Forgive my ignorance . could someone not identify as their race?/ethnicity?

Recommended Videos

CrystalShadow

don't upset the insane catgirl
Apr 11, 2009
3,829
0
0
Depends what you mean by ethnicity.

I am white, and identify as such.

But ethnicity is much broader than that.

Based on my parents and grandparents, I am English (specifally, celtic, I think, not entirely sure), Dutch, and Polish.

I was born in Australia.

I have literally no association with any polish stuff. It doesn't particularly feel like it has anything to do with me, even though it's in my blood, supposedly.

On the other extreme, the only association I have with Australia, is having been born there, and spending about half my life there. I identify with that culture, but there's nothing in it innate to me, just that I grew up there.


To give another example, in England, I was briefly involved with a black guy. (I kinda hate him, but that's because he abused me. )

Now, obviously, 'black' can be identified from the colour of s person's skin. But are all people with dark skin the same 'race'? I really don't think so.
Anyway, why do I bring up the English guy?
Because that's what he was. Skin colour aside, he was pretty much like any other british guy. He really had nothing distinguishing him from anyone else that grew up in England, other than dark skin.


So... What does it even mean ti 'identify with your race'? Huh?

What does that mean?

For that matter, in Australia, our history has resulted in a lot of 'white' people with aboriginal blood.
They don't look it, but nobody, white, nor aboriginal, is likely to question them on it.
Because while most of them do have dark skin, that is not how they define who is and isn't part of their 'race'.


Still, this whole thing remains an incredibly flaky subject. Race is statistically insignificant on a gwenetic level, so again, what is it that's being argued about?

Am I for instance, polish, because one oof my grandparents is?
or am I not, because I have nothing in common with the culture there, and you wouldn't be able to work that out just by looking at me?

You can't realistically argue about your membership in a particular group (and whether that can be changed) without first defining what it means to belong to a group.

For transgender people for instance, many arguments arise about what exactly does and does not define whether you are male or female, but many elements of it have been defined, both physical, and social. Some can be changed, some cannot.
the argument about what group a transgender person belongs to then basically comes down to an argument about which factors are more important? The ones that can be changed? Or the ones that cannot?
(yes, there are complications related to the idea of a person having an innate identity not matching their body, but the core argument still revolves around the conflict between what can, and cannot be changed)

So, again, what does it mean to be a member of a specific race? Can any of the elements involved be changed in an individual? Can any defining elements NOT be changed?
What would the significance of such changes be?

For instance, certain groups of white people xan have very dark tans if they get enough exoisure to sunlight.
An albino can have dark-skinned parents, but will be very pale regardless...

How about cultural habits, and adoptions and such?
A black child raised by a white family, will, attempts to explicitly learn their identity, behave like a white person.

A white child raised in Japan by a jaoanese family will behave like a japanese person.

Barring any stigma resulting from your superficial appearance, your 'identity' will basically be defined by the environment you grew up in. 'Race' only factors into this if you have a radically different appearance to everyone around you, anand they treat you differently as a rwsult of that. If they don't, your identity will be the same as everyone else you grew up around.

Unless you can define what race/ethnicity means in detail, you cannot really argue if it can be changed.
Culture can be changed. It is a matter of familiarity and exposure.

This is how I can feel perfectly justified claiming ownership of 3 slightly different cultures. (english, dutch, australian).
Not because of something innate in me, but because I spent quite some time living in these places.
Because I know some of the quirks of the culture. The languages. The slang. Variations in manners. Expectations.
I learnt these things. They weren't innate.

If I had grown up in an African tribe, I woukd've understood the culture of that tribe. If I had been in Tibet, I would've understood that.

That isn't based on my race, it's based on what I've been exposed to in life.
 

Wiggum Esquilax

New member
Apr 22, 2015
118
0
0
Are you seriously asking if anyone could identify with another culture, and asking it on this site?

Does anyone even know how many weeaboos populate this corner of the internet? I might legitimately not be able to count that high. I doubt very much that even 3% of them are ethnically Japanese, doesn't seem to stop them from having dancing anime avatars.

Your culture is what you say it is, punch anyone that says otherwise.
 

Politrukk

New member
May 5, 2015
605
0
0
Lufia Erim said:
So I'll admit. I am completely ignorant in this train of thought.Correct me if I'm wrong on any fronts.From what i gathered, people who don't identify with their gender are trangendered. Now I'm not going to add to that because I'm sure whatever information i have is wrong,I'll make a seperate thread for that.

