By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - If transracialism is BS, why isn't transgenderism?

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

Around the Network

Fairly simple. Race is a social construct based on heritage, often groupings of various ethnicities - stuff we literally just made up, usually based things like skin pigments and location of population. Gender is a construct based on sexual identity - which while a social construct in itself, has a basis with inherent biological urges. A transgendered woman won’t share the same biological urges as a man. In other words, they’re two very different things with two different sets of rules defined by culture and politics. 


Both can be changed, though (although transgendered people might feel they’ve always felt different a different gender than their biology would otherwise dictate). Changing either depends on the culture you live in and their own nuances.

You can change your race, it is often a matter of moving to a different culture where the rules for race are different. And you normally won’t have a choice as to what race people think you are in most cases - sometimes there are overlapping definitions, so Jewish people can identify as white or Jewish.
Many cultures allow for gender reassignment which allow people to identify as different genders.

The black question in the US is controversial largely because of the heritage shared by black people. Black in the US is associated with African American heritage, which is genetic heritage by American law. This is why you have the white guy who plays Trevor on Fresh Prince being considered black in the US.

To bring up your example, an ethnic Caucasian might be considered white in the US, but in other locations they’re considered middle eastern, Aryan, or Asian. Different cultures, different definitions. Another example is “Aryan” is a term considered white in the 1930s Nazi culture, but I am talking about the Northern Indian term. Speaking of Indian, in the US Indians are their native population, but again, I am talking about the people of the Northern part of the Indian sub-continent.

Different cultures, different rules, different labels.

Last edited by Jumpin - on 13 September 2020

I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

JWeinCom said:

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.

Only if you have a very limited and strict definition of ethnicity.

Typically ethnicity includes culture (personally I'd say culture is probably the most important factor actually, and is also why ethnicity is different from race). DNA tests don't take culture into account at all.

As an example, there are a lot of people of Indian origin in Britain, a DNA test may show them to be 100% Indian in some cases, yet they've grown up in Britain, their parents andor even grandparents may have grown up in Britain too. They are undoubtedly British, it would be pretty insulting to question their Britishness even I'd say. Yet your DNA test would still say they're not British.



Ka-pi96 said:
JWeinCom said:

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.

Only if you have a very limited and strict definition of ethnicity.

Typically ethnicity includes culture (personally I'd say culture is probably the most important factor actually, and is also why ethnicity is different from race). DNA tests don't take culture into account at all.

As an example, there are a lot of people of Indian origin in Britain, a DNA test may show them to be 100% Indian in some cases, yet they've grown up in Britain, their parents andor even grandparents may have grown up in Britain too. They are undoubtedly British, it would be pretty insulting to question their Britishness even I'd say. Yet your DNA test would still say they're not British.

In the US at least, most people would tie ethnicity closely with genetic heritage. If you'd prefer to substitute the term genetic heritage in my original statement (I was thinking of what the best term would be but couldn't find it), then feel free to do so. That might be a better term to use.

To use Jessica Krug as an example, she made specific claims for instance that her family was from Algeria (most Algerians are Berbers who some would define as black and others white or arab which would make it a good lie to use) when she, in fact, knew they were not. When she said she was black, she did not mean she identified with black culture or grew up around black culture, she meant that her family came from Africa. And this was not a one off situation where her view of blackness was different than others, so she was misunderstood and later clarified. She continually presented herself in a way that was knowingly deceptive.

I'm not sure how things are in Britain (American or British would be considered nationality and not ethnicity here), but in the US, saying "I'm black" without further clarification would imply that you can trace your ancestry back to Africa in the fairly recent past (like within the past 1000 years or so I dunno the exact cutoff). And we can determine that with a pretty good degree of accuracy.

Last edited by JWeinCom - on 13 September 2020

Transgenderism is also a hormonal thing so it holds some more ground, transracialism is more leaning towards mental disfigurement or social acceptance/pressure/ignorance.
Overall most people have no grasp of what the mind is capable of.



Around the Network
JWeinCom said:
Ka-pi96 said:

Only if you have a very limited and strict definition of ethnicity.

Typically ethnicity includes culture (personally I'd say culture is probably the most important factor actually, and is also why ethnicity is different from race). DNA tests don't take culture into account at all.

As an example, there are a lot of people of Indian origin in Britain, a DNA test may show them to be 100% Indian in some cases, yet they've grown up in Britain, their parents andor even grandparents may have grown up in Britain too. They are undoubtedly British, it would be pretty insulting to question their Britishness even I'd say. Yet your DNA test would still say they're not British.

It depends how the person is using the term ethnicity more than my definition.

To use Jessica Krug as an example, she made specific claims for instance that her family was from Algeria (most Algerians are Berbers who some would define as black and others white or arab which would make it a good lie to use) when she, in fact, knew they were not. When she said she was black, she did not mean she identified with black culture or grew up around black culture, she meant that her family came from Africa.

I'm not sure how ethnicity is defined in Britain (American would be considered nationality and not ethnicity), but in the US, saying "I'm black" without further clarification would imply that you can trace your ancestry back to Africa in the fairly recent past (like within the past 1000 years or so I dunno the exact cutoff). And we can determine that with a pretty good degree of accuracy.

That's part of the problem with ethnicity. A lot of it is down to interpretation. I'd say more so than gender which you compared it to earlier. Ethnicity is often based around nationality though, is it not? In the UK you usually have a choice between things like "white British" "black British", "white other" etc. And I expect more often than not if you ask somebody's ethnicity they would say things like "black British" "Swedish" or "Chinese", rather than "Celtic" or "Han".

