Liberals, why can't someone choose their race?

[muichimotsu]

I disagree. When people speak of masculinity or of being a man, they are referring to biological males.

I disagree! There are trans women, who are claiming they are women, want female pronouns used when they are referred to and want everyone else to treat them the same as biological women.

That's what you believe, you'd be mistaken, because masculinity necessarily refers to a sense of being a man culturally and societally, NOT biologically, the two areas are not remotely as associated as you claim them to be

Not the same as biological women, because that would mean they believe they have XX chromosomes and those secondary sexual characteristics, but that's a strawman that pretty much no trans person fits into, they are fully aware they are not the sex people would mistakenly associate them as by superficial observation

 

[bèlla]

I never said it was some numerical or quantifiable notion, methinks you're insinuating stuff I didn't claim

I didn’t mention numbers. I asked you to define typical blackness and typical whiteness as they pertain to this discussion. You introduced the terms.

My "argument" is little more than an observation that is already founded on a notion that race is a social construct, I'm not trying to put people into boxes like you're claiming I am

Given the topic, I think it’s fair to ask if your ideals are based on experiences or opinions you’re parroting from others.

This is standard fare for discussions on race. Your feedback allows the reader to determine what influenced your opinion. Facts matter.

~Bella

 

[muichimotsu]

I didn’t mention numbers. I asked you to define typical blackness and typical whiteness as they pertain to this discussion. You introduced the terms.

What would be considered typical in terms of particular societal associations we have with each group, which will boil down to potential stereotypes to a degree, I fully acknowledge

Given the topic, I think it’s fair to ask if your ideals are based on experiences or opinions you’re parroting from others.

This is standard fare for discussions on race. Your feedback allows the reader to determine what influenced your opinion. Facts matter.

I'd say experiences and that's about it, I'm not claiming remote expertise or significant knowledge in terms of that and I don't generalize based on those in terms of people's association with a racial group. And what of my experiences will make a major difference in terms of my understanding of race as a social construct, exactly?

 

[Ken-1122]

That's what you believe, you'd be mistaken, because masculinity necessarily refers to a sense of being a man culturally and societally, NOT biologically, the two areas are not remotely as associated as you claim them to be

In common language, I think it is more common than you are aware of

Not the same as biological women, because that would mean they believe they have XX chromosomes and those secondary sexual characteristics, but that's a strawman that pretty much no trans person fits into, they are fully aware they are not the sex people would mistakenly associate them as by superficial observation

They may know their chromosomes and sexual characteristics, but they still claim to be women, and want everybody to pretend they are women.
ACLU: ‘Men who get their periods are men. Men who get pregnant and give birth are men’

 

[muichimotsu]

In common language, I think it is more common than you are aware of

Commonality is not the same as immutability

They may know their chromosomes and sexual characteristics, but they still claim to be women, and want everybody to pretend they are women.

The biological aspects are not what is being claimed, because you're still equating man with male based merely on common usage rather than nuancing the context: ACLU isn't denying they are male, being a man is not about having a penis, you've failed to demonstrate that: being male involves XX chromosomes and, usually, having a penis (you're not less male because you had some accident and lost your genitalia)

 

[bèlla]

What would be considered typical in terms of particular societal associations we have with each group, which will boil down to potential stereotypes to a degree, I fully acknowledge.

Our associations are the result of upbringing and exposure. If the lone exposure you’ve had to either group is media representations and limited encounters in public spaces you’ll have a different perspective from a person who regularly interacts with them.

‘Typical’ may be the result of media perceptions or personal engagements. To assume either is unwise. It’s best to ask.

I'd say experiences and that's about it, I'm not claiming remote expertise or significant knowledge in terms of that and I don't generalize based on those in terms of people's association with a racial group. And what of my experiences will make a major difference in terms of my understanding of race as a social construct, exactly?

Reading a book on tennis won’t turn you into Serena Williams. Knowledge has its place. Putting our thoughts into action through experiences allows us to test our theories and challenge our beliefs.

When I consider the two I’m drawing from a cornucopia of experiences in my environment, friendships, personal and business interactions and encounters with individuals in my neighborhood.

That’s my yardstick. Not random musings of a scholar or supposed expert. I’m not drawing from cases or studies whose criteria and subjects I don’t know.

My conception of the two is deeply influenced by what I know. Not opinions. Oftentimes generalizations are devoid of the same.

~Bella

 

[Ken-1122]

The biological aspects are not what is being claimed, because you're still equating man with male based merely on common usage rather than nuancing the context: ACLU isn't denying they are male,

Nowhere in the article does it claim trans men are not male, so how do you make this leap that ACLU differentiates male vs man?

