What kind of question is this even? Different things have different names. That’s not exactly a concept to struggle with.
White civil rights activist pretending to be black...
- Thread starter Pogue Mahone
- Start date
Oh boy
I genuinely admire people who are trying to debate in good faith with someone whose first contribution to the thread was this:
I know it's what you're supposed to do, but I totally lack the level-headedness required and I'd probably end up banned.
I know it's what you're supposed to do, but I totally lack the level-headedness required and I'd probably end up banned.
I used to agree with you but I have been made to feel like if I don't make the distinction I'll be cancelled. Or does that not become a problem until later in the child's life?
I thought I was being factual with the sex/gender distinction but I'm wrong. Quick search and looks like at that stage most resources do consider gender and sex of babies to be one and the same.
And I guess gender then gets to be modified by social construct as the child grows?
I'm very confused now, especially how all this has to do with race and ethnicity.
I don't follow, what was bad faith in what was said?
Nah, I won't bite, sorry.
According to WHO...
Gender refers to the characteristics of women, men, girls and boys that are socially constructed. This includes norms, behaviours and roles associated with being a woman, man, girl or boy, as well as relationships with each other. As a social construct, gender varies from society to society and can change over time.
So based on that, babies can't be defined by gender. So, basically male gender means someone with male characteristics and females have feminine characteristics. Where as sex is totally a biological definition.
Funnily enough I went off WHO at first and the distinction id made in my head to try and understand. But everywhere else I'm seeing the two interchangeable. Also tons of links for gender reveal parties. Are those not okay to do now?
I think gender reveal parties are sex reveal parties. People are misusing words/definitions.
Last edited:
I think the issue here might be your approach, seen as you think I was looking for a bite. It was a genuine question.
Nevermind.
Well yes, your ultrasound can't tell you the gender of your child.
Nothing, it's a just a poor attempt a false equivalency, the way I see it.
Shame it's overtaken the thread. Would much rather be talk about Tyrone Biggins to remind how utterly ridiculous the thing is
It's a subject and point that causes arguments.
By all means, elaborate rather than whining from the side.
It's not though - as my initial post stated - we're talking about an individual who identifies with a group that is not native or inherent to them. If you read the interview with that guy who identifies as Korean (on the last page), there's very little difference in what he says vis a vis a person who wants to change their gender.
C'mon mate, we have tons of countries passing laws to feck transgender folks over, it's still an oppressed minority in most places on earth, in some countries they are regularly killed. The suicide rates are above the normal population and even in more liberal western countries they are regularly victims of exclusion, violence and sometimes murder.
You think this has any parallel to people wanting to have a different race?
Two completely different situations with completely different impact on society. Trying to make them equivalent just serves the purpose of devaluing the one which is obviously more important to deal with.
Sex is male/female. Gender is tied to your identity.
For example you can be female, and be a tomboy - it doesn't (on its own) necessarily mean you want to transition genders, you could just feel more comfortable in less feminine clothes, and prefer playing sports over playing with dolls.
Race is race - to believe that you can 'transition' races means that you believe there to be inherent differences between races. If so, what are those differences? Most times it's either rooted in racism, or its actually tied to culture.
For example you can be female, and be a tomboy - it doesn't (on its own) necessarily mean you want to transition genders, you could just feel more comfortable in less feminine clothes, and prefer playing sports over playing with dolls.
Race is race - to believe that you can 'transition' races means that you believe there to be inherent differences between races. If so, what are those differences? Most times it's either rooted in racism, or its actually tied to culture.
I'm not going to comment anymore about the transgender issue, there's a whole, very active other thread about it.
Regarding "trans-racialism", race is about your ancestry surely? Which is being Jewish is regarded as being a race, regardless of whether you're white, middle eastern or anything else, you don't even need to be religious to be Jewish, racially. And the US having the whole "one drop of blood" stuff in the past?
Though, even then, what about someone who was adopted into a race and only grew up with them? I'm specifically thinking about white kids adopted into white Jewish family's for example.
And what about people who convert to the religion of Judaism? Do they get to adopt the race as well?
I think I've just convinced myself that trans-racialism might be more common than I initially thought...
