How we cite our quotes: (Chapter.Paragraph)
Quote #1
The definition of a "beast" has caused controversy for centuries. Though this might surprise some first-time students of Magizoology, the problem might come into clearer focus if we take a moment to consider three types of magical creature.
Werewolves spend most of their time as humans (whether wizard or Muggle). Once a month, however, they transform into savage, four-legged beasts of murderous intent and no human conscience.
The centaurs' habits are not humanlike; they live in the wild, refuse clothing, prefer to live apart from wizards and Muggles alike, and yet have intelligence equal to theirs.
Trolls bear a humanoid appearance, walk upright, may be taught a few simple words, and yet are less intelligent than the dullest unicorn, and possess no magical powers in their own right except for their prodigious and unnatural strength.
We now ask ourselves: which of these creatures is a "being" – that is to say, a creature worthy of legal rights and a voice in the governance of the magical world – and which is a "beast"? (4.1-5)
Well, this puts the problem of identity in perspective, doesn't it? Who's a being and who is a beast? And who exactly gets to make those decisions? Wow. This is gonna be tougher than we thought.
Quote #2
As we see, the mere possession of two legs was no guarantee that a magical creature could or would take an interest in the affairs of wizard government […]
Muldoon's successor, Madame Elfrida Clagg, attempted to redefine "beings" in the hope of creating closer ties with other magical creatures. "Beings," she declared, were those who could speak the human tongue. All those who could make themselves understood to Council members were therefore invited to join the next meeting. Once again, however, there were problems. (4.8-9)
Okay, so the magical community first attempts to define beings as anything that walks on two legs. That doesn't work out too well. Then, they decide that anyone who can communicate with humans can be called a being. Again, it's a problem. Are these superficial characteristic really the best way to define a whole identity?
Quote #3
Not until 1811 were definitions found that most of the magical community found acceptable. Grogan Stump, the newly appointed Minister for Magic, decreed that a "being" was "any creature that has sufficient intelligence to understand the laws of the magical community and to bear part of the responsibility in shaping those laws." (4.10)
So this is closer to a true identity. This is based on what's in your mind instead of the way you look. Is this the same way Muggles think about identity? You are what you think you are?