It seems like the association of black with Africa is much more pronounced in the US than the UK. Like I said we use "black British" rather than "African British", we consider them to be one of us, just with a different skin colour. Plus if I knew a black person wasn't British then unless they had a detectable accent my first instinct would be to assume they're from the Caribbean rather than Africa. Technically their ancestors would still have come from Africa but people from the Caribbean are still very different from people from Africa, they've diverged quite a bit. Just like American, Australians and Brits are all different.

Plus I'd only automatically associate sub-Saharan Africa with black people. There are quite a lot of people of north African descent in Europe (especially France) and I definitely wouldn't consider them black. They're cultural different from people of European descent, but I'd say they're a lot closer to white Europeans physical appearance wise than they are to black Africans. eg. An Algerian person probably looks more similar to an Italian person than they do a Nigerian person.

Edit: I guess the main point here is that I'm arguing that ethnicity is much more subjective and open to debate than gender is. For gender the majority of the time you can scientifically (objectively) class somebody as one or the other. There are exceptions to the rule, yes, but for ethnicity there isn't even a set rule to go by that everybody would agree with.

Last edited by Ka-pi96 - on 13 September 2020

Immersiveunreality said:
Transgenderism is also a hormonal thing so it holds some more ground, transracialism is more leaning towards mental disfigurement or social acceptance/pressure/ignorance.
Overall most people have no grasp of what the mind is capable of.

That's what my psychiatrist said after saying she couldn't help me.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

Ka-pi96 said:
JWeinCom said:

It depends how the person is using the term ethnicity more than my definition.

To use Jessica Krug as an example, she made specific claims for instance that her family was from Algeria (most Algerians are Berbers who some would define as black and others white or arab which would make it a good lie to use) when she, in fact, knew they were not. When she said she was black, she did not mean she identified with black culture or grew up around black culture, she meant that her family came from Africa.

I'm not sure how ethnicity is defined in Britain (American would be considered nationality and not ethnicity), but in the US, saying "I'm black" without further clarification would imply that you can trace your ancestry back to Africa in the fairly recent past (like within the past 1000 years or so I dunno the exact cutoff). And we can determine that with a pretty good degree of accuracy.

That's part of the problem with ethnicity. A lot of it is down to interpretation. I'd say more so than gender which you compared it to earlier. Ethnicity is often based around nationality though, is it not? In the UK you usually have a choice between things like "white British" "black British", "white other" etc. And I expect more often than not if you ask somebody's ethnicity they would say things like "black British" "Swedish" or "Chinese", rather than "Celtic" or "Han".

It seems like the association of black with Africa is much more pronounced in the US than the UK. Like I said we use "black British" rather than "African British", we consider them to be one of us, just with a different skin colour. Plus if I knew a black person wasn't British then unless they had a detectable accent my first instinct would be to assume they're from the Caribbean rather than Africa. Technically their ancestors would still have come from Africa but people from the Caribbean are still very different from people from Africa, they've diverged quite a bit. Just like American, Australians and Brits are all different.

Plus I'd only automatically associate sub-Saharan Africa with black people. There are quite a lot of people of north African descent in Europe (especially France) and I definitely wouldn't consider them black. They're cultural different from people of European descent, but I'd say they're a lot closer to white Europeans physical appearance wise than they are to black Africans. eg. An Algerian person probably looks more similar to an Italian person than they do a Nigerian person.

Berbers (who make up most of Algeria) have genetic traits that are a mixture of sub-Saharan Africa and Arab. Whether they're black or not is debatable, which is clearly why Krug chose that country. If she'd said Nigeria, people would be like gtfo. 

This is all kind of besides the point. Krug did not misinterpret anything. If she was legitimately from Algeria and considered herself black but others disagreed, that would be a different question entirely. But that's not what happened. She made statements that she knew were objectively not true. Her family was simply not from Algeria, and she knew that they weren't. She was making statements of fact that she knew to be false.

If a trans person was knowingly saying objectively false things, I'd also be against that. If Caitlyn Jenner said she was born with a vagina, then she is lying, and I'd have an issue with that (in the abstract at least... not like I'd go on a vendetta or anything). When Caitlyn Jenner says she feels like she is a woman, I believe she truly believes that. Even if I do feel differently, I defer to her judgment, because she has access to better information than I do. On a sidenote though, fuck Caitlyn Jenner. Not because she's trans, but because she's a shitty person.

Last edited by JWeinCom - on 13 September 2020

Jumpin said:
Immersiveunreality said:
Transgenderism is also a hormonal thing so it holds some more ground, transracialism is more leaning towards mental disfigurement or social acceptance/pressure/ignorance.
Overall most people have no grasp of what the mind is capable of.

That's what my psychiatrist said after saying she couldn't help me.

The last conversation with my psychiatrist was making an action plan for if I wanted to hurt myself. Due to some insurance issues I didn't make an appointment for the next few months. Never checked in at all. True story.  



JWeinCom said:
Jumpin said:

That's what my psychiatrist said after saying she couldn't help me.

The last conversation with my psychiatrist was making an action plan for if I wanted to hurt myself. Due to some insurance issues I didn't make an appointment for the next few months. Never checked in at all. True story.  

Are you feeling better now?