Regarding "trans-racialism", race is about your ancestry surely? Which is being Jewish is regarded as being a race, regardless of whether you're white, middle eastern or anything else, you don't even need to be religious to be Jewish, racially. And the US having the whole "one drop of blood" stuff in the past?
Though, even then, what about someone who was adopted into a race and only grew up with them? I'm specifically thinking about white kids adopted into white Jewish family's for example.
And what about people who convert to the religion of Judaism? Do they get to adopt the race as well?
I think I've just convinced myself that trans-racialism might be more common than I initially thought...
I subscribe to the view that gender - as a distinct and different concept to sex - is largely obsolete and should be done away with. To be honest, im not sure exactly when 'gender' (in its current concept previously stated) actually became a thing. It seems to have happened at some point in the last ~15 years and now is accepted as a thing, but I dont really see the point.
If we take gender to have no relationship to biological sex, then my question is simply: what actually is gender then? The best thing I can come up with is that its a set of stereotypes, preferences, expectations and opinions that are associated with men or women (which are the main two possibilities for biological sex, incidentally). This sounds an awful lot like simple stereotyping, but given a more modern and socially accepted framework. In a truly modern, diverse, accepting society, you should be able to treat each individual as to their needs, rather than needing to label and pigeonhole people into gender identities and such.
Unfortunately we (society) have recent habit of wanting to attach labels to everything - much like we do with neurodiverse individuals. Labels can at times be helpful, but they can also be unhelpful and damaging. I dont believe the concept of gender identity serves much purpose, in this respect.
I caveat all of this by saying that I have no experience of gender dysphoria. I enjoy bubble baths and fruity cocktails, but have never considered those to be mutually exclusive with being a man. I am a man because that is my biological sex. Beyond that, I am simply me, and I have my own preferences and opinions on the world which may or may not agree with any given stereotype or label at any given time. If someone else gains something from classifying or 'identifying' as something, or by transitioning from one sex to another, then more power to them - frankly it doesnt affect me. I just dont really understand the purpose any of it serves, and dont think it is an especially progressive way to form a society.
If we take gender to have no relationship to biological sex, then my question is simply: what actually is gender then? The best thing I can come up with is that its a set of stereotypes, preferences, expectations and opinions that are associated with men or women (which are the main two possibilities for biological sex, incidentally). This sounds an awful lot like simple stereotyping, but given a more modern and socially accepted framework. In a truly modern, diverse, accepting society, you should be able to treat each individual as to their needs, rather than needing to label and pigeonhole people into gender identities and such.
Unfortunately we (society) have recent habit of wanting to attach labels to everything - much like we do with neurodiverse individuals. Labels can at times be helpful, but they can also be unhelpful and damaging. I dont believe the concept of gender identity serves much purpose, in this respect.
I caveat all of this by saying that I have no experience of gender dysphoria. I enjoy bubble baths and fruity cocktails, but have never considered those to be mutually exclusive with being a man. I am a man because that is my biological sex. Beyond that, I am simply me, and I have my own preferences and opinions on the world which may or may not agree with any given stereotype or label at any given time. If someone else gains something from classifying or 'identifying' as something, or by transitioning from one sex to another, then more power to them - frankly it doesnt affect me. I just dont really understand the purpose any of it serves, and dont think it is an especially progressive way to form a society.
If you're satisfied with comparing these two things you're missing key details and your opinions are based on superficial knowledge. I'd be able to appreciate your stance regardless of what they are if they were more well researched.
I'm not talking about the societal implications of it, purposely might I add. I'm not talking about what governments should (or shouldn't) do either.
I'm simply talking about the internalised mechanics of the transformation. The mental health aspect is interesting (again, the person who wants to be Korean has cited his declining health over an 8 year period, as well as not being able to be his authentic self). So what or where is the line drawn about a person that isn’t comfortable with their own body and/or skin? If it’s changing their gender this is encouraged. If it’s changing their race this is seen as abnormal. Why?