My question is: could someone not identify as their race\ethnicity?

Basically could a black person not identify as a black person but as an asian person instead? Or is it limited to genre?

Why or why not?
These days, everything is possible, we've become decadent.

There's people out there who think they're animals or trees, Trees man I mean come on.

It isn't hard for me to grasp the concept of people thinking they're a different race after that.
 

TheRightToArmBears

New member
Dec 13, 2008
8,674
0
0
Queen Michael said:
As I understand it, the thing about gender is that it's personality-related. But being black, Asian or whatever has nothing to do with personality. There's no such thing as "thinking like a black guy."
Pretty much fucking this. No one has 'black urges', race dictates your physical appearance, not your psychology. I would imagine anyone claiming to suffer from it is actually suffering from a different, actual disorder.
 

TwistednMean

New member
Nov 23, 2010
56
0
0
I think people in this thread should check their privilege. I racially identify as Asari , and you folks better damn respect my racial experiences!
\sarcasm

On a more serious note, identifying as a member of another race holds about as much water as identifying as a member of another sex (or a third sex if you're feeling so inclined). Either of these things has everything to do with biology, no matter what the social construct crowd says. Their ignorance in biology and other real sciences borders on dark age fanaticism.
 

BytByte

New member
Nov 26, 2009
425
0
0
Well race is just kinda what color your skin is or ethnicity is just where you happened to be born. They are both really just social constructs for us to organize people in certain ways.

What I'm saying is it shouldn't be possible because it shouldn't matter, but our silly little world is really hung up on colors. That's like preschool shit.
 

BeeGeenie

New member
May 30, 2012
726
0
0
Ethnicity is a pretty fuzzy concept anyway. It's more socially and culturally constructed than gender. Race at least has some basis in genetics (as superficial as it may be).

A man can transition into a ... feminine thing that we all agree to call a woman for ease of reference. That doesn't make him female, but whatever. It might change how people perceive ....him, and how he perceives ...himself.
A black person could lighten their skin. It wouldn't change their DNA, but it might change how people perceive them, and how they perceive themselves.

If that's a net positive, I'm for it.
As long as they can pay for the procedure their damn self, because I'm not interested in subsidizing their self-esteem.
 

KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime

Lolita Style, The Best Style!
Jan 12, 2010
2,151
0
0
TwistednMean said:
On a more serious note, identifying as a member of another race holds about as much water as identifying as a member of another sex (or a third sex if you're feeling so inclined). Either of these things has everything to do with biology, no matter what the social construct crowd says. Their ignorance in biology and other real sciences borders on dark age fanaticism.
This is called "biological essentialism" and it's very well proven to be a total and complete load of of absolute nonsense, meaning it's the argument that holds no water. On the racial side you're positing that people are biologically different because of race, which they're not, black, white, Asian and etc... all have the same biology, because we're human. Sure people of different races have different different facial features, different levels of melanin in their skin, maybe different heights and builds on average, but that's it, it's all superficial. As in there are no real significant biological differences in humans based on race, none, it's an outdated racist notion that there are significant biological differences. From an ethnic standpoint however, it's quite realistic and common to find people who are more comfortable and identify ethnically with other races ethnicity and culture, because ethnicity is tied much more to culture and tradition than to race.

Now there has never been really a provable case of "racial dysphoria" in the eyes of the medical community, at the same time the only examples of "trans-racial" people we have are either scam artists, or people who have other contributing issues. I'm not saying that being "trans-racical" is impossible, but it puts way too large a value on rather minor variance of skin tone that has very little to do with anything except for the very superficial.

Now you claim that gender dysphoria and transgenderism are "ignoring biology and real science bordering on dark age fanaticism". Except that you're the one who's ignoring the very real science, while at the same time throwing out the biological mechanisms of the brain, that form us as individual persons. We humans are not just the sum total of our biology, just as gender is not the same as biological sex phenotype. Humans are complex self aware beings with complex identities that go far beyond our biology, to the point we form complex societies that no other animal does. Gender, again, is not the same thing as biological sexual phenotype. Gender is a complex construct of behaviors, social roles, societal placement, self expression, and personal identity. While gender is linked to the biological sexual phenotype, it isn't confined solely to the biological state we have as humans, it far surpasses biological sex phenotype in it's scope. Also transgenderism isn't anything new, neither is accepting it, gender is universal across all cultures, though it's definition does vary, the concept is universal, as are the people who don't conform to it. Good examples are like the Hijra of east India and Pakistan, Lady Boys of Thailand, the greatly varied number of gender non-conforming in the Polynesian islands, and even the sworn virgins of Armenia who live as members of the opposite sex.

