Would I be unreasonable to do either of these things? To tell a Sikh man

[Wheezo]

1. ... that if he wants to avoid being racially attacked he should remove his turban because to wear something so obviously advertising his 'difference' is to invite racial abuse of some kind which he could do more to avoid (same goes for anyone wearing clothes with religious/cultural/non-western/non-white associations that draws attention to their 'difference')

1. Attend a Black Lawyers' Conference (I'm orange white btw) and attempt to join in discussions about my experience of being discriminated against on the basis that my addiction to fake tan is limiting my career prospects

I think someone who did either of these things would be pretty darn unreasonable but I am coming across opinions that would suggest I am the unreasonable one so just testing it out in the blazing furnace of AIBU to see if it's actually just me.

Didn't use as a full stop Wheezo. I used its as well as a full stop.

Just thought the reference to the other thread could help solve the puzzlement being displayed by some posters not aware of what was going on in FWR.

grimble Oh disappointed - I thought you were a true original with your subversive use of emoticons (which started out life as punctuation after all) as punctuation!

Someone tell the cast of Geordie shore/ assorted footballers wives/ D list slebs - that the 'orange people' group does not exist!

No it's not a group with their own cultural reference, history, language etc... though is it.
it's a group of people who have a mental illness just as you could have a group for people with bipolar disorder, or who are wheel chair bound etc...

If you take the example of the wheelchair bound persons, they might experience discrimination but it is not the same than racism, is it? There are a lot of assumptions that will not be made about them.

lol bigmouth.
Perhaps it actually exists then....

"I can assume we share common experiences of discrimination springing from the same root cause"

No, black people were thought of as live stock, like cattle and not human, so therefore it was fine to work them to death,or use them how the owner saw fit. The propaganda that surrounded this belief was so ingrained that it continued down the generationsand was repeated and held during law making, or lackof law making.

Your 'discrimination' comes from a stereotype of 'thick essex girl' only good for shagging and arm candy.

Do try to break away from behaving like that stereotype, some day.

Lady So do you think Transgender people would consider that they have a mental illness and that is what compels them to change their body to reflect their inner self? And that they should form their own groups and have their own conferences to attend?

Or do you think they can consider themselves women and entitled to attend women's rights conferences even though outwardly (apart from cosmetic changes to appearance) they present as a man looking like a woman - but because they want to be a woman (like I want to have darker skin) they can attend a conference despite the group who organised the conference saying no, our experiences are not the same, our discrimination is not the same? Or do I with my orange skin get to tell the BLC they are discriminating against me?

Er....Birds I am actually from Essex. My career suggests I'm possibly not thick and judging by the wrinkles I'm no longer a girl. But I can't deny I'm from Essex (Romford born and bred) and I can't change that.

I've been over to FWR for the first to see what this is about and when I get back the transgender scenario emerges.

I don't think that transgender people feel that they have a mental illness but I do think that regardless of their outward appearance and inward desires and feelings they do not share the same experiences and women and the discrimination that they face is different.

I believe that any discrimination is wrong by the way but the battles to be fought are different

Lol I knew you would be talking about transgender people!

I believe this is more complex as you obviously have two groups (male and female).

I don't think they have a mental illness. I also believe that there are some transgender groups around too.

There is no discussion that their history will be very different from the people in the female group. Different is not to say that it has been easier or that they haven't been discriminated. Just that the reason they faced discrimination are different (until they had a sex change at least).

Whether you can 'incorporate' transgender into a female group depends on the outlook of transgender people. Do they see themselves as transgender only or do they see themselves as women?

For me, a transgender who has the operation and is now living as a woman will face the same discrimination now than a woman. Their history will be different but I have no doubt that they will also have incorporated to who they are, beliefs on what it means to be a woman.
A transgender who has not had the operation ...., it will depend a lot on whether they identify themselves as a woman or as androgynous, hermaphroditic, intersex, transsexual, third gender, bigender etc... I would only consider that their presence is OK if they define themselves as a woman (but then I don't see the others coming to a conference on women's right conference. I might be wrong though).

I am a bit baffled as to why a women's right conference should be only for women though just as I am baffled by the BLC being only for black people.

I still don't get where the sikh and the turban fit into this. Am I being particularly thick?

