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

[Happiness Assassin]

People could totally identify as an ethnicity that they were not born into. Ethnicity is more of a cultural thing and isn't so much as inherited as learned, though this isn't always set in stone (see ethnicities like Jewish, where birth does play a factor). In fact I can recall a few stories of settlers taken in raids by Native Americans assimilating perfectly into the tribe, in essence adopting the ethnicity.

However, the idea that one can be born the wrong race is troubling to say the least, as it confers the idea that races have something different mentally between them, which is fucking Pandora's box I refuse to open. At this point, race is determined (at least in America today) based on superficial physical characteristics who inherit from your parents. Meaning you can't just identify as what ever the hell race you want.

 

[sumanoskae]

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."

I don't wanna rain on anybody's parade; I got nothing against trans people. So please understand that if this question offends anyone, it's not my intention.

If gender has an effect on personality, than how could one ever have a personality that did not "Fit" the gender they were born with? How could a man "feel like a woman" if simply being genetically male can determine who you are?

I thought one of the core ideas behind our society's reexamination of gender was the observation that individual people had different concepts of what "Maleness" and/or "Femininity" were and had nuanced, individualized relationships with those terms as opposed to them having a consistent, objective effect on everyone regardless of background.

If you're going to argue that the sociological trends surrounding genetic gender have created and cemented the concept of gender as a psychological construct within our society, and that people should be free to identify with whichever side of that equation they feel comfortable with, than I don't see why race is any different.

Being born, say, Asian, certainly has no more effect on who you are than being born male.

 

[Chaos Isaac]

The answer to that question is a complex one, because what we assign to race isn't actually racial in nature, it's cultural. So yes it's possible to identify culturally with another race, through that people can reject their skin color/physical arrangement to a degree. Part of this also has to do with economic status, for example; African-Americans have a much higher rate of poverty than Caucasian-Americans. So by that stance a black American child who grows up in an affluent family, either a black on that beat the odds, or a white one, might not identify with "black culture". Because it's far more likely that this child will have grown up in a suburban, or wealthy neighborhood and have gone to better schools, with probably, fewer black peers. Therefore said child might identify more with "white culture", because that's what they were exposed to growing up.

This is super correct.

Considering i'm a black who was raised in a 90% Caucasian family. Who were well off, owning our own house, and acres of land, I look at 'black culture' on such a different level I can't really identify with it. So, yeah, you can not identify with your ethnicity or ethnic culture.

But as for Race? I mean, sure, you can believe yourself not being human, but that just kinda means you're kinda deluded, or in denial. Or are role playing.

 

[Leon Royce]

The greatest mystics and spiritual masters (Like Buddha for example) transcend all bodily identification and go straight for identification with consciousness.

Identification with gender, body, age, profession, sexual orientation, money, social status, culture, possessions (like your car) etc... can all be transcended.

According to many spiritual traditions, identifications with these is the cause of suffering and limitation, so yes OP, one can not identify with their race or ethnicity.

 

[TwistednMean]

Twisted, no one is arguing that cisgender people are not the majority, it's factually obvious that cisgender people, those whose gender identity match their sex assigned at birth, are the majority. That means logically transgender folk are the minority. Nobody is arguing the opposite of this. How you read Silvanus as saying otherwise is baffling, characterizing Silvanus as arguing that trans folk are the majority is totally opposite to what they said. That is unless your level of doublethink is so extreme that you have to argue with your opponent even when they agree with you. Also just because trans folk are the minority doesn't make our position less valid, just like how being homosexual, or bisexual means being in a sexual preference minority, but doesn't make the preference less valid.

You kinda fail to grasp the point. Let me rephrase my words one last time.

If most people identify their gender as their biological sex (not using the term "cis-gendered", sorry), how do you know that "gender" exists separately from biological sex? The 0.3% of population who DO percieve their gender to be different from their biological sex are not a statistically significant amount, nothing but a deviation from the norm. Ergo the whole "gender is a social construct" argument is absolutely fictitious. It is not based on evidence. Ergo everything else that assumes that gender is a social construct also lacks any basis in reality.

Let me emphasize that for you, "Nobody has been arguing that most people do not identify their gender with their biological sex".

I quoted the 0.05% figure, but let us assume that you take the 0.3% figure from the study you cited above.
Now, please, explain to me how 99.7% of the population who DO identify their gender with their biological sex are NOT the majority. I am afraid I haven't quite reached your level of doublethink, because I have no idea how it can possibly make sense to you.

Uhrm, why would I argue they're not "the majority"? That's never been my position, blatantly.

