>

Identity is a tricky one. I think many people do end up questioning their identity and trying to justify it. It is often seen when people change religions or the like. So it does happen, and it can be done. That said, I also see the issue with "needing to justify" any part of your identity. I tend to trend deontological on this one (If I'm remembering this correctly) - is it something that anyone would have to potentially justify? Like asking you to justify your gender doesn't make much sense for the normative, so it doesn't make much sense for the alternative. Other things may be in poor taste, but don't seem inherently as offensive to me - i.e. tatoos or obvious hair die. Especially if everyone is willing to accept a very superficial answer like "I felt like blue hair yesterday, so I died my hair". 
I think there are certainly some things you could strongly ask for in identity justification also - maybe choosing to be a cop, or join the military. Or why you are an investment banker. 
And then there's the to my mind unjustifiable - KKK member, serial murderer, etc. But maybe making someone actually think about why they're a member of a certain group could be useful.
/u/mxlp (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >

I like this topic. I generally agree with what you are saying and for reasons you mention plus it's helped me discover the errors of my own thinking. There are even books about conversation skills that advise listening to the other person and repeating what you think you've heard so the other person can let you know if you have a correct understanding.
My only arguments:
- Time. There are situations when someone must act quickly and delaying action with further discussion could be costly or catastrophic. In those situations a person has to go with the information they have and deal with the consequences. The hope, of course, is that the person isn't too far off in their judgement. A good example of this is one person deciding whether to use lethal force on another person.
- For some people, certain opinions are part of their identity. Exposing these opinions to scrutiny is like exposing their identity to scrutiny. In this situation, the person may view a rational discussion of the closely-held opinion as, "academic" or "theoretical," or even as a personal attack. I think a person in this situation has to already be open to change before they can entertain others' arguments. >

Agreed that in areas of self-preservation you need to go with your gut. In much the same way that if you feel that you should cross the street at night when coming up to a group of young people who happen to be black, it might be best to re-assess your possible prejudices in the safety of your home than discover that your gut was right and there were other elements of their behaviour that your subconsciously picked up on.
The identity one is a huge point, and that's been the biggest pushback I've had in real life, where people who identify as non-hetro feel personally attacked at the very idea of having to justify their sexual orientation.
This is the biggest area that I could maybe be moved on and I'm still trying to work through it, especially trying to think of counter examples where we would expect people to challenge their identity.
Definitely got me thinking so will come back later if I change my mind on this.