Accepters - Obviously I accept the fact that people can be categorized.

Any person will belong to multiple and differing categories based on the individual doing the categorization as categories are a useful and quick method for us to simplify complexity and potentially convey enough of that complexity to others that they will understand our meaning without describing every facet of the complex idea.

categorize the categories..? - well is there no middle ground, does it have to be either acceptance or resistance? can we further categorize the types of categories for the purpose of clarity?

there are some objective measurements of immutable realities such as blood type, age, height, weight, etc. to do anything but accept those types of categories as the truth would be quite ridiculous.

other categories are in the realm of abstractions and as such pose a greater difficulty in determining how to respond. for example, some people may accept Glenn as a man with views beneficial to society, while others only accept him as a crazy radical. in either case, it would be ridiculous to resist categorizing him as a man on the news, but to go further than that is gray area on objective terms.

personally aside from accepting the category of Glenn as a man on the news, i would be rather indifferent to his other categories. to accept or resist them seems like a huge waste of effort. he's just an random case for example...

there could be a category inbetween the objective and the abstract, inclusive to say, nationalities. the Roosevelts were Dutch, their genetic makeup is immutable but the similarities between them and other Dutch people (or any two things being compared in this category) are as similar to the extent of the objective category, since Dutch refers to a wide spectrum of genetic makeup as opposed to something like height which can be stated simply as a number, and everyone who is 6 feet tall is exactly the same height as anyone else who is 6 feet tall.

can we add a 3rd category aside from accepting and resisting labeled as just plain indifference?

Objective Measures vs Categories - I would argue that Objective Measures are not categories since they are measurable. Categories being spoken of here are more for grouping things that may or may not be measurable.

Take the category "cat" for instance, when someone says thats a cat, the first thing that pops into the listeners head is that of a typical domestic house cat (Felis silvestris catus) but the speaker could be talking about anything in the measurable Felidae family or the imeasurable cartoon cat Silvester and the listener would also understand that. So the category "cat" is a collective and fairly common grouping of both measurable and immeasurable things.

The fact that the category "cat" is fairly common and accepted does not mean all categories must be. Many categories are for personal use, "Soandso is annoying" places Soandso in the annoying category for me. My personal definition of that category may or may not overlap your own. If it overlaps or not does not change that fact that I categorize Soandso as annoying.

I think categorizing animals is important for biological reasons

Accept or resist - Actually there is a middle ground, but it still means you are an 'accepter'. As people have noticed is that categories do not limit you, they just describe you.

And sorry, we're not making an 'indifference' category today... As you still accept it and are far from indifferent about it. ^_^