Jaicee said:
Another problematic addition to the forums!
Days ago, a story berating a (now former) George Washington University professor named Jessica Krug for faking a number of black identities over the course of her life and career and using those fake identities to actively deny actual black people social and career opportunities appeared in my daily email from Digg, indicating it to have been among the most popular articles of late among Digg's heavily liberal user base. This recent revelation appears to have taken the left by storm, prompting renewed sanctimonious condemnations of what apparently is a small phenom known as "transracialism" where ethnically white people (mostly women) opportunistically pretend to be black for advantage in like black studies departments and black activist groups and circles, sometimes by claiming that they're "psychologically black", whatever that means. Another famous example of this phenom would be, of course, the case of one Rachel Dolezal, an ethnically white woman who wound up presiding over a chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) for some time until, when revealed to have a purely European ancestry, she claimed to "identify as black" because of her lifestyle (e.g. liked hip hop music and other stereotypically "black" stuff) and was promptly drummed out of the organization. Anyway, the liberals and the progressives have of late spent much time and energy condemning this stuff anew because of the new, high-profile case of Jessica Krug.
Personally, I find this a fascinating position for such incredibly woke people to take. A question immediately forms in my mind. That question was aptly articulated by Meghan Murphy in a recent article on this subject for her web site Feminist Current:
"I am...amused when it comes to the obvious questions around why it is appalling for a white person to adopt the identity of a person of colour, but not for a male to insist he is female because he prefers a dress to pants or because he enjoys the sense of power he feels waltzing into the women’s change room, knowing that if any woman dare protest, he is completely within his rights to accuse her of a hate crime.
The very same people who believe women like Krug and Dolezal should be tarred and feathered, who complain that to identify as something you objectively are not constitutes “gaslighting” and “violence,” will, with a straight face, insist there is such a thing as a “female penis” and that “men menstruate too.” Not only that, but these very same people would not hesitate to cancel a friend or colleague who dare ask what the difference is between a white person who claims to be black and a man who claims to be female."
In case you didn't catch it either here or in the thread title, the question is: if transracialism is bullshit, why isn't transgenderism? What is the essential difference between these phenomena that makes it okay for say a biological male to "identify as a woman" but unacceptable for an ethnic Caucasian to "identify as black"? Why do Western leftists regard the one thing as a parasitic, exploitative form of cultural/identity appropriation, but not the other? What is it that makes the one thing here more real than the other? Sincere question. I really would like to see what kind of mental gymnastics are required to reconcile the two obviously contradictory positions.
|
A sincere question, yet you've already declared any opposing viewpoint as mental gymnastics? Yeah, I'm doubting your sincerity here. And to be transparent, that kind of thing makes this seem the topic is made in bad faith.
As for the topic, there are a lot of differences. First off, we have a pretty good way to determine ethnic makeup (although I don't know if we necessarily should, but that's besides the point). Ethnicity is fairly easily determined, and we can pretty reliably determine where your ancestors were from based on your DNA. I am factually not Chinese. I can identify with asian culture (I was an honorary asian in high school) but that's quite different from actually being asian.
In comparison, we don't have a similarly reliable way to determine gender. We tend to identify sex by XY or XX, but that's not an accurate way to determine sex or gender.
https://www.marieclaire.com/sex-love/advice/a5183/woman-with-male-chromosomes/
For instance, some people have androgen insensitivity syndrome. This causes a genetically male (XY) person to develop fully functional female genitalia and secondary sex characteristics. The person themselves may have no idea they are not "genetically female". So, this goes to show that neither genitals nor chromosomes can be a reliable test for gender.
The issue of hormones in general makes the subject tricky. There is a wide variety in how much of certain hormones are produced, and how much the body reacts to them. Those with different hormone levels may feel more like one gender or another.
There are also differences in brain structure between cis-males and females (and obviously a large variety among those within the categories). Studies have shown that those who identify as trans tend to have brains that are more similar to the gender they identify with. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/05/180524112351.htm
Other studies have shown that trans people have brains that are distinct from either cis-males or cis-females.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-there-something-unique-about-the-transgender-brain/
And there are species where sex is determined by external factors. http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2016/im-xy-know-sex-determination-systems-101/ Not saying this applies to human, but environment can maybe have an effect.
The TL:DR version is that we have a pretty clear understanding of ethnicity. Rachel Dolezal has no reason to genuinely believe she is black as we define it. A genetic test could pretty easily confirm whether or not she has any relatives that were from Africa in the past few hundred years or so. If she says she "feels" like she's black, that's ridiculous, because where her ancestors came from is a fact that is relatively easily justifiable. If she says she likes black culture, than whatever.
On the other hand, we cannot do the same for gender. Gender is not well defined, and if you have a foolproof way to determine gender, then share it. The characteristics we associate with biological sex (primary sex characteristics, secondary sex characteristics, hormones, brain structure) often do not all agree. Since I don't have a good way to identify gender, I'm going to take someone at their word, because as far as I can tell they genuinely feel that way, and there can be a physiological basis for that in their hormones/chromosomes/brain/genitals that I do not have access to. They are in a better position to determine their gender than I am, although they are not necessarily infallible either, so I'm going to follow their lead.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1207834357639139328.html
Even shorter version, I genuinely believe that most trans people are accurately conveying to me what they believe to be true. On the other hand, someone like Krug was knowingly lying. That's a pretty clear difference. No mental gymnastics required.
Last edited by JWeinCom - on 13 September 2020