Getting back to the subject at hand, if the ACLU can claim being a man is based strictly on what goes on inside your head regardless of biology, why can’t being black be based strictly on what goes on inside your head, regardless of biology?

 

[muichimotsu]

Our associations are the result of upbringing and exposure. If the lone exposure you’ve had to either group is media representations and limited encounters in public spaces you’ll have a different perspective from a person who regularly interacts with them.

‘Typical’ may be the result of media perceptions or personal engagements. To assume either is unwise. It’s best to ask.

I don't assume how all black people will act from my admittedly limited reactions with them, I address them as individuals and am fully aware there is variation

Reading a book on tennis won’t turn you into Serena Williams. Knowledge has its place. Putting our thoughts into action through experiences allows us to test our theories and challenge our beliefs.

When I consider the two I’m drawing from a cornucopia of experiences in my environment, friendships, personal and business interactions and encounters with individuals in my neighborhood.

That’s my yardstick. Not random musings of a scholar or supposed expert. I’m not drawing from cases or studies whose criteria and subjects I don’t know.

My conception of the two is deeply influenced by what I know. Not opinions. Oftentimes generalizations are devoid of the same.

I'm fully willing to have my preconceptions challenged, particularly on things like social construct of race and such. Not sure why you think I'm making this some detached notion, I've established this was a friend of mine that used the term and I'm not looking to studies as to what constitutes "blackness" or "whiteness", that's patently absurd.

Where did I generalize black people? You're placing some troubling notions onto me, as if I even insinuated such things in my statements rather than pointing to such things that could imply I remotely believe the things you seem to claim I do

 

[muichimotsu]

Nowhere in the article does it claim trans men are not male, so how do you make this leap that ACLU differentiates male vs man?

That's fallacious reasoning: they're not referring to their sex because that's not how we define a transgender person except in contrast to it, which is implied: a trans man would be biologically female, but gender identity of a man, it's fairly simple, you're trying to say that because they don't claim the thing you accept as a preconception, that they must implicitly agree with you, when that's not how language or statements work.

Not using one synonym that you think is identical to a word they do use does not mean they believe the words are used as you would prefer them to be based on tradition

Getting back to the subject at hand, if the ACLU can claim being a man is based strictly on what goes on inside your head regardless of biology, why can’t being black be based strictly on what goes on inside your head, regardless of biology?

Because being black is not based on nearly as precise notions as sex is, because black is not a biological racial category like people mistakenly thought a century or so ago, it's a social construct, but nonetheless more constrained in terms of identifying directly with it, rather than having a cultural appropriation of sorts (appreciating what might be considered more "black" music or styles of clothing, for instance)

 

[Ken-1122]

Because being black is not based on nearly as precise notions as sex is,

Neither is Gender.

because black is not a biological racial category like people mistakenly thought a century or so ago, it's a social construct,

And Gender (as you define it) is not a biological sex category either; it's a social construct. So what's the difference?

 

[muichimotsu]

Neither is Gender.

The socially constructed nature of race and gender doesn't mean they're both equally able to be affirmed as identities, because it's not as nebulous for race, even if there is a spectrum for it as well.

And Gender (as you define it) is not a biological sex category either; it's a social construct.

If you acknowledge that gender can be understood as distinct from sex, why are you remotely resistant to the idea? You keep trying to phrase this as if gender and race are remotely identical, when they're no more identical than if we talked about gender as identical to something like a family.

We might have a traditional idea that family is about blood relations, but that's not arguably the case anymore than gender being a social construct means that it's purely a whim (what you seem to be reducing it to rather than a sense of identity that's persistent). And merely because family can vary as a social construct does not mean one can just formulate a family except in the broadest sense of social relations, rather than legal protections allowed to a family unit, etc.

 

[GOD Shines Forth!]

When I consider the two I’m drawing from a cornucopia of experiences in my environment, friendships, personal and business interactions and encounters with individuals in my neighborhood.

That’s my yardstick. Not random musings of a scholar or supposed expert. I’m not drawing from cases or studies whose criteria and subjects I don’t know.

My conception of the two is deeply influenced by what I know. Not opinions. Oftentimes generalizations are devoid of the same.

Truth.

 

[Ken-1122]

The socially constructed nature of race and gender doesn't mean they're both equally able to be affirmed as identities, because it's not as nebulous for race, even if there is a spectrum for it as well.

I disagree! Race can be very unclear; especially when you consider the countless mix races of varying degrees. If gender can be defined by what’s going inside of your head, why can’t race?