Now using your "logic" of "biology and real science", there is a final nail in the coffin relating to it's validity, that is homosexuality. Since sex is the action of biological reproduction, which in humans requires a male mating with a female, then homosexuality is invalid too. This is because homosexuals are sexually attracted to members of the same sex, this is biologically wrong, as same sex male couples and female couples cannot reproduce together. By that "logic" homosexuality is invalid, it's a delusion, it's a mental disorder, because it's "against" biology, because it ignores the biological drive to reproduce. Luckily the majority of experts in biology, sexuality, psychology, and other "real sciences" disagree with the stance of biological essentialists. They agree by majority that homosexuality isn't mental disorder, or inherently wrong, they also agree that transgenderism isn't a mental disorder and that it is in fact valid condition humans experience. In the case of the latter they even threw out the term "gender identity disorder", replacing it with "gender dysphoria", which is not a mental disorder, yet a very real condition that many, but not all, transgender people have.

BeeGeenie said:
A man can transition into a ... feminine thing that we all agree to call a woman for ease of reference. That doesn't make him female, but whatever. It might change how people perceive ....him, and how he perceives ...himself.
I'm not trying to scold you, but I do take some exception with this language. First referring to a transgender person as a thing is a rather dehumanizing way of putting it, I'm not accusing you of being transphobic here, but using dehumanizing language is something a lot of transphobic people do to trans folk. Then there is the misgendering thing you did, angain I'm not saying you're transphobic, but intentional misgendering of trans people is something transphobeic groups do to in order to hurt a transgender person emotionally. Misgendering is a way of invalidating a trans person's innate internal gender identity, it's a way of "othering" trans people and damaging them emotionally through invalidation. This is why it's best to not use dehumanizing, or invalidating language against trans people, because we are human too.

Now that said, us transgender folk know we can't change our biological sex phenotype, that doesn't make our gender identities less valid, nor does it make the transition less valid. Because the goal of transition is to move out of the gender that doesn't fit us, and move into the one that does fit us and our identities inherently. This can only be done in the social construct of gender in total, while only partially can it be achieved biologically through hormone replacement therapy. This is because it's currently impossible to fully change the "down stairs" biological reproductive plumbing, even if/when that becomes possible it won't be totally necessary for every transgender person. This is because not every transgender person is "male to female", or "female to male", there are some who have variable gender identities called "gender fluid", those who have identities that don't fit in the binary at all called "gender queer", bigender people who identify as both, agender people who identify as neither, and etc... Also even amongst "FtM" and "MtF" transgender people, full transition via surgery isn't always ideal, necessary, or even wanted. Some transgender people never transition to any extent at all, despite identifying as the opposite gender, for their own reasons. This is because not every trans person has gender dysphoria, or if they do it's not intense enough to warrant transition, this, however; does not make that person's gender identity any less valid. Especially because when it comes to identity, including gender identity, it forms from the brain, which is the most important biological part when it comes to self identity.

Again I'm not trying to scold you here, I'm just sharing what I know on the subject.
 

Mechamorph

New member
Dec 7, 2008
228
0
0
I would say that identifying yourself as not of the race you're born in is a question for the philosophers but legally this should not be allowed since there will be people who will do so just to take advantage of positive discrimination policies in various countries. Also identification can be quite difficult when attempting to identify unknown individuals. As it stands, race is more of a visual identification or shorthand in daily life. Just because a Chinese male identifies himself as Negro does not mean that everyone else will not identify him as a Negro. What sort of justification does he have to take on someone else's race and presumably culture? Would others see that as pretentious or culturally insensitive?
 

DerangedHobo

New member
Jan 11, 2012
231
0
0
Lufia Erim said:
From my limited understanding of race/ethnicity and being "trans-racial" is that there is a disconnect there. Something like transsexual for example or something like Genderqueer is that gender has certain traits, mannerisms etc. that comes along with that. That is an established fact, to identify as another race through belief alone is to assume that the race has certain qualities or mannerisms directly assigned to it. Assuming what I'm saying has a degree of accuracy, that seems... racist.

