You asked the question that all Tenants rely upon regarding the Anchor.
What does it mean to be you? Don't attempt to answer that question. It's posed like an unsolvable math problem on a university whiteboard. The professor has no interest in you solving the equation, only in helping you understand why the question is asked.
Why do we assume there is a definition of individualism if diversity, in and of itself, lends its hand to the impossibility of mutual understanding. There can be no collective congruence on the definition of "you", and therefore renders the question itself unsolvable. If what makes you an individual is the contrast between minds, then knowing what we are is subjective to the nature of the arbitrary thought.
What you know may imitate similarity to my own understanding, but we cannot know if sharing a congruence is true, due to subjectivity.
I've leapt into the minds of many, all men, but sex is irrelevant, as I've learned from other Tenants of Variance. Does who I was define who I am, despite who I've developed through, or does the definition of "you" remain unchanged regardless of advancement?
Are we born into ourselves forever as ourselves, and is development extraneous to the eventuality of corporate opinion?
I retain the original emotions and ability from my Anchor(long since decomposed), but residence within the mind of another allots the transcending of personal shortcomings and individualistic doubts. Finding similarity in the fears of greater men subsequently produces a curiously peaceful nature, despite understanding the lack of true epiphanous discovery.
Of course we were scared. We were dying. Even after escaping death, the phantoms of our Anchors weigh us down in the inevitability of an end.
I'll reach for the next millennium, in hopes of grasping a better understanding of the reason behind the question. I apologize for being unable to answer it.
As always, Dean, sleep in haste and without relief.
-Douglas (77th Tenant)