I’ve actually seen an example of a person who described themselves as ‘trans-abled’ (identifying as blind) and intentionally blinded themselves. There’s other stories of a person who wanted to amputate their legs too.
https://www.healthline.com/health-n...rings-attention-to-unusual-condition-100715#4
See my post above - of course there’s wider societal context and nuance, but that conversation comes later with what I’m asking.
How can you disconnect this from societal implications when a big part of the pain people go through is precisely because they know society won't accept them and they will be excluded? What you call internalized mechanics cannot be fully separated from externalized ones.
And your new example falls into the same problem I mentioned before of comparing situations and with that devaluing the one that is actually a problem affecting millions. That woman damaged her own body, which is what transphobes say about transgender people.
Kind of confirms my worry, which is that you are knowledgeable enough on the science behind sex and gender issues.
There are a few other uncanny situations like the trans abled example you mention that fit the kind of direction you're thinking but the gender stuff does not. I see a lot posters calling you out on that in particular and would advise that you keep the conversation centered on the other things as you're inappropriate and wrong on the other parts. Someone else may have the patience to explain it to you, but it behooves you to do the work yourself and not let this be simply a thought experiment.
Apparently 'In1955, the controversial and innovative sexologist John Money first used the term “gender” in a way that we all now take for granted'.
I genuinely didn’t know this.
I genuinely didn’t know this.
Because the societal implications and what governments do come after the fact. So it’s irrelevant to what I’m asking. I’m not discussing how they should be treated (and as a minimum everyone should be treated with respect and dignity).
But yes you can separate the internal mechanics of the transformation from the externalised ones. Because the internalised mechanics still exist no matter what state and shape externalised ones are.
I couldn't disagree more with the last sentence, but I've made my point, so lets leave it here.
I reckon John Money’s kids must have pissed themselves laughing when he first told them what his job was.
??? I’m not portraying myself as an expert in this matter at all but it seems you, as well as others, are incapable of giving me an answer without delving into society and external issues. Which isn’t what I’m getting at, at all.
Why? The reason for a person wanting to transform comes from within.
Race is like your age, you can’t transition because they’re rooted in fact. One is your heritage and the other is how many times you’ve orbited the sun.
You can obviously identify more with one culture than another, but it doesn’t make you black if you’re white or vice versa.
You can obviously identify more with one culture than another, but it doesn’t make you black if you’re white or vice versa.
Yeah but the internal process is not just wanting to change, it also includes the not wanting to change, they are part of the same process and these opposite feelings are often the source of painful internal conflict. And the not wanting to change part is often, if not exclusively, related to external factors. So the whole internal process doesn't happen independently from the outside/societal status quo. If we lived in a world where being transgender was 100% common and there were zero forms of discrimination, the internal process would be very similar to wanting to change haircuts, put a breast implant or have liposuction. The main reason that internal process is as painful as it is, it's because transgender people, especially teenagers, get external information that paints them as freaks, abominations and they see news of transgender people being vilified and targets of violence. Remove that and the internal process would be completely different.
Guys, can we stop talking about transexualism in a thread about trans racialism.
There is a dedicated thread about transexuality.
And they are not comparable, we are talking about very different things. Talk about the correct things in the correct threads please.
There is a dedicated thread about transexuality.
And they are not comparable, we are talking about very different things. Talk about the correct things in the correct threads please.
must be so difficult being transgender and read people saying it’s the same as trying to change race
I mean come on ffs
I mean come on ffs
Thanks for the write up - although I don't agree with the rationale.
If we take gender as an example - for 97.5% of the world's population, they won't have anything internally that tells them there is a misalignment between their sex and gender. For the 2.5% - there is an internal misalignment. Regardless of what is going on externally, that misalignment will always be there. I understand that these individuals will have to factor in society, government, etc, this and that...but the internal aspect will be there regardless of the state of wider society.
With that being said - for certain individuals (a much smaller percentage I'm assuming), there is a misalignment between their race/ethnicity and what they identify as too. Again, that exists and will continue to exist no matter what shape or state society is in. I'd encourage you to read the interview with the guy who identifies as Korean as he literally says the same things a person experiencing gender dysmorphia says.
So, it goes back to my original question - why is one seen as abnormal and the other not? Both start off with a misalignment of the 'self' (although manifest differently).