I have some cognitive dissonance on the subject. I think that geekdom should have zero barrier to entry but I also have an internal classification system that I continue to use to determine if people qualify as "geek".
So... how do I conflate the belief that there is no such thing as a “fake geek” and that there is such a thing as “non-geek”? I don't know... but I think I can explain why I am trying to.
The popular opinion seems to be that we shouldn't have to “prove” we are a geek but, by saying this, we are implying that everyone* should be considered a geek, that we shouldn't treat anyone as an outsider. The problem with this line of thought is that there are outsiders and we want to protect ourselves from them. Outsiders** mock us for our passions, consider our hobbies less valuable than their hobbies and make uncomfortable jokes at our expense. We want to protect ourselves from these abuses but, by trying to protect ourselves, we are too often doing the same thing to our own "kind".
What I think many are implying when they accuse people of being “Fake Geeks”, “Poseurs” or “Hipster Geeks” is not that they are aspiring to geekdom but that they are parodying (or adopting the trappings of) geekdom without actually being “geeks”. This means that they aren’t “safe” to share our love of trains or LARP with because, while they might like chiptunes and mario t-shirts, they don't have that spark that would let them identify with our passion. They might like the Spiderman movies but then turn around and make fun of us for reading comics. It’s a resistance to cultural appropriation not a resistance to growth.
Rather than just deciding it’s wrong to judge geekiness maybe we should attack the root of the problem. Namely that we assess geekiness using criteria that are biased towards false stereotypes. Or, more specifically, that we use these poor criteria as grounds to exclude people preemptively. We go on the offensive, by questioning their motives or quizzing their “geek chops”, causing them to feel unwelcome for reasons beyond their control. If we are on the receiving end of this judgement what we really care about is our exclusion. The question isn't really whether we need to prove we are a geek or not so much as whether we are being treated as an insider or an outsider from the outset. That said, I don’t think it’s wrong to want to feel safe but we need to find a way to go about it that doesn't generate so many false positives.
So, having convinced myself I’m allowed to ask, I’m back to the question, "What is a true geek?" Stripped down to it’s core I think it is someone passionate not about a specific thing but in a specific way. A geek is someone who has that spark. So, maybe, the way to “test” for geekiness is to share our geekiness and see if it scares a person off. If it doesn't then they are a true geek.
Footnotes:
* When I say “everyone” I don’t just mean “everyone who self-identifies as a geek” because we can’t really know, at the outset of an interaction, if a person wants to be identified as a geek. To say anyone could choose to be a geek we must treat everyone as a geek.
** Please note that geeks are humans and therefore quite capable of being selfish, stupid, arrogant, and/or judgemental and/or seeking validation, attention and/or recognition etc. This common wisdom that geeks are somehow exempt from being dicks seems likely to be used more often as an excuse than as positive reinforcement. Being a geek may or may not be a choice but not being a “dick” certainly is. Even if we self-identify as geek we can still be the unsafe outsiders that are making other geeks feel unwelcome.
