"Identity" has become a highly contested arena. On one hand, there seems to be a general trend toward people having great latitude in constructing, defining, and REconstructing/REdefining their own INDIVIDUAL identity. But on the other hand, there is a simultaneous trend toward rejecting the possibility that someone who does not share a COLLECTIVE "identity" can even claim to understand that identity, let alone sympathize or empathize with it, let alone speak for it or from its perspective--especially (and rightly, it seems to me) if the person trying to make the claim is from a privileged position and trying to claim the "identity" of the less privileged. 

These two attitudes are obviously in fundamental conflict with each other, as the Boyden situation illustrates. I'm reminded as well of Rachel Dolezal. Both seem sincere (even if implausible) in their construction of self-identity. The transgression seems to be claiming a place within--and speaking for--a collective identity.