> Surrounded by so many other entities that do look and sound similar to myself, my quest for individuality - should I choose to accept it - is going to necessarily involve asserting ways in which I am not like them. It's more difficult, and requires more digging (or more bullshitting, more likely,) but is it different in kind?

See, I don't see it as seeking such, but observing such. That analysing similarities is inherently also analysing differences.

Let's say we could break down all features into a binary A or B. And that there were only 33 distinguished features to even note. So YOU may be made up of ABBBAABABAAABBBABBAAAABBBABBAAABB. If A and B have equal odds of existing, there is 1 individual out of the current 800 billion people on earth with such a makeup (based on odds). Or more accurately stated, there are more than 800 billion potential makeups with equal odds of occuring.

So if we can also identify that many features aren't determined by a binary, and that there are many millions more features than 33, even if odds are greater than 50% that people match up, it would seem to reason we will be unique, even while sharing similarities with some people in some areas. Because it involves also having differences with others. If you're concluding you are like another, there's likely "others" that are not. That you are like A, because B is something to be observed as something distinct.

Break down something as binary as sex. Do you not think fertilitity, size/shape/appearance of sexual characteritics, hormone levels, how such impacts development of physical features, specific social pressures on one's sex, etc. create entirely different experiences even among a group of males or females? I think it's pretty ignorant to limit your observation to male or female. I think it's only proper to view all the things that people can observe. I simply can't accept that people are naturally simply blind to differences and that only an acceptance of individualism opens one's eyes to such.

> It's just easier to point at a rock and say, "Welp, I'm not like that. I've got my own thing going on."

What I'm trying to argue is that "sadness" isn't ONE thing. That just because you've felt sadness doesn't mean you know how another actually feels even while expressing similar symptoms you did when you were sad. You can grasp a level of understanding, but you aren't the same as them in that capacity. Individualism isn't about denying similarities, it's denying being the same. That just because two people are "white/male/attractive/tall/outgoing/etc." doesn't mean they have experienced the same things as many other factors come into play for lived experiences and thus one's "identity".

> This guy's notion of individuality starts to sound more like a way to sort, catalog, and track. The people around us, our relationships to them, and even our similarities to them are coordinates and/or reference points.

And I'm accepting that. I just think categorizing oneself to another is a large assumption of others. Where even one's association to certain categorizations and labels is a unique personal perception. So what exactly am I claiming I share with others and what footing do I have to state such?

EDIT: When we limit our distinctions it allows for greater pockets of "sameness". Which inherently is oppositional to those of differences. This is what "contributes" to intolerance and inequality showcased by discrimination/segregation. When people identify amongst a group, then they can leverage the group to attack other groups. When you feel you are defined by such limiting structures, it creates a desire to "defend" and preserve that identity.