Hilaria Baldwin identifying as Spanish being compared to trans people identifying as opposite gender

[Ace56]

Candace Owens is a very right wing, pro-Trump Republican. Needless to say, I don’t agree with a lot of what she says. However, this video she published recently got me thinking:

In it she basically compares the recent story with Hilaria and her false Spanish heritage to that of Rachel Dolezal, the white woman who ‘pretended’ to be black and also to trans people. The former 2 were completely slated and denounced for being ‘delusional’ and for appropriating a culture/race that they are not part of. Trans people, however, are praised and encouraged for claiming to be a gender which, biologically, they are not. Owens says that this is hypocritical, and that if one of these examples is not accepted, then none of them should be. Or, if one of them is acceptable, then they all should be. Why is it wrong to claim that you belong to a certain culture or race, when you do not, but it is ok to claim that you belong to a gender that you do not?

I do see this point of view, but I also feel like she is very flippant about trans people ‘suddenly waking up and deciding to be a woman’, when in reality they have often lived a painful struggle their whole lives to get to that point. I think it is an interesting idea though, and that all 3 examples definitely come from the same line of thinking.

Thoughts? (This is not meant to be a goady or ‘transphobic’ post, merely meant to invite some intelligent discussion)

There was an actor, Anthony Ekundayo Lennon' who faced accusations of pretending to be black. Without altering his appearance, he does present as having at least one black parent and he argued that he had been treated as black - suffered abuse and been discriminated against - as if he were. So he felt he had grounds to the claim. On this I have a modicum of sympathy. But he didn't correct people's assumptions and then took the piss by accepting grants specifically for people from minority backgrounds.

Taking the piss is one of the things that irks me most. Being trans and just getting on with life, fine. Being a transwoman and taking the role of Women's Officer in a political party, rather than any of the other roles on offer, or becoming manager of a women's refuge is, to put it mildly, taking the piss.
And yes, obviously these people were offered to grant / job etc by others and must have passed some sort of process. But I don't think they should have put themselves forward for the grant/job/role or accepted it. I question the mentality of someone who thinks that's ok.

This thread smacks of someone looking for screenshots to "prove" that women on mumsnet "agree with the alt-right".

@StrippedFridge Not at all. I stated in the OP that this was just to provoke an interesting discussion. I also said that Candace Owens is far right and so I certainly do not agree with everything she says! So posting another video of her saying something ‘batshit’ regarding the elections is completely irrelevant. Agree with pp who said it’s important to listen to people of all different groups, even if we don’t agree with everything they say! I too find her to be articulate and intelligent, and think she does have a point here in that similar lines can be drawn in all 3 examples.

It is fairly common in the US to make spurious claims to be Irish, German, Italian or whatever on the basis of some alleged distant ancestor, dropping all the ancestors that don’t fit with your self proclaimed identity. I don’t find Hilaria Baldwin any more offensive than that. At least she has been to Spain.

In twenty years time people will believe totally different things about sex and ethnicity. I would not have believed twenty years ago that this gender identity stuff would emerge or that many ordinary activities would be deemed cultural appropriation.

In twenty years the rights and wrongs of it all will have shifted to some totally different understanding again.

IMO there's a huge difference between "identifying" as something (ie admitting that you are not that thing, but that you feel that way on the inside) and flat out lying that you are something you're not.

Yes, trans people don’t generally lie about the sex they were born and grew up as?

We're assuming that people who claimed to be Spanish or Black are not suffering from a condition and have not lived a painful struggle their whole lives to get to that point.

There are other examples too. People who identify as disabled (some of whom want surgery to make them disabled so it's hardly a frivolous claim) People who identify as children and so on.

We should ask ourselves if we accept some and not others based solely on popularity and the political pressure that comes with it. There doesn't seem to be any other way to draw a line between them.

So I’d say there is a vast difference between claiming you are a different race to the one you were born into, which is biological; claiming you are a different nationality to the one you were born into - people do this all the time when they move countries - my aunt is now legally South African by nationality according to her passport; claiming you are a particular gender, which is societal and self determining and claiming to be the opposite sex which again is biological and therefore not changeable.

@Soontobe60 Yes, race is biological and so based on fact. You either have black genes in your family or you do not. Nationality is also based on fact - your aunt now has a South African passport either because she’s lived there long enough, because her parents are South African or because she’s married a South African. All of these are objective realities, or facts.

