite, the green mineral around it is called epidote, the gray stuff is andalusite, and those long white crystals are wollastonite. The name is just the first part, of course: The geologists could rattle off the chemical formulas and knew at what temperatures and depths the minerals formed, which tells them the history of the rocks before they were uplifted and eroded so we can poke at them today. But the first part of knowledge, for a lot of things, is identifying, categorizing, naming.
The one thing I wished I’d brought with me was my pocket-sized Pacific Coast tree finder (you always forget something). I last backpacked in the high Sierra in my 20s, and the trees were all familiar, but I couldn’t quite recall their names, like I was attending a big-number college reunion. I could tell a juniper from a fir from a pine, and I knew that the length and number of needles in a cluster distinguishes different pine species. Recognizing that these are like these is one thing, but I wanted the names.
The birds were easier; I’ve had more experience with them. Hello, mountain chickadees with your white eyebrows! Kraa-kraa-kraa to you, too, Clark’s nutcracker. Oh, look, there’s a dipper! They are basically aquatic songbirds—seriously, they swim—and they live in mountain rivers. You know you’re in a good place if you see a dipper.
Our brains are eager to categorize and name things. Psychologists call this tendency “psychological essentialism,” the idea that there are certain qualities we can use to assign things to their proper groups. It’s satisfying to identify something, to figure out whether you’re looking at a Carolina chickadee or a black-capped chickadee (which is harder than it sounds).
But of course psychological essentialism can be pathological. Some people are way too committed to certain categories: boy/girl, black/white, sick/healthy, citizen/foreign, us/them. They’re upset when someone switches categories, refuses to be captured by one, or rejects the categorization scheme altogether. Appealing to essentialism is one way to rile up bigots and get them to vote. I’m not talking about people who stumble over new pronouns; we were all taught overly categorically. But we can all learn to reject the burning bigotry of gender essentialism, the insistence that there are non-overlapping, firmly bounded groups of “male” and “female,” and they get to decide who belongs in which group. Gender essentialists are wrong about a lot of things (so many things), and one of them is their appeal to biology (chromosomes are not definitive) or nature.
Nature abhors a category. Plenty of animals switch sexes or have functionally more than two. As Agustín Fuentes points out, the whole entire purpose of sexual reproduction is variation. The basic categorical unit of taxonomy is the species, and we don’t even have a comprehensive definition of it. Ornithologists split and lump species all the time. Black-capped and Carolina chickadees hybridize, and their offspring are perfectly fertile, thank you. Gulls hybridize in many directions (gulls really get around). It’s satisfying to know the name of something, sure, but even more fascinating when something defies the limits of its name.
Anyway, I guess I’m saying there are two categories of categories: those that are useful and those that are harmful. And categories can switch between the two depending on how we use them. It’s up to us to use them correctly and protect one another from those who don’t.













