• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.

Liberals, why can't someone choose their race?

Discussion in 'Physical & Life Sciences' started by Z.Mackenzie, Apr 28, 2016.

  1. muichimotsu

    muichimotsu I Spit On Perfection

    +610
    United States
    Buddhist
    Single
    US-Libertarian
    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
     
  2. LaBèlla

    LaBèlla Well-Known Member Supporter

    +5,849
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    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.

    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
     
  3. muichimotsu

    muichimotsu I Spit On Perfection

    +610
    United States
    Buddhist
    Single
    US-Libertarian
    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

    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?
     
  4. Ken-1122

    Ken-1122 Newbie

    +694
    Atheist
    Private
    In common language, I think it is more common than you are aware of
    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’
     
  5. muichimotsu

    muichimotsu I Spit On Perfection

    +610
    United States
    Buddhist
    Single
    US-Libertarian
    Commonality is not the same as immutability
    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)
     
  6. LaBèlla

    LaBèlla Well-Known Member Supporter

    +5,849
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    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.

    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
     
  7. Ken-1122

    Ken-1122 Newbie

    +694
    Atheist
    Private
    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?
     
  8. muichimotsu

    muichimotsu I Spit On Perfection

    +610
    United States
    Buddhist
    Single
    US-Libertarian
    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



    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
     
  9. muichimotsu

    muichimotsu I Spit On Perfection

    +610
    United States
    Buddhist
    Single
    US-Libertarian
    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


    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)
     
  10. Ken-1122

    Ken-1122 Newbie

    +694
    Atheist
    Private
    Neither is Gender.

    And Gender (as you define it) is not a biological sex category either; it's a social construct. So what's the difference?
     
    Last edited: Jan 16, 2020
  11. muichimotsu

    muichimotsu I Spit On Perfection

    +610
    United States
    Buddhist
    Single
    US-Libertarian
    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.


    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.
     
  12. GOD Shines Forth!

    GOD Shines Forth! Well-Known Member Supporter

    736
    +516
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Private
    Truth.
     
  13. Ken-1122

    Ken-1122 Newbie

    +694
    Atheist
    Private
    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
     
  14. muichimotsu

    muichimotsu I Spit On Perfection

    +610
    United States
    Buddhist
    Single
    US-Libertarian
    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
     
  15. LaBèlla

    LaBèlla Well-Known Member Supporter

    +5,849
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    And you repeated it on a thread pertaining to race. You also provided another descriptor for persons of a different race.

    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
     
    Last edited: Jan 17, 2020
  16. muichimotsu

    muichimotsu I Spit On Perfection

    +610
    United States
    Buddhist
    Single
    US-Libertarian
    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.
     
  17. Ken-1122

    Ken-1122 Newbie

    +694
    Atheist
    Private
    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.
    I never made such a claim. Go back and read what I actually said.
     
  18. muichimotsu

    muichimotsu I Spit On Perfection

    +610
    United States
    Buddhist
    Single
    US-Libertarian
    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.


    You recognizing that both exist doesn't mean you're a fence-sitter on where you stand regarding which of those definitions is true
     
  19. Ken-1122

    Ken-1122 Newbie

    +694
    Atheist
    Private
    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.

    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.
     
  20. muichimotsu

    muichimotsu I Spit On Perfection

    +610
    United States
    Buddhist
    Single
    US-Libertarian
    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)

    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
     
Loading...