Individuals are not ultimately reducible to a collection or intersection of categories. No one has seriously argued that they are.

Reality is inevitably more nuanced than any system of classification of individuals; and therefore, any set of actions based on a classification system is vulnerable to accusations of injustice by individuals who feel themselves to be wrongly classed and who did not consent directly to either the classification system or the set of actions based thereupon.

When in the course of pursuing our ideals we must, in an institutionally organized manner, take or proscribe action based on systems of classifying individuals, then we must at least acknowledge the inevitability of nuance and keep our systems and the actions based thereupon open to revision, exceptions, and compromise.

I am willing to approach prosperity for the many in pursuit of the ideal of love in an institutionally organized manner through the classification of individuals, even at an unknown opportunity cost to my individual prosperity.

I acknowledge that this needs to occur as an ongoing conversation, even if at a given moment there be a provisional codification of classification and organizational principles based thereupon (rights, responsibilities, protections, provisions, etc.).

I acknowledge moreover that while abstract classification systems elucidate patterns of injustice by delineating classes between which contrast in statistics of metrics may arise, all interaction is ultimately not with the abstract system as such but with individuals. Labels may reveal real patterns across interactions, but each interaction is irreducible to and not entirely dictated by labels.

What must ground and direct us above all is the ideal of mutual love between individuals.