Identity as Weapon in
Online Polarization
Anonymity makes it impossible to know the identity of participants unless they reveal it, explicitly or implicitly.
Identity deception is always possible, and in fact, it happens every moment.
Among these forms, I focus on people hostile toward a community who impersonate members of its identity group to infiltrate and destabilize the discourse: adversarial passing.
A revelatory case from the Korean online community Nate Pann, analyzed in depth
The structural features of adversarial passing
Other cases where similar dynamics have emerged
An online community platform operated by the search engine Nate
Open to all genders, but widely known for a predominantly female user base
50 boards organized by topic, characteristics, and age group
Posts that gain attention are featured on the main page
Users post in particularly active boards, regardless of topic
One of the most active: “Marriage / In-Laws / Family”
Marriage discourse in Korea is inherently gendered: same-sex marriage is not legally recognized.
To make gendered perspectives visible, this board shows a marker next to male users’ usernames.
Korean ID numbers indicate gender and are required at sign-up. Deception is possible, but registered gender is verified.
Female user
Male user
Posted outside the gender-marked board, so no ♂ markers appear.
Every commenter reads as a woman answering another woman.
There was a post asking, “Women, do you wear makeup for self-satisfaction?” Later, the poster moved the thread to the “Marriage/In-Laws/Family” board. This is what happened:
A man pretending to be a woman online
“In male-dominated communities, they’re already calling this a fake staged by women. Men have been infiltrating women’s spaces more and more.”
Infiltrators choose communities based on identity, not merely by topic or interest.
They use the community’s linguistic codes and cultural norms to construct convincing identities, rather than merely claiming membership.
The goal is to influence discourse in service of broader ideological conflict, not personal gain or amusement.
| Phenomenon | Goal | Difference |
|---|---|---|
| Catfishing | Romance / money | Personal deception; not ideological |
| Trolling | Reaction / chaos | No claim to insider status; being discovered doesn’t matter |
| Astroturfing | Fake grassroots | Collective fabrication of opinion; not identity-based infiltration |
| Adversarial passing | Influence an opposed community’s discourse | Positional (authenticity) fabrication: posing as an insider |
Social life as performance. The self is produced through impression management.
Gender is constituted through repeated acts.
Language indexes social identity.
Passing crosses identity boundaries. Traditionally a survival strategy.
당연히 남들눈에 잘보이려고 하는거잖아.. [...] 왜 또 그게 불편해? [...] 좀 꺼져줘 ㅠㅠㅠㅠ
I mean, obviously you wear makeup to look good in other people’s eyes… right? Why does that make you uncomfortable? You could just get off, please… ㅠㅠㅠㅠ
Gender-neutral forms, but these softer, indirect expressions are often recognized as more feminine-coded in tone, especially in Korean online spaces.
꼭 남자때문이라기 보단 남시선 신경쓰이니까 남자들 시선이 좀 더 신경쓰이긴하겠지
It’s not necessarily because of men, but since we’re conscious of others’ gaze, men’s gaze probably matters a bit more.
Hedging creates an impression of thoughtful nuance, mimicking the pragmatic style often used in feminist discussions to acknowledge complexity.
Makeup is for personal satisfaction, sure. But I can guarantee that in women’s dorm rooms—places where men absolutely cannot enter—no one wears makeup unless she’s going out. Except lesbians, maybe. It’s not that women wear makeup directly for men, but because men exist, competition among women exists. And through that competition, women enhance their value by maintaining their appearance. “She’s pretty, I’m jealous.” “I’m prettier than her, so I’m better.” Those thoughts only exist because the opposite sex exists.
Signals nuance before introducing a counter-claim
Presents male-centered logic as a systemic explanation rather than a personal motive
Performs a feminine internal monologue
난 남자 때문이라고 느낀게 학교에선 쌩얼로 잘만 다녀도 그럼 밖에 돌아다닐 때도 쌩얼로 ㄱㄴ? 이라고하면 솔직히 못함
I felt it’s because of men when, even though I go to school barefaced just fine, if you ask “then is it okay to go out in public barefaced?” honestly I can’t.
Authentication signals were once costly signals, but online they can be faked discursively.
Not all infiltrators maintained a consistent performance. In some comments, ideological commitment overrode identity performance.
“Just get out, feminazis”
“what is this ‘self-satisfaction’ bullshit? I could just slap you across the face.”
“The attention you get for being pretty is thrilling.”
The escalatory spiral causes polarization.
Not imposed externally. Generated from within interaction.
Same spiral as Nate Pann: infiltration → detection → vigilance → adaptation ↺
Same spiral as Nate Pann: infiltration → detection → vigilance → adaptation ↺
Same spiral as Nate Pann: infiltration → detection → vigilance → adaptation ↺
The Nate Pann case shows that adversarial passing is not an isolated act of deception, but a structural dynamic that reshapes discourse.
The structural conditions enabling adversarial passing are being transformed by generative AI.
Successful passing required sustained cognitive labor and risked performance breakdown.
Mimicry becomes inexpensive and scalable. Authentication signals become synthetically reproducible.
The implications extend beyond online hostility. Adversarial passing threatens:
Trust within identity-based communities
The legitimacy of insider testimony
Coalition-building across difference
Good-faith internal disagreement
When every heterodox position might be infiltration, communities respond rationally by minimizing ambiguity.
Communities confronting adversarial passing face a structural dilemma.
There is no cost-free solution.
Identity performance can be weaponized.
Exposure to infiltration reshapes discourse ecology.
Polarization can be produced endogenously through recursive defensive adaptation.
The most consequential effect is not ideological persuasion. It is the erosion of trust.
When trust becomes structurally unstable, polarization follows: not as an outcome of external manipulation alone, but as a rational adaptation to conditions of epistemic uncertainty.
Questions and comments are welcome.