Trans people ‘identifying’ as the opposite gender is not based on fact, it is based on ‘feelings’ or opinions. They ‘feel’ like the opposite gender. I agree with pp that there are no biological truths to gender, it is a social construct. The only fact is their sex, which is determined by biology. So why is it ok to let people decide their gender identity based on opinions, rather than facts, when we do not allow this for race/ethnicity/nationality? Why is racial identity not based on your opinion about what you identify as, even if this goes against your biology?

Imagination either trumps reality or it doesn't. Whatever the motivation.

So why is it ok to let people decide their gender identity based on opinions, rather than facts, when we do not allow this for race/ethnicity/nationality?

I get where you are coming from here, but the wording I feel is a bit off. We can easily accept someone has any 'gender identity' based on opinions IMO. What we cannot and should not accept, is that this has any bearing on their sex, or that gender overrides sex in any situation where sex is relevant. Thats the issues I see.

I have a feeling you meant this, and also a feeling that this is what the poster above meant when they said 'I realise most MNers reject the idea that sex and gender are different things' Which I tend to see the opposite of. Most know gender is stereotypical nonsense in reality, and sex is real. Just the way we word things can come across as thinking both are the same?

Apologies if my assumption is wrong, or I come across dodgy here though. I honestly don't mean to, and this was well meaning, however it does come across

I realise most MNers reject the idea that sex and gender are different things..

Well, that's just not true.

I think one of the issues here actually , is many many people still use gender interchangeably with sex. As thats what they always knew. I thought it was a 'polite' word for sex until about 3 years back and was a bit confused that it now meant something different entirely and had for years, just rather stealthily!

@froggywentacarolling

Rachel Dolezal is different because she doesn't "identify" as black in the sense that she knows her genetic ancestry is white but she "feels" black or genuinely consider herself to be black on the inside, she lied for financial gain and to get revenge on black students she was feuding with.

Pretending to be black was one of zillions of lies she's told over the years for financial gain, she also faked having cancer, lied that she had two sons when she didn't, pretended photos of other people were her sons and her father, lied that she used to live in a country she'd never even been to, has been accused of making numerous false abuse claims, has been accused of numerous charges of plagiarism including submitting three paintings made by other artists as her own, she lied that she'd worked as a sushi chef, she lied that she was a medical student. The list goes on and on and on.

She sounds like this man, Dan Mallory/AJ Finn - who has had no repercussions for his lies.

www.theguardian.com/books/2019/feb/05/bestselling-author-of-the-woman-at-the-window-lied-about-having-cancer

@froggywentacarolling

IMO there's a huge difference between "identifying" as something (ie admitting that you are not that thing, but that you feel that way on the inside) and flat out lying that you are something you're not.

On the one hand, some men do flat out lie and pretend that they are transwomen in order to prey on women, gain access to female spaces, or gain certain benefits. This is wrong and comparable to what Hilaria did.

On the other hand some people genuinely do suffer from gender dysphoria. Having gender dysphoria is not "lying" because they are not pretending to be biologically genetically female. Hilaria claimed she was born in Spain. That's the equivalent of a transwoman claiming to have been born with a vagina and uterus.

Transwomen are upfront about the fact they were born into male bodies but that they "feel female" on the inside. (Yes I know there's a debate about what "feeling female" means.) That's the equivalent of Hilaria saying "I was born and raised in Boston but I love and feel more at home in Spain so I consider myself Spanish on the inside." If she'd said the latter no one would have objected and certainly no one would have called her a liar.

Agree with this ^

Some articles about RD written by outspoken feminists were very revealing - talking about how a white woman could never understand the systemic and historical oppression of non-white people (absolutely agree with that), and it was utterly despicable to take jobs and academic opportunities aimed at people of colour when you’re a white woman (also completely agree).

I would argue that the same is absolutely true of trans women - those socialised as men (regardless of whether they internally identified as female) have absolutely no concept of the oppression women face, and taking up places on all women shortlists or being the woman on an executive board when you’ve had the opportunities afforded to men is equally appalling. If you said that however, you’d be lambasted. Let’s not forget that the most successful female directors of all time are the Wachowski Sisters because of the Matrix trilogy, who got the Matrix made when they were the Wachowski Brothers and were far less likely to have achieved that as two women. Or men who exploit male privilege to climb to the top of their profession and then start presenting as women part time and make their way on to business woman of the year lists.