If you acknowledge that gender can be understood as distinct from sex, why are you remotely resistant to the idea? You keep trying to phrase this as if gender and race are remotely identical, when they're no more identical than if we talked about gender as identical to something like a family.

I recognize some people see gender and sex as identical, other people see sex as biological, and gender about what goes on inside of your head. I recognize both views exist

 

[muichimotsu]

I disagree! Race can be very unclear; especially when you consider the countless mix races of varying degrees. If gender can be defined by what’s going inside of your head, why can’t race?

I recognize some people see gender and sex as identical, other people see sex as biological, and gender about what goes on inside of your head. I recognize both views exist

Because we don't define race in that way even as a social construct, because it's at least partly more based in physical appearance, even if there is variation not even counting biracial individuals or such.

But you seem to have no real basis beyond tradition for claiming that gender and sex are identical as something factual rather than your characterization of gender as delusion or the like

 

[bèlla]

Not sure why you think I'm making this some detached notion, I've established this was a friend of mine that used the term

And you repeated it on a thread pertaining to race. You also provided another descriptor for persons of a different race.

Where did I generalize black people? You're placing some troubling notions onto me, as if I even insinuated such things in my statements rather than pointing to such things that could imply I remotely believe the things you seem to claim I do

No one is doing anything. Nor are you being castigated. You introduced terms in the discussion with racial connotations. That was your choice. No one twisted your arm.

Given the subject and your use of oreo, reverse oreo, typical blackness, and typical whiteness to the dialogue. I assume you’re aware of their meaning in this context. After all, it’s your vernacular. Not mine.

I have no further questions.

~Bella

 

[muichimotsu]

Maybe I'm not aware of their meaning in this context, because I get the feeling you're insinuating I'm racist in some sense, or at least racially insensitive, a modified version of the former.

 

[Ken-1122]

Because we don't define race in that way even as a social construct

I ask why don’t we, and you reply; “because we don’t”. Rachael Dolezal did, and she wasn’t the first to claim to be of a different race than her biology. I’m saying if you can choose your gender based on what you feel, you should be able to do the same with race.

But you seem to have no real basis beyond tradition for claiming that gender and sex are identical as something factual rather than your characterization of gender as delusion or the like

I never made such a claim. Go back and read what I actually said.

 

[muichimotsu]

I ask why don’t we, and you reply; “because we don’t”. Rachael Dolezal did, and she wasn’t the first to claim to be of a different race than her biology. I’m saying if you can choose your gender based on what you feel, you should be able to do the same with race.

We don't define race the same as gender because we aren't talking about something as broad as expression and such, as with gender, but arguably more constrained yet open to some variation within that more closed system with race as physical traits, rather than something like culture, which a person can argue in the sense of being transcultural, which is much more affable in that culture is a social construct that's open by nature, assimilation, etc.

I never made such a claim. Go back and read what I actually said.

You recognizing that both exist doesn't mean you're a fence-sitter on where you stand regarding which of those definitions is true

 

[Ken-1122]

We don't define race the same as gender because we aren't talking about something as broad as expression and such, as with gender, but arguably more constrained

I disagree. I see race for most as being more expressive than gender. Remember when Oprah endorsed Obama for President, and many of her female fans expected her as a woman to endorse Hillary? And the claim was that people consider race before gender? In the US racial issues are the most discussed, argued, and talked about issue; far more than gender.

You recognizing that both exist doesn't mean you're a fence-sitter on where you stand regarding which of those definitions is true

Sitting on a fence? When I speak of gender, I equate it with sex, because most people I talk to equate it with sex. However I do acknowledge there are those who do not.

 

[muichimotsu]

I disagree. I see race for most as being more expressive than gender. Remember when Oprah endorsed Obama for President, and many of her female fans expected her as a woman to endorse Hillary? And the claim was that people consider race before gender? In the US racial issues are the most discussed, argued, and talked about issue; far more than gender.

Race being considered more than gender does not entail it is more expressive in nature, that's faulty reasoning, especially in using politics regarding candidates as the factor, rather than a broader societal notion of each of those terms, one much more fluid in terms of association (girly colors, practices, manner of dress, etc.) than race (heredity, lineage, physical appearance, not some notion of even language necessarily)

Sitting on a fence? When I speak of gender, I equate it with sex, because most people I talk to equate it with sex. However I do acknowledge there are those who do not.

Appeal to popularity is insufficient and fallacious in concluding that your notion of conflating gender and sex is true, because language is not remotely as static as you'd seemingly like it to be, or rooted in antiquated traditions