Now if someone wants to embrace another culture, provided they do not half-ass it and treat it with a degree of respect, I see no problem with that. No one has the right to push other people out, ***** and take their toys home when someone tries to integrate into their culture.

Personally, I'm a proponent of "belief dictates reality", mainly due to solipsism and the like. As of such, I have nothing against the practice of being trans-racial, provided it is not done for underhanded reasons.
 

Dizchu

...brutal
Sep 23, 2014
1,277
0
0
Race is hereditary, gender and sex are not. That's pretty much the most crucial difference.
 

Politrukk

New member
May 5, 2015
605
0
0
Burned Hand said:
Politrukk said:
Lufia Erim said:
So I'll admit. I am completely ignorant in this train of thought.Correct me if I'm wrong on any fronts.From what i gathered, people who don't identify with their gender are trangendered. Now I'm not going to add to that because I'm sure whatever information i have is wrong,I'll make a seperate thread for that.

My question is: could someone not identify as their race\ethnicity?

Basically could a black person not identify as a black person but as an asian person instead? Or is it limited to genre?

Why or why not?
These days, everything is possible, we've become decadent.

There's people out there who think they're animals or trees, Trees man I mean come on.

It isn't hard for me to grasp the concept of people thinking they're a different race after that.
"Decadent"

Forgive me for this, but that particular word in this kind of context raises a lot of alarm flags for me.
Golly, don't tell me, you were just triggered?


Sorry that makes me come off as a troll which actually wasn't my intention.

The fact that I say that I can comprehend the concept doesn't mean I have to like it.

Never have I read in the annals of history of the entire gender/racial/species divide situation becoming or being acted out as much as it is now.

Perhaps the closest things are "accepted" homosexuality en pedophilia under the ruling class in for example Rome, Greece and the Netherlands.

Perhaps it's always existed but I personally feel it's something to do with this generation, spoiled with attention and free time, bombarded with information everyday.

Let me give you the definition of Decadence:
A process, condition, or period of deterioration or decline, as in morals or art; decay.

Whereas these people all see it as "improvements" I see lingering signs of decay.

From the vulgarity of mainstream artists like Nicki Minaj and Lil Wayne to the outlandish nature of artists like Miley Cyrus and Lady Gaga society is slowly changing, barriers are constantly being broken.

Epitome of this to me is the song "stupid hoe" by Nicki Minaj, vulgar and yes decadent.

These people then again influence our culture and are on the forefront of movements for the new X amount of genders, feeling different, being different.

In this time everyone can be whatever they want to be, that's the message.

So if you think you're a genderfluid spirit folk then by the gods we'll damn sure have to accept it.

The point I was making here however isn't my bitter "good were the olden days where all was sober" kind of attitude.
But rather, if we're adjusting to a society where EVERYTHING is accepted, then I feel there must be no exceptions and what the OP posted is a question in that regard.

Can someone feel like they're a different race/ethnicity to that I say yes, of course they can.

Will I take them seriously? maybe not, but they can feel like it.
 

LetalisK

New member
May 5, 2010
2,769
0
0
Sure. And the sooner we expose race for the arbitrary and meaningless cultural bullshit that it is the sooner no one gives a shit any more.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime said:
Though I'm not sure how much credence this gives to people like Rachel Dolezal who claim to not identify on the basis of skin color, or who cry racism as a method for personal gain.
Rachel Dolezal lied. I would hope it gave her zero credibility.

That's not to say someone can't

TwistednMean said:
On a more serious note, identifying as a member of another race holds about as much water as identifying as a member of another sex (or a third sex if you're feeling so inclined). Either of these things has everything to do with biology, no matter what the social construct crowd says. Their ignorance in biology and other real sciences borders on dark age fanaticism.
Interesting. I mean, I know the science of gender identity, and could even point to papers and experts that can speak to gender identity as an integral part of being if pressed. I can find no such information on racial identity; in fact, when I look it appears that an adopted child raised by members of a different"race" can (with varying reports of likelihood) adopt the identity of their parents given a young enough adoption.