The uncomfortable truth I have learned over the past few years is that many feminsts do not truly believe that women are an oppressed group. And feminists I’ve previously seen talk about the risks of the male class towards the female class will outright refuse to acknowledge that trans women don’t stop beating that risk because they identify as females

As a younger feminist I saw many women working hard to separate sex and gender - why is there now a push to conflate them again? Why is it suddenly not acceptable to say that transgender people are not changing sex but gender - the term transsexual is no longer acceptable yet so many think it’s possible to change sex. What happened to all the work saying gender stereotypes are irrelevant to your sex?

There are those who identify as transable - either faking disabilities or actually maiming themselves to become disabled. This isn’t socially acceptable because society sees disability as a source of oppression and discrimination, but don’t see being a woman this way.

I have no doubt that having gender dysphoria is horrific and that they face challenges that natal women do not. But our challenges are not the same, and pretending they are is akin to saying you’re colourblind. Why are both sets of experiences dismissed this way? And if you argue that trans people are those with gender dysphoria then to some you are also transphobic.

And let’s not get into non-binary. I don’t know any women who meet all the gender stereotypes of womanhood - I am not non binary as a result, I’m just an individual.

I do not know how a small group of transactivists have created a situation where so many are scared to discuss biological reality. It’s baffling.

If someone wants to change gender then I have no problem with that: I do think that it should be such a medicalised choice for the majority and it wouldn’t be necessary if more were willing to live as their sex while disregarding gender norms.

In my view there is no difference between being transgender, transracial or transable.

Hilaria claimed she was born in Spain. That's the equivalent of a transwoman claiming to have been born with a vagina and uterus.

What would you call having your birth certificate, passport and medical records amended to state the opposite sex, so that these records are non different to those born that sex? Or fighting a legal battle to be declared father on your child’s birth certificate when you are the mother? It’s hardly honest or accurate.

Americans attitude to race is not like ours. They see it as more fixed. For all the talk of immigrant melting pot, they have not historically tended to marry people with a different skin colour or different mother tongue. Here you would he hard pressed to describe yourself according to your ancestor group because you'll will have so many different ones so which takes priority? And why would you want to do that? It would offer you no benefit here to identify yourself as say Spanish-Scottish.

Years ago I read about a woman in the USA in I think the 1950s. She had a black grandparent, or maybe even parent. A British person would havw described her as white based on her appearance, which is how we view race. She was terrified of being outed as being in reality black according to US definitions of the time. In the end that's what happened, someone found out she had black parentage/grandparentage and reported her for being a black person pretending to be white and she lost her job.

Americans have put a lot of effort into maintaining racial and ethnic segregation. Their liberals don't think they support it but they do. They hyphenate themselves and see appropriation everywhere, which can only happen because they have clear boundaries between racial/ethnic groups in their minds.

It is deep in their culture in a way it just isn't here.

We know that race, ethnicity, culture and religion genuinely are on a spectrum, a spectrum that extends in many directions. We don't have the hard boundaries.

A lot of their racial vs trans comparisons just don't work in the UK, or indeed Europe, for that reason. I wish people would stop regurgitating them here.

genes don't indicate race - they do indicate male or female without doubt - even an amniocentesis can do this before birth- so that won't be changing in next 20 years regarding male/female biology is innate.

There isn't a gene for being of black race - our genes show an ancestry/history of where our predecessors originate from around the world and our direct family show us our cultural heritage, so, yes race construct will gradually fade in the future.

Gender and race are social constructs - biology re: male/female are not constructs - it is how you were made in the womb and differences are inherent (larger heart/lungs etc) even when hormones are taken later in life.

sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2017/science-genetics-reshaping-race-debate-21st-century/

"Does “race” still mean something?
The divisions between races are doubtlessly blurred, but does this necessarily mean that race is a myth—a mere social construct and biologically meaningless? As with other race-related questions, the answer is multi-dimensional and may well depend on whom you ask.

In the biological and social sciences, the consensus is clear: race is a social construct, not a biological attribute. Today, scientists prefer to use the term “ancestry” to describe human diversity (Figure 3). “Ancestry” reflects the fact that human variations do have a connection to the geographical origins of our ancestors—with enough information about a person’s DNA, scientists can make a reasonable guess about their ancestry. However, unlike the term “race,” it focuses on understanding how a person’s history unfolded, not how they fit into one category and not another. In a clinical setting, for instance, scientists would say that diseases such as sickle-cell anemia and cystic fibrosis are common in those of “sub-Saharan African” or

If a male wants to present and adopt female characteristics, they haven't become female no-one changes their DNA.

