Feeling black vs feeling female

[CherryPicking]

Rachel Dolezal caused huge offence by claiming to be of African American descent. Not questioning why that's offensive, but if she sincerely identifies with black culture more than her own, how is she different from a man who 'feels' female? Why should the second example be less offensive to members of the oppressed group in question? Not saying I'm in any way offended by men who 'feel' female or identify as trans but just wondering why I'm more accepting of that then I would be someone like RD? Is it social conditioning or is there another reason?

What's a "UK brain"?

A brain from somebody living in the uk, it was a stupid example to try and make a point.

So you think brains would differ markedly in brain scans depending on where you were brought up?

If I like to stand in lines, complain about the weather and am polite, does that mean I was born in the wrong country and should have been an UK citizen? I mean, I could totally have a UK brain despite being born in Germany, right?

... in fact, that is almost certainly the case! I was never tidy enough for a German, I prefer tea to beer and don't like sausages with sauerkraut.

Can I change my birth certificate to reflect my real identity?

Iinteresting point. In that programme, is Britain Racist, the interviewer's brain scan revealed a predisposition to white people. I suppose experience does alter brains

So you think brains would differ markedly in brain scans depending on where you were brought up?

I don't think it's an outrageous idea. I'm not sure if people are saying it is

If you have two people with radically different childhoods and therefore radically different "training", I think you might find different areas of the brain develop differently.

....although whether having a different pattern of well developed brain areas would contribute to feeling like a "woman" or like a "black" person is not a given.

--This is what i was meaning
"--Does experience change the actual structure of the brain?
Yes. Brain development is "activity-dependent," meaning that the electrical activity in every circuit—sensory, motor, emotional, cognitiveshapes the way that circuit gets put together. Like computer circuits, neural circuits process information through the flow of electricity. Unlike computer circuits, however, the circuits in our brains are not fixed structures. Every experience - whether it is seeing one's first rainbow, riding a bicycle, reading a book, sharing a joke - excites certain neural circuits and leaves others inactive. Those that are consistently turned on over time will be strengthened, while those that are rarely excited may be dropped away. Or, as neuroscientists sometimes say, "Cells that fire together, wire together." The elimination of unused neural circuits, also referred to as "pruning," may sound harsh, but it is generally a good thing. It streamlines children's neural processing, making the remaining circuits work more quickly and efficiently. Without synaptic pruning, children wouldn't be able to walk, talk, or even see properly."--

PAQ, you are quite right - neuroplasticity (how the brain changes with use) is well documented - probably one of the best known examples is how London taxi drivers who have passed the Knowledge have enlarged neural regions for spatial activities. Re race based differences, one I can think of is an aboriginal tribe who base everything in compass points. If they were talking about their brother who happened to be south of where they were, they would refer to their "South-brother" for example. If you give an English person some pictures out of sequence (someone getting older) they will order them left to right. If you ask someone from this tribe to do it, they will orientate them east to west, which depending on where they are might be down to up, diagonal, right to left etc. I strongly suspect that if you were to scan the tribe, their ability to know where they are in relation to compass points at all time would show up in some region.

This doesn't mean it's innate though (if I were to adopt a baby from this tribe, it's extremely unlikely they would be able to do this having been raised in western culture) in the same way that any sex based brain difference research I've seen which does find differences, can be explained entirely by differences in socialisation.

It's all body dysmorphia. Whether you need surgery or therapy to cope with it is another thread entirely.

Yes, I bet our family (classic music, quite good at maths etc) partly has those abilities (3 children won music scholarships etc) because of practice not genes. Gladwell found that those who did well often put 10,000 hours of effort into their skill - the Beatles did 10,000 hours of shows in Berlin, Bil Gates did 10,000 hours of programming as a teenager. I did 10,000 hours of singing and piano playing so got 4 grade 8s, have perfect pitch (which is partly genetic - you hear a key - some very good musicians don't have it so it's not just learned but if you do no music you never discover that you might have it).

One reason we do better in exams these days in th eWest (and yes we do - our IQ is higher too) is not because the tests are fixed or have become easier but because people sit there all day reading media words and multitasking and using the brain rather than sitting chopping wood like some of our ancestors did so those bits of our brains today that do well with reading, exams probably are better although we may be worse at the aboriginal skills to know where we are, to hear. The blind develop better hearing.

Also tell a child they are good at something and they become better. My sister was told she was good at art, so she kept drawing and drawing and was very good - again Gladwell's practise. The more effort you put in the better you become. The Chinese have this best in the UK - no one does as well at exams as Chinese girls and that's because they work hard.

The Chinese have this best in the UK - no one does as well at exams as Chinese girls and that's because they work hard

It's all about the rice.

That previous answer could look a bit racist if you haven't read the Gladwell essay in question. It's a reference to a culture that has traditionally supported itself by growing rice, which takes tremendous planning and hard work.

books that BBC article suggests a genetic marker for transgender is, not that there is scientific evidence that MTF TG people are actually female

I assume that books is me in autocorrect. Yes I know that, I didn't say they were actually female. But in the case of RD I think it's pretty hard to argue that a similar biological basis could be found for what she did.