For the love of gods of Asgard, let me break down what you said there. I reckon the double negatives confuse you badly.
Nobody has been arguing that most people do not identify their gender with their biological sex
Replace "Nobody has been arguing" with "Everyone agrees" for added clarity.
So you statement becomes, "Everyone agrees that most people DO NOT identify their gender with their biological sex". Seriously, don't tell me you don't understand, that with that very sentence you argue that most people are trans-gender. If you don't understand words or prefer not to read at all I really can't help you there.

Also, for the avoidance of doubt, American Psychological Association is not using empirical evidence to say what is a disorder and what is not. There simply isn't any distinctive marker to know if something is a "disorder" or is not. The very definition changes over time!

They are not using empirical evidence to substantiate their definition of transgender. They just come up with names for thing for convention. You cannot use their definition of a condition to argue that it exists as a separate entity in the society! If it did they wouldn't have to define it in the first place, for crying out loud! APA simply comes to an agreement about what kind of people should be medicated and how.

APA does not base these statements on hard scientific facts, that is why the list of psychological disorders is so mutable. And, for the love of Mesopotamian gods, you don't really believe that if a bunch of people write something down on paper it becomes true, do you? If APA decides to write down "cows fly", the buoyancy of air won't miraculously lift all cows off the ground.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

Twisted, you fail because you use a false statistic, stating that 0.3% is an absolute truth. Gender is variable, just ask anyone what it means to be a man, or a woman, and you'll get vastly different answers. Also because statistics on the tran population are horrifically unbalanced, because trans people by a majority will not admit to being trans, that's trans people, not cis, trans, the numbers are invalid. I know a ton of trans people, more than a hundred, which is a valid scientific sample size, less than one in ten of them will admit to being trans, even to people they know well, assuming the person doesn't already know. Also gender is provably a social construct, because no one conforms to it in totality, many cis people cross-dress, embrace cross-gender roles, like a stay at home dad, cross-dress, or have feminine traits, known as the anima/animus. It's normal to not totally conform to gender standards, even if you identify as the sex you were assigned at birth... Because our gender standards are a social construct, our identities are personal constructs, because we're self aware sentient beings who aren't solely driven by primal instinct. Refuting that is refuting humanity on the basis of primal urges, which invalidates every proven state of being we have. Fuck burden of proof, we're intelligent and self deterministic individuals, people can choose not to breed for example. Stating otherwise is invalidating the human condition, and while biology plays a role, it's not the sum total of a person, because we're smarter than than our base nature and we have been for a long time as a species. To claim otherwise is to write off our history, progress, and development. Humans are unusually smart social animals, biology proves as much, as our blood is focused on feeding our brains, instead of feeding the jaw like in most other animals. You deny that we're self deterministic animals, which is false on a biological level, because we have complex brains that form our identity, we have technology unlike any other life on this planet, we are different, and you refuse to acknowledge that.

So tell me what kind of biology degree you have, and why the your narrow view is relevant? Prove it! Prove it with a species that choses when to mate cognitively, rather than by instinct. Because all I see is now is a person who rejects identity on every level, in favor of biology which as a state of being doesn't work even in much more simple animals.

 

[Silvanus]

You kinda fail to grasp the point. Let me rephrase my words one last time.

If most people identify their gender as their biological sex (not using the term "cis-gendered", sorry), how do you know that "gender" exists separately from biological sex? The 0.3% of population who DO percieve their gender to be different from their biological sex are not a statistically significant amount, nothing but a deviation from the norm. Ergo the whole "gender is a social construct" argument is absolutely fictitious. It is not based on evidence. Ergo everything else that assumes that gender is a social construct also lacks any basis in reality.

This is fallacious nonsense in a few distinct ways. First of all, statistical significance does not rely solely on percentage, as you seem to be presenting it; it's also significantly dependant on sample size. Since we're discussing the population at large, that "0.3%" (to use your figure) represents still millions of people; larger than the populations of several countries, and not even micronations. It would be ridiculous to dismiss that, particularly given the copious neurobiological evidence for its existence.

Secondly, you've seemingly drawn a conclusion regarding "gender as a social construct", and seem to be identifying that directly with transgenderism, which is blatant bollocks. Transgenderism does not "assume that gender is a social construct", as we've already covered.

For the love of gods of Asgard, let me break down what you said there. I reckon the double negatives confuse you badly.
Nobody has been arguing that most people do not identify their gender with their biological sex
Replace "Nobody has been arguing" with "Everyone agrees" for added clarity.
So you statement becomes, "Everyone agrees that most people DO NOT identify their gender with their biological sex". Seriously, don't tell me you don't understand, that with that very sentence you argue that most people are trans-gender. If you don't understand words or prefer not to read at all I really can't help you there.

You're "breaking it down"... for nobody. This entire section is redundant. You're countering points that nobody made, outside of your own fevred imaginings. That somebody can be quite so condescending when talking to himself is incredible in and of itself.