It is the same issue with someone coming from another country to leave in England.
They will come with their own belief and culture. They will also probably get fully integrated into the society and acquire the same belief system in some areas. I would expect that in other areas, they will also keep their own beliefs based on their experience/analysis of what is working well/is fair etc...

I might be wrong but I suspect that transsexual will have done something similar (ie will keep some beliefs about themselves that are the ones of a 'man' or a 'transgender' but will also have integrated fully lots of the 'female' beliefs, so much so that they will act and be accepted a women).
I believe this is OK, the same way than someone who is english but has grown up living a different countries will be english whilst at the same time having 'absorbed' values from the countries where he/she has been living as a child. This of course doesn't mean tat they are less english than the ones who have never lived abroad.
Nor does it mean that a transsexual is less of a woman than a born woman female.

Jins, I think that's a way to look at the 'rape myths' using a different approach. If you can say to a Sikh man it is safer for him not wear his turban, why not say to women it is safer for them not wear short skirts?

Lady Really interesting post. So groups who have been discriminated against by other groups (blacks/whites; male/female) do not have a right to a space that is only for them to discuss their issues. If another group/individual defines themselves as having common interests the group being joined has no choice but to accept that definition.

Therefore the BLC on your logic has to give me access to their conference and even if they find it insulting I should be allowed to voice my views that despite never having been black and choosing to cosmetically alter my appearance with fake tan to achieve a different skin colour to the one I was born with, they should be aware that how I define MYSELF is more important than how they define themselves. So for example they can't choose to define themselves as Black from birth and politely request that Tanorexics such as myself join another group because my right to self-identify trumps their right? Is that it?

OK I see now.

I was trying to see where it fitted with the transgender analogy and failing miserably.

Sorry Jins two separate analogies.

FFS. If you want to talk about rape, talk about rape, not some random shit about black lawyers.

Monkeysnuts I do but when you put the sikh analogy to someone who wants to point out women should change how they dress to avoid being raped they either (a) backtrack - very very rarely; or (b) despite not having given the impression of being racist previously they will agree that Sikhs should remove their turbans to prevent being racially attacked - which is the logical conclusion of telling women what to wear to avoid bad things happening to them. Thing is just like you can't stop being a Sikh just like you can't stop being a woman.

The second analogy is not about rape but the rest of the thread shows that.

OP perhaps apply to ECHR to be recognised, good luck with that, btw.

Why not join a group of burns victims that use medical makeup to change their appearance, surely you have more in common with them, good luck with that as well.

I'm pretty sure you can stop being a Sikh actually.

Well you can take off the turban monkeynuts wear western dress and put up with ignorant people calling you Paki as opposed to Sikh so yes, if you want to stop being a Sikh you can, but you will still be racially attacked for the colour of your skin and since Sikh is recognised as a protected racial class (deriving from specific geographic regions) and not just a religion you can stop being a practising Sikh I suppose but you can't change where you were born or who your ancestor were can you?

It's not the responsibility of the Sikh man to change his dress to appease racist idiots. I'm sure if he removed the turban, those same idiots will ridicule his long hair, or simply his brown skin (assuming he is not a white Sikh of course!)

The fake tan thing is just daft - fake tan is FAKE and has nothing to do with beliefs, it is pure vanity. Just because it is making your skin closer to the hue of a black person doesn't make you black!

WTF is wrong with people. Why can't people just be nice to each other and accept differences as what makes the human race wonderful and interesting?

Oversimplifies

I'm going to have to explore the transgender issue further.

Have started to write a few answers now and can't quite get what I want to say right. So bear with me if it doesn't make sense!

they should be aware that how I define MYSELF is more important than how they define themselves

No how they define themselves is what it is. You would only 'be part' of the Black people group only if YOU define yourself as a black person. Not if you see yourself as an orange person. You should NOT expect to be part of the black people group just because you seem to be facing similar difficulties.

However, group are varied and I would see no problem for someone to join the black group even if they were not born black but green and have taken steps (eg taken a drug) to become black. I would also assume they would be living as a back person not as a green person any more. The experience that they would have had as a green person would have been different but this does not mean they can not 'fit in' not the least because of the variety of experience within the black group.