I wasn't trying to gatekeep anyone (and I make no claim to be a "Clojurist"–my Clojure experience is rather minimal). I was making a point about categorisation, taxonomy.

There is a certain category of Lisp-like languages – of which Hy, Fennel and LFE are good examples – which take an existing language, and provide a Lisp-like syntax for it, but generally keep the semantics reasonably close to that of the underlying language. Beyond the syntax, the other main addition tends to be a Lisp-style macro system. Maybe we might call them "veneer Lisps", since they put a Lisp veneer on another language, but beneath the surface it is largely the same.

Clojure isn't a veneer Lisp, because its semantics are quite different from Java – Java is primarily about mutable data, and Clojure-style immutable data structures aren't the mainstream Java approach. A JVM Lisp which dropped Clojure's emphasis on immutability could be a veneer Lisp. Armed Bear Common Lisp and Kawa Scheme are examples of mutability-oriented JVM Lisps, but they don't belong to the category of veneer Lisps either, since they are ports of pre-existing languages to the JVM, and their mutability comes from those pre-existing languages not a desire to conform to Java/JVM semantics.

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with immutability, or that Clojure's focus on it is a mistake, or that one ought to either prefer (or avoid) "veneer Lisps": I'm attempting descriptive taxonomy, not prescriptivism.