The part about my claiming that "most people are trans-gender" is simply a lie. An outright lie. "Nobody has been arguing" does not mean "everyone agrees"; it means the damn opposite: Nobody has been saying that.

Also, for the avoidance of doubt, American Psychological Association is not using empirical evidence to say what is a disorder and what is not. There simply isn't any distinctive marker to know if something is a "disorder" or is not. The very definition changes over time!

As has everything accepted by the scientific community, as new evidence arises. It would be moronic to dismiss scientific advances on the basis that the accepted norm has adapted with new evidence.

APA does not base these statements on hard scientific facts, that is why the list of psychological disorders is so mutable. And, for the love of Mesopotamian gods, you don't really believe that if a bunch of people write something down on paper it becomes true, do you? If APA decides to write down "cows fly", the buoyancy of air won't miraculously lift all cows off the ground.

I'll remind you, of course, that you've provided absolutely fuck all yourself.

 

[KissingSunlight]

If you allow me to be snarky for a minute. I don't identify to being white. According to what I read online, I am suppose to be rich, privilege, and powerful. Also, I am suppose to be racist, and unable for people to be racist against.

You know what? Unless you are dealing with not being able to relate being the race that you are, don't worry about. Also, don't worry about people who claim that they are a different race then what they are. It's none of your business. Live your own life.

I can't resist adding this song to my thoughts:

 

[Drathnoxis]

I find it ironic that all the transgender people I recognize in this thread disagree with trans racialism, a few are even making arguments similar to those that have been made against transgenders.

I don't wanna rain on anybody's parade; I got nothing against trans people. So please understand that if this question offends anyone, it's not my intention.

If gender has an effect on personality, than how could one ever have a personality that did not "Fit" the gender they were born with? How could a man "feel like a woman" if simply being genetically male can determine who you are?

I thought one of the core ideas behind our society's reexamination of gender was the observation that individual people had different concepts of what "Maleness" and/or "Femininity" were and had nuanced, individualized relationships with those terms as opposed to them having a consistent, objective effect on everyone regardless of background.

If you're going to argue that the sociological trends surrounding genetic gender have created and cemented the concept of gender as a psychological construct within our society, and that people should be free to identify with whichever side of that equation they feel comfortable with, than I don't see why race is any different.

Being born, say, Asian, certainly has no more effect on who you are than being born male.

I agree, I had thought that society was moving toward the point where 'gender' was basically going to be abandoned, and each person would be encouraged to act as they wished without consideration of gender roles based on sex. Transgenderism seems to disagree with the point of view that gender is a social construct and instead wishes to reinforce gender roles as a biological trait. I would almost label that as sexist[footnote]Dictionary.com - Sexism 1. attitudes or behavior based on traditional stereotypes of gender roles.[/footnote], if saying so wouldn't get me drawn and quartered by a raging mob of socially conscious individuals.

 

[hermes]

Yes, but it only make sense if you don't identify with the cultural side of your ethnicity. Contrary to what some people here say, there is such a thing as a "black culture", an "asian culture" or a "latino culture". Not encompassing every single individual of that ethnicity, of course, but those that are included in a bigger culture.

For example, there is an African American culture, but it has nothing in common with African culture or with the sons of African immigrants living in Europe. To create these subcultures is natural of humans living together and looking for a shared identity. As such, it is entirely possible to be geographically close to a subculture based on ethnicity and don't feel identified with it.

 

[Mikeybb]

The only thing I have as a personal experience even remotely related to this is the different countries of origin my parents had.
It's little more than a brief paddle in the pool of experience regarding this issue, but it is related.

There were times I identified more as one than the other.
The thing I learned though was how I identified myself had little bearing on how I was perceived by others, especially among those of the culture I found myself more enamored with at the time.
I could adopt as much as I wanted of that culture, but it did not make me part of it.
Granted, I was much younger at the time and my perception of the situation was very different influenced by the curiously disjointed levels of awareness one can find in younger folk (both simultaneously perceptive and unaware), but I did wonder why I could not just choose to be that aspect of myself and disregard the other.

That leads me to ponder whether the question asked here should be less concerned with how a person identifies themselves and more with whether they should be able to expect acknowledgement, acceptance and agreement of this identification.
A lot of it is about self image, yes, but it's also as much about how you wish the world at large to see you and interact with you, therefore that aspect needs to be considered and acknowledged.

 

[Silvanus]

I find it ironic that all the transgender people I recognize in this thread disagree with trans racialism, a few are even making arguments similar to those that have been made against transgenders.

Others, however, are pointing out that there's a fair amount of neurobiological and psychological evidence for one, but not the other. That's a solid point. The similarity seems superficial.