It would look to a layperson such as myself like there is no biological mechanism that strictly determines race. Since you're playing the "SCIENCE!" card, perhaps you can show me the light. Because, barring some actual research, perhaps papers, it looks like they're only comparable if you are holding on to...how did you put it? "Dark age fanaticism?"

So...uhhh...yeah. Are you seriously going to ignore the decades of research into gender identity and then accuse others of "dark age fanaticism" for accepting it?
 

KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime

Lolita Style, The Best Style!
Jan 12, 2010
2,151
0
0
Politrukk said:
The thing is that Two Spirit/Animal Spirit/Otherkin identity has it's roots in mysticism, metaphysical philosophy, and spiritualism. Like how the Native Americans relate to it, meaning it's seen as a spiritual, metaphysical, mystical thing, not something that directly translates into reality. I already pointed out that transgender identities are nothing new too, they're steeped in very old cultures and traditions in quite a few places, plus with decades of science to back it up as an actual part of the human condition, it's not just attention seeking meaningless tripe. Trans-racialism only really applies to people who grew up from a very young age having been adopted by another race, it's a rare thing by that definition. On the other hand, there is no evidence to support it's validity in people who grew up being raised by parents the same race as them. People can adopt different cultural identities, this much is proven, but the "racial identity" idea seems to be a mechanism of people wanting to game the system, for the most part. This is because race is arbitrary and superficial, by virtue of being based solely on appearance.

A side note is that in an industrialized society, where far more than half the infants born survive to adulthood, kind of devalues gender and gender roles. What's happening, albeit slowly, is that the gender binary as we understand it is becoming obsolete, because so many children are surviving and industry is making physical traits less valuable. This means that with the existing idea of transgenderism historically, people take less stock in the strict gender binary, thus seeking validity in self, rather than as a group. Less survival stress gives people more opportunity to assert their value as individuals, which is good, because humans are uniquely self deterministic.

LetalisK said:
Sure. And the sooner we expose race for the arbitrary and meaningless cultural bullshit that it is the sooner no one gives a shit any more.
I mostly agree with this sentiment, except for the idea of it being worthless culturally. From the standpoint of different races being a thing that exist by region and visible changes, those "races" having developed vastly different and unique cultures that have a lot of value. That value is personal, regional, and most importantly historical, as in the mistakes cultures make, as well as the successes they achieve are valuable to humanity as a whole, as we continue to move foreword.

Zachary Amaranth said:
Rachel Dolezal lied. I would hope it gave her zero credibility.

That's not to say someone can't
I think she has zero credibility when it comes to the trans-racial identity argument. It is possible that racial identity is a thing, but there is so little evidence, and race is such a physically superficial thing, that identifying by it primarily is a step backwards for humanity.

What irritates me with the whole subject is how groups try to levy it to invalidate trans folk and erase our existence.

Zachary Amaranth said:
TwistednMean said:
On a more serious note, identifying as a member of another race holds about as much water as identifying as a member of another sex (or a third sex if you're feeling so inclined). Either of these things has everything to do with biology, no matter what the social construct crowd says. Their ignorance in biology and other real sciences borders on dark age fanaticism.
Interesting. I mean, I know the science of gender identity, and could even point to papers and experts that can speak to gender identity as an integral part of being if pressed. I can find no such information on racial identity; in fact, when I look it appears that an adopted child raised by members of a different"race" can (with varying reports of likelihood) adopt the identity of their parents given a young enough adoption.

It would look to a layperson such as myself like there is no biological mechanism that strictly determines race. Since you're playing the "SCIENCE!" card, perhaps you can show me the light. Because, barring some actual research, perhaps papers, it looks like they're only comparable if you are holding on to...how did you put it? "Dark age fanaticism?"

So...uhhh...yeah. Are you seriously going to ignore the decades of research into gender identity and then accuse others of "dark age fanaticism" for accepting it?
Well as I mentioned in my big post earlier, this person is using biological essentialism, which is a big tool of transphobic types to try to invalidate transgender people's existence. Of course if you follow the logic you can use biological essentialism to invalidate homosexuality too, which has possibly even better evidence to support it than transgenderism does. In the past they did use biological essentialist views to invalidate homosexuality as a serious mental illness, as they did with transgenderism, and as it turns out... The biologically essential view is wrong because it ignores the mechanics of the human brain, the most important part of human biology for determining who we are on an individual and species wide basis. Which does include identity, sexuality, and gender[footnote]Again gender and biological sexual phenotype(sex) are not the same thing.[/footnote].
 

visiblenoise

New member
Jul 2, 2014
395
0
0
Wow. When someone asks about race, it's generally to find out about your roots, not whatever the hell you like the most. It's an objective freaking question.