What I mean is, if trans people have some sort of biological predisposition to bring trans on the basis of how they process hormones etc, then there is some kind of driver beyond personal choice. Something which is chemical or biological rather than purely psychological.

I just don't think that RDs case is similar. Race is largely a cosmetic thing. the actual biological factors of race don't affect how you feel or act. Just what you look like. Because there are not really as many fundamental differences in the chemistry and biology of the bodies of people of different races as their are between men and women to make them fundamentally different from one another.

So I really don't see, in her case, that there is any sort of justification for what she did. It was a delusion, a deception. Something totally based in her pysche, not something driven by the fact that something biological was driving her to feel that way.

It's not biological in the sense of 'biological sex' that I was talking about. It was a biological basis in general, I think it's mostly supposed to be based on how the body processes hormones; differently from men who identify as the same sex they were born. It's not to say that they are biologically women, but that there is something biological which underpins transgenderism eg, a biological process.

Many illnesses have a biological component eg anorexia, another type of body dysmorphia ( i think?) has a genetic component.

booyaka, having a biological predisposition for believing something doesn't make that thing true though. I can easily accept that different-than-average hormone levels might (depending on environmental factors) make a man feel like he doesn't fit in well with the gender stereotypes. What I don't get is the jump to "must be a woman" rather than "gender stereotypes are crap". Woman is (biologically) defined by chromosomes and sex characteristics, not hormone levels (because these vary widely within the man / woman sex groupings). In order for me to drop my scientific definition I need a better scientific definition of "woman", and that's what I'm unable to find.

Back to the original question - could it be more outrageous (to society) to claim to change race because it's so much rarer and newer?

^^
Yep, don't really understand or know enough about it to know if it's really true but I am anorexic, my aunt was as a teenager and my grandmother has been all her adult life. one of my children is under CAMHS for disordered eating. She's barely 13 so not anorexic yet but I'm almost despairingly resigned to her being the 4th successive generation to suffer. A cousin's child also has it. Nature or nurture? Who knows!

Re the RD case specifically, I'm not sure (lying etc) but, in general, I don't see the difference between transgender and transrace - both dysmorphias, neither are the reality. I used to be very pro trans. Now fairly unashamedly anti. I mean, I think people should live how they want to live. But I'm not going to start believing they're something they clearly aren't.

Maid -"Skin colour is not a social construct. Gender is. You cannot legitmately claim to be black if you are not black, IMO. You can legitimately claim to be female, whatever your biology."

That can't be right. As mammals, we are biologically male or female, irrespective of any social construct. We are male or female precisely by dint of our biology. That is why transgender people have cosmetic surgery to try to superficially mimic the sex they claim they really are. It is not their biology, which is why they have to undergo surgery or have to take synthetic hormones the other sex produces naturally.

It is not an actual transformation into a different sex. But even then, most still function sexually as males anyway. So there must be a fair bit of cognitive dissonance going on even they demand to be acknowledged as female.

The hormones taken by transgender people aren't therapeutic in the same way as hormone replacement therapy to replace a person's deficit of naturally occurring hormones.

I don't think expressed skin colour and being black or white or anything else is like a person's sex. Biological sex is clear cut into male and female. Actually because of this there would be more justification and many more factors for people to identify with others in different ways along the blurred lines of 'race'.

I guess, someone with white/pink skin using tanning products is the similar cosmetic alteration of skin colour is an example. However, I don't think if you used a lot of it, you would claim to be black by virtue of that cosmetic or chemical alteration (there are tanning tablets, I think).

If you stop using tanning products, your appearance will revert to your natural colour. Barring issues like disease/liver trouble, etc.

If Rachel Dolezal, used fake tanning methods, she is like many white people. But they don't claim to be black by virtue of that. Unlike men who put fake boobs etc. on/in and pronounce themselves female by virtue of that, while still bizarrely remaining as fully functioning males. Even if they weren't, they would still be male, biologically.

Jessica, I think you're reading something into my posts which isn't there. I'm not saying it makes it true they are biological women, what I'm saying is that being trans isn't necessarily just something psychological, but is driven by something biological.

I'm trying to think of a good analogy. Possibly, sort of, like people who are predisposed to alcoholism and have something inside them which tends them towards it, rather than a simple choice. So they genuinely do feel different, even if they are not actually biological women.

I don't think that's the case with Dolezal, I don't think any sort of innate biology made her feel different, I just think she chose to do it. I think that's the difference.

Race is not cosmetic . Race is a social construct

This is a very confused discussion

A lot of the confusion comes from not using terms properly
Female and male = biological classifications
Feminine and masculine = gender roles
Socially constructed = given meaning by society, not inherently meaningful
Race = social classifications given to people according to how they appear. These can be arbitrary in the case of people passing as white etc and are socially constructed in as much as they don't mean anything inherent about who people are or what they are capable of, but mean a lot I terms of what people are presumed to be and be capable of by society
Ethnicity is also used to mean the same thing.
There are very superficial biological differences between people of different ethnicities but they are only observable on the more defined members of any group and there is a lot of interchange between visual characteristics because race differences are pretty much negligible in any real sense.

Yy ob people swing backwards and forwards through gender and sex terms as if it doesn't matter. And it really really does matter