www.dovepress.com/dna-phenotyping-current-application-in-forensic-science-peer-reviewed-fulltext-article-RRFMS
Ancestry

Some specific DNA markers can bring information about the ancestral composition of an individual, allowing their biogeographic contributions to be detailed (Africa, Europe, Asia, Amerindian). Thus, the use of ancestry informative markers (AIMs) allows the inference of an individual’s ancestry, providing data to reinforce potential witnesses, or even bringing new information about crime scene evidence.51

However, information about ancestry cannot be used solely as a criterion for determining the appearance of an individual. One must understand the difference between ancestry and the mistaken concept of race: the percentage of an individual’s ancestral contribution will not necessarily reflect their appearance. This is especially noticeable in admixed population samples in which AIMs demonstrate that there is no direct correlation between appearance (ethnicity) and ancestral biogeographic origi

StrippedFridge:

We know that race, ethnicity, culture and religion genuinely are on a spectrum, a spectrum that extends in many directions. We don't have the hard boundaries.

So why, when there is a hard boundary between biological sexes, is it acceptable to cross that line? Or to force other people to validate your choice in crossing that line?

Some things are just plain immutable - I may wish to be or identify as a 6ft tall blonde supermodel, but that is as far as it'll ever go. No one would ever take me seriously as such (being short and dark haired, clearly not possessing the looks of any kind of model in the modern era).

Why should we have to accept "woman face" appropriation?

"We know that race, ethnicity, culture and religion genuinely are on a spectrum, a spectrum that extends in many directions. We don't have the hard boundaries."

they are a spectrum of social constructs - sex is not a social construct.

@jellyfrizz

I realise most MNers reject the idea that sex and gender are different things..

Well, that's just not true.

Absolutely

I think a lot of MNers think completely the opposite

I think a lot of MNers are aware that 'gender' has three meanings in common usage.

We're also generally bright enough to distinguish between the social construct and the euphemism for sex.

I'm not sure I the point I was trying to make came across properly in my previous post.

I think Americans were primed to accept the idea of sex being on a spectrum because of peculiarities of their country.

1. They have trained themselves to treat race as a fixed definable thing, certainly not on a spectrum, when in reality it is on a spectrum, hence cognitive dissonance with a desire to force people into their pigeon holes to keep the cognitive dissonance at bay.

1. On top of that you have a magical thinking in the form of religion being mainstream.

1. Compelled speech is normal there too, pledging allegience to the flag, America is the greatest always on everything ignoring all evidence to the contrary, a politician couldn't say they are an atheist.

1. Science denial is mainstream. Creationism, climate denial, flat earth, etc.

I think this Candace Owens video highlights American's weird obsession with those things.

As such they are susceptible to the trans logic.

People elsewhere do like to copy America a fair bit. I think that's why trans logic temporarily took hold beyond its borders. I do believe it is temporary here and in most other places. The British do not share those characteristics above with North Americans and that's why I think we are waking up fastest to the emperor's lack of clothes. People copy the British too. Others will wake up.

I also think this is why all the rhetoric we get is full of Americanisms about bathrooms, "healthcare" that worsens health, trans murders and right wing evangelicals.

It is heartening that there is very little homegrown material. Vanishingly few people here actually believe it.

We don't have a Candace going on about how great Trump is, how awful it is that Alec Baldwin took the piss out of him and getting the hump about Hilaire and trans people.

Candace's video doesn't speak to me. It is like watching an alien culture. Sure she has noticed that humans can't change sex. Yes, she is challenging her fellow Americans on cancel culture and on rave boundaries. That's a good thing I suppose. Fuck all to do with trans politics in the UK though.

I increasingly find myself wanting to push back on the American nonsense rather than argue to trans magical theories. Same as I wouldn't bother arguing with them about gun rights, abortion rights or teaching creationism in schools. Their lunacy is not our lunacy.

I increasingly find myself wanting to push back on the American nonsense

I'm sure we used to do this - certainly I was raised to understand that American cultural imperialism was something to be fought against. What changed?

Your AIBU is confusing
I voted YANBU because of you saying I also feel like she is very flippant about trans people ‘suddenly waking up and deciding to be a woman’, when in reality they have often lived a painful struggle their whole lives to get to that point
Either other people have found your AIBU confusing too/not read your post properly or the usual MN consensus has had a totally about turn going by the results!

Race is actually more fluid than sex - consider that you can be a white-passing POC, or 1/4 one ethnicity or other.

This is a good video though