On the other hand, the person answering can say, "Yes, I am indeed a Froiquaedian, but I don't actually know anything about their culture because I grew up here."
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime said:
The thing is that Two Spirit/Animal Spirit/Otherkin identity has it's roots in mysticism, metaphysical philosophy, and spiritualism.
The simpler thing is this: it don't hurt me none. This isn't so much aimed at you as an end-run around most of the arguments. You're responding to someone who insists it's decadent, in the sense that ti's harmful to society (decay). Demonstrate to me the harm, and I will care. Until then, here's a list of ways it impacts me if someone says they're an otherkin:

1. [to be added]

LetalisK said:
I mostly agree with this sentiment, except for the idea of it being worthless culturally. From the standpoint of different races being a thing that exist by region and visible changes, those "races" having developed vastly different and unique cultures that have a lot of value. That value is personal, regional, and most importantly historical, as in the mistakes cultures make, as well as the successes they achieve are valuable to humanity as a whole, as we continue to move foreword.
But this is cultural identity, not race. Which is also mutable, but that's another story. The idea of race largely carries with it the idea that blacks are different from whites are different from Asians are different from Native Americans, etc. on some fundamental level. It also carries with it the notion that this is somehow tied to your melanin content, or the folds of skin near your eyes (forget the name) or similar traits. That is, that there is something carried with a black person such they will be the same whether raised in a black household or a white one. That they will have the same "tendencies" whether they're raised in Atlanta, London, or Tokyo.

I mean, my ancestry's mostly Scottish and Native American. I'm much closer to my Scottish ancestry (which still isn't much). If I, say, had kids with a black partner and we raised them around Scottish culture, they probably wouldn't know any better. If I adopted a black kid and did the same, it'd be the same. And if I were raised by Jamaican immigrants, I might identify with Jamaican culture.

I think she has zero credibility when it comes to the trans-racial identity argument. It is possible that racial identity is a thing, but there is so little evidence, and race is such a physically superficial thing, that identifying by it primarily is a step backwards for humanity.
Which is more or less my argument. People keep telling e "in ten/twenty/fifty years you'll look like a bigot!" because I don't sccept transracialism.

My argument is thus: if, in ten/twenty/fifty years, one can reasonably demonstrate that this is a thing, that racial identity is comparable to gender identity, I will modify my opinions accordingly. I'm not going to accept something because "science has changed in the past and so it could be true."

I know I could be wrong, and so I try and investigate my beliefs. When Rachel Dolezal came up, I went to look at the "science" of the matter. What I could find is that, for example, there appears to be no identifying differentiation in the brain based off of race. Now, that doesn't preclude future scientific research, but it does mean we have no reason to believe this sort of inborn identity exists.

I largely don't care. It doesn't really matter to me if someone "feels black," as long as they're not asking me to call them a "******" or doing something to harm others with it. Racial Dolezal tried to play every angle and deceived people specifically for her benefit. There I do care. And also:

What irritates me with the whole subject is how groups try to levy it to invalidate trans folk and erase our existence.
That's another reason I care.

Well as I mentioned in my big post earlier, this person is using biological essentialism, which is a big tool of transphobic types to try to invalidate transgender people's existence. Of course if you follow the logic you can use biological essentialism to invalidate homosexuality too, which has possibly even better evidence to support it than transgenderism does. In the past they did use biological essentialist views to invalidate homosexuality as a serious mental illness, as they did with transgenderism, and as it turns out... The biologically essential view is wrong because it ignores the mechanics of the human brain, the most important part of human biology for determining who we are on an individual and species wide basis. Which does include identity, sexuality, and gender[footnote]Again gender and biological sexual phenotype(sex) are not the same thing.[/footnote].
Oh yeah, I am well acquainted with the ideas. In fact, I was tempted to ask how they view homosexuality for that exact reason.

But this was a longer way of saying [citation needed] that involved bringing up the existing issues in such logic.

Basically, "I ain't no big-city lawyer, but it seems to me...."

Though admittedly, there was some jaw-dropping at someone accusing others of having a dark age mentality while ignoring medical science.
 

TwistednMean

New member
Nov 23, 2010
56
0
0
KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime said:
TwistednMean said:
On a more serious note, identifying as a member of another race holds about as much water as identifying as a member of another sex (or a third sex if you're feeling so inclined). Either of these things has everything to do with biology, no matter what the social construct crowd says. Their ignorance in biology and other real sciences borders on dark age fanaticism.
This is called "biological essentialism" and it's very well proven to be a total and complete load of of absolute nonsense, meaning it's the argument that holds no water.
Citation needed.

KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime said:
On the racial side you're positing that people are biologically different because of race, which they're not, black, white, Asian and etc... all have the same biology, because we're human. Sure people of different races have different different facial features, different levels of melanin in their skin, maybe different heights and builds on average, but that's it, it's all superficial. As in there are no real significant biological differences in humans based on race, none, it's an outdated racist notion that there are significant biological differences. From an ethnic standpoint however, it's quite realistic and common to find people who are more comfortable and identify ethnically with other races ethnicity and culture, because ethnicity is tied much more to culture and tradition than to race.
Is amount of melanin in the person's skin not a significant biological difference? Then I reckon my inability to tan does not stem from my racial features, but it comes from the sun being racist on me and all that crap. Sun needs to check its damn privilege!

KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime said:
Now there has never been really a provable case of "racial dysphoria" in the eyes of the medical community, at the same time the only examples of "trans-racial" people we have are either scam artists, or people who have other contributing issues. I'm not saying that being "trans-racical" is impossible, but it puts way too large a value on rather minor variance of skin tone that has very little to do with anything except for the very superficial.
Wait a second. In the previous paragraph you argued that ethnicity is tied to culture and now you are saying that people who do not identify as their visible race are all scam artists? What if a young boy had been adopted into a black family and was raised in a black community? By your logic if he identifies as black, it means that he is just another oppressive white cis-male in disguise. That is not very nice to his experience and upbringing, I reckon.

KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime said:
Now you claim that gender dysphoria and transgenderism are "ignoring biology and real science bordering on dark age fanaticism". Except that you're the one who's ignoring the very real science, while at the same time throwing out the biological mechanisms of the brain, that form us as individual persons. We humans are not just the sum total of our biology, just as gender is not the same as biological sex phenotype. Humans are complex self aware beings with complex identities that go far beyond our biology, to the point we form complex societies that no other animal does. Gender, again, is not the same thing as biological sexual phenotype. Gender is a complex construct of behaviors, social roles, societal placement, self expression, and personal identity. While gender is linked to the biological sexual phenotype, it isn't confined solely to the biological state we have as humans, it far surpasses biological sex phenotype in it's scope. Also transgenderism isn't anything new, neither is accepting it, gender is universal across all cultures, though it's definition does vary, the concept is universal, as are the people who don't conform to it. Good examples are like the Hijra of east India and Pakistan, Lady Boys of Thailand, the greatly varied number of gender non-conforming in the Polynesian islands, and even the sworn virgins of Armenia who live as members of the opposite sex.
Ah, assertions, assertions. Citation is needed very badly.

Most people identify their gender as their biological sex. How do you know that gender is something different? Maybe, you have empirical proof? Can you bring up an example of a society, where "social gender" and biological" sex were consistently distinct notions? Or is it something that "social scientists" have dreamed up? Sorry, but their theoretical musings on the subject, unsupported by any substantial amount of evidence, are not science. It's called fiction. It doesn't matter that those scam artist of academia publish their works in their own "peer-reviewed" journals. They are not scientists until they use scientific method to back their claims. Full stop.

KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime said:
Now using your "logic" of "biology and real science", there is a final nail in the coffin relating to it's validity, that is homosexuality. Since sex is the action of biological reproduction, which in humans requires a male mating with a female, then homosexuality is invalid too. This is because homosexuals are sexually attracted to members of the same sex, this is biologically wrong, as same sex male couples and female couples cannot reproduce together. By that "logic" homosexuality is invalid, it's a delusion, it's a mental disorder, because it's "against" biology, because it ignores the biological drive to reproduce. Luckily the majority of experts in biology, sexuality, psychology, and other "real sciences" disagree with the stance of biological essentialists. They agree by majority that homosexuality isn't mental disorder, or inherently wrong, they also agree that transgenderism isn't a mental disorder and that it is in fact valid condition humans experience. In the case of the latter they even threw out the term "gender identity disorder", replacing it with "gender dysphoria", which is not a mental disorder, yet a very real condition that many, but not all, transgender people have.
Homosexuality occurs in 4% of human population. It is a deviant trait by any definition. The fact that it is not classified as a "mental disorder" only means that we have transcended the primal urge to use medical therapy and high voltage on other people until they conform to "the norm". This, of course, is a large step forward for humanism, but it does not make homosexuality a norm. Sorry for breaking your delusions. The same can be said of the so-called "gender dysphoria". It isn't normal. But it is no good reason to "beat" people into conforming to their biological sex either.

Funny how many people cannot see this distinction. They keep thinking in binary terms. If something seizes being the norm, harshly enforced by the society, they say, well, now we have a new norm! Let's harshly enforce that new norm for everyone! Totalitarian much?


Zachary Amaranth said:
TwistednMean said:
On a more serious note, identifying as a member of another race holds about as much water as identifying as a member of another sex (or a third sex if you're feeling so inclined). Either of these things has everything to do with biology, no matter what the social construct crowd says. Their ignorance in biology and other real sciences borders on dark age fanaticism.
Interesting. I mean, I know the science of gender identity, and could even point to papers and experts that can speak to gender identity as an integral part of being if pressed. I can find no such information on racial identity; in fact, when I look it appears that an adopted child raised by members of a different"race" can (with varying reports of likelihood) adopt the identity of their parents given a young enough adoption.

It would look to a layperson such as myself like there is no biological mechanism that strictly determines race. Since you're playing the "SCIENCE!" card, perhaps you can show me the light. Because, barring some actual research, perhaps papers, it looks like they're only comparable if you are holding on to...how did you put it? "Dark age fanaticism?"

So...uhhh...yeah. Are you seriously going to ignore the decades of research into gender identity and then accuse others of "dark age fanaticism" for accepting it?
Sorry, but you seem not to understand what science means. Unless you use scientific method to back your research up, you are not a scientist, you are an assertionist at best.

Here's hard science for you: racial features and biological sex are determined by your genetic makeup. If you want, I can provide you with scientific papers on the subject, but you trust that you would agree with me on this.

Now prove me that gender-identity is a THING and that it is separate from biological sex. To do that you will have to take a sample of population and ask them what gender (race) they identify with and what their biological sex (race) are. Then you apply statistical analysis to prove that with a certain degree of confidence you can claim that people have a different perception of their sex (race) from their biologically assigned one. This may lead to a conclusion that these two notions are indeed distinct.

That's where I dare you to find a peer-review paper with similar research that proves that thing you're talking about even exist. Then I will admit that I am the one who is a dark-age fanatic.
 

KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime

Lolita Style, The Best Style!
Jan 12, 2010
2,151
0
0
TwistednMean said:
I'll set up some basics.

Essentialism in biology [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essentialism#In_biology]

Just some basic reading on the subject of transgender [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender]

Still the constant demand for citations and sources really bothers me, especially because it's something constantly used to devalue opposing view points. On the subject of transgenderism especially, it's annoying as hell, because people constantly pester me for sources, because I'm transgender. In the age of Google there is no excuse for not looking these things up yourself, burden of proof, or no. It's simply not my job to educate every single person who has a opposing view point, especially on the subject of transgenderism, if it were I'd starve to death due to lack of time to eat and sleep. If the vast majority of the psychological community's view isn't good enough for you, then you have far to high standards. The DSM-V[footnote]Fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders[/footnote] uses the term gender dysphoria when referring to transgender individuals and it is not classed as a mental disorder.

Genetics and Biology screw up all the time such as in the case of intersex individuals [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex], or peole with Klienfelter Syndrome [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klinefelter_syndrome], or people like me with XX male syndrome [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XX_male_syndrome] So your full stop argument falls on def ears, just as the biological only one does, and just like the genetic one too.

Edit: Also making demands for peer-review journal stuff, well unless you're actually in the field in question you generally have to pay for that, especially the leading, newest stuff. Sorry I'm spending any of my hard earned money just to please you.

Edit 2: On further consideration, looking at the way you demand specific sources, specifically peer-reviewed journals that meet very specific demands for you... Well I can see through such an obvious strawman attempt. But good try.