Can someone explain this to me? (Race related)

[LolaNova]

I’m a member of a group online specific to something I have an interest in. When people post pictures, they usually add a caption for visually impaired members describing the pictures. Eg. Woman standing on mountain and smiling, wearing purple dress.

Now the thing I don’t really understand is that nearly everyone identifies their ethnicity/race/skin colour in these captions.
‘Black man’
‘White woman’
‘Non binary mixed race person’
Etc.

AIBU to feel this is a bit unnecessary? It doesn’t seem relevant. It almost feels like woke virtue signalling, although I can’t really express why I feel like this. I don’t know if I’m just being really ignorant though? Maybe it IS important for representation? It just feels odd. More than happy to be told IABU and it is important.

Those descriptions are to help the blind or partially sighted understand not just what's in the image but the context too. So really, they are needed. For instance, the race of a person in some memes or informative posts might be relevant to the meaning.

Of course it's important. It's not racist to point out the simple fact of "this is a picture of a black male" it's hard fact. It can alter the context of the image if you fail to include it.

Wouldn’t it be worse to assume everyone was heterosexual and white?

It's just stating who is in the picture. Representation is definitely part of of why it's useful but it's also just being factual and giving as much context as possible.

Everything you can get by seeing the pictures should be captioned if possible IMO.
You actually pick up a huge amount of information from looking at a picture that a visually impaired person would have to miss out on.

But you seem to be satisfied that people are sharing the sex of the person in the picture, which is equally as arbitrary as the race or skin colour of the person in the picture.

If you're bothering to describe the person in amongst the scenery, I think it's perfectly acceptable to add the additional detail to provide a full picture.

@therocinante

It's just stating who is in the picture. Representation is definitely part of of why it's useful but it's also just being factual and giving as much context as possible.

Why though? I agree with the OP. A man running for a bus - should they be giving an estimate of weight? Height? Four out of ten for looks?

Sounds like the tags you get when you buy a photo from an online library.

I get the sex and age if a person - and of course what they are doing. Race may or may be be relevant - but ‘gender’?

"Woman standing on mountain and smiling, wearing purple dress." The fact that the dress is purple is surely even less relevant? However, it really helps create a mental picture of the photograph. I immediately got a very strong visual image* from that description although I am not visually impaired. Stating the colour of someones skin/approimate age etc does the same. It is nice for the visually impaired people to have those details and offends no-one. If the description was "an ugly woman standing on a monutaintop smiling" that would be offensive because it is both subjective and insulting. Black/white/mixed race are not insults.

Race/sex etc I can understand. It's relevant and important to allow the VI person so 'see' that people of all races and sexes etc can take part in that activity.

However I cannot see why "identifies as non binary" is relevant.

I don't look at my white and black and biracial female or male (sex) friends and see gender or sexual preference or how they identify. That's a feeling from what they tell me.

"not seeing colour" isn't the aim here. That's not the opposite of racism.

We have a rich tapestry of life, so of course captions should share that...

How would it be virute signalling to describe physical appearance? Seems bonkers you'd think that. Are you ok?

Ah but remember when kids are little we - well it used to be the thing - encouraged them to say ‘there’s my friend Bill over there - the boy in the blue jumper, with the red trousers, playing with the skittles...’ and specifically not mention colour/race.

Well, we live in a diverse world, why shouldn't people with poor vision be able to experience that same diversity?

I was brought up to be 'colour blind', the era of Kumbaya and The World is Black, The World is White. I don't think that means I don't see the colour of peoples skin, I just don't judge it/value it. BUT I do know, and fully understand that the term/claim is offensive to many. I accept that, why wouldn't I?

I would guess that here is a similar thing going on there. Not even to celebrate skin colour but just to normalise (not sure that's the right word, sorry) it, even for someone who can't necessarily see it.

Virtue signalling? Why would stating your own ethnic heritage be doing any such thing? It's the first thing the police will advertise if they're looking for a suspect. It is pretty fundamental to who someone is.

If you can't 'see' race, then you can't see racial oppression and/or privilege. That epitomises white privilege. It also goes against many people's upbringing that seeing/commenting on 'race' is rude, that race shouldn't be important, etc, that we are all equal despite our skin tone etc. These are laudable sentiments but they neglect the issue that ethnic background IS important. It's the instrument of the low-level prejudice, or lack of a level playing field of opportunity, experienced by many POC on a daily basis.

This is why I think it's important to dismantle that concept. These things are only invisible to you if you do have that privilege.

How would you feel if you were visually impaired and you weren't able to decide for yourself what is relevant or not?

Sorry, posted too soon. The purpose of those descriptions is to allow a person to "see" it on a sense. An objective description of everything is necessary for that. I think you are really reaching with suggesting it is virtue signalling in this case.

@MarieIVanArkleStinks

Virtue signalling? Why would stating your own ethnic heritage be doing any such thing? It's the first thing the police will advertise if they're looking for a suspect. It is pretty fundamental to who someone is.

If you can't 'see' race, then you can't see racial oppression and/or privilege. That epitomises white privilege. It also goes against many people's upbringing that seeing/commenting on 'race' is rude, that race shouldn't be important, etc, that we are all equal despite our skin tone etc. These are laudable sentiments but they neglect the issue that ethnic background IS important. It's the instrument of the low-level prejudice, or lack of a level playing field of opportunity, experienced by many POC on a daily basis.

This is why I think it's important to dismantle that concept. These things are only invisible to you if you do have that privilege.

That! That is what I was trying to say, from my obviously privileged white perspective.

It justs sounds wrong when I try and explain it! Mostly because it is all theoretical to me, being white!

You’re being a bit daft. It’s to help people with visual impairments know what’s in a picture. The descriptions should be factual. If the person in the picture is black, the description should say so.

@MarieIVanArkleStinks

Virtue signalling? Why would stating your own ethnic heritage be doing any such thing? It's the first thing the police will advertise if they're looking for a suspect. It is pretty fundamental to who someone is.

If you can't 'see' race, then you can't see racial oppression and/or privilege. That epitomises white privilege. It also goes against many people's upbringing that seeing/commenting on 'race' is rude, that race shouldn't be important, etc, that we are all equal despite our skin tone etc. These are laudable sentiments but they neglect the issue that ethnic background IS important. It's the instrument of the low-level prejudice, or lack of a level playing field of opportunity, experienced by many POC on a daily basis.

This is why I think it's important to dismantle that concept. These things are only invisible to you if you do have that privilege.

Excellent post

It's to help those with visual impairments picture what is in the image.

I don't see how it's virtue signalling to describe the physical reality of an image.

It feels more like woke virtue signalling to be asking if this is an issue tbh.

It’s scene setting for visually impaired people. Unsure why sexuality would be pointed out, that’s not an external indicator and non binary means exactly fuck all anyway.

@MarieIVanArkleStinks

Virtue signalling? Why would stating your own ethnic heritage be doing any such thing? It's the first thing the police will advertise if they're looking for a suspect. It is pretty fundamental to who someone is.

If you can't 'see' race, then you can't see racial oppression and/or privilege. That epitomises white privilege. It also goes against many people's upbringing that seeing/commenting on 'race' is rude, that race shouldn't be important, etc, that we are all equal despite our skin tone etc. These are laudable sentiments but they neglect the issue that ethnic background IS important. It's the instrument of the low-level prejudice, or lack of a level playing field of opportunity, experienced by many POC on a daily basis.

This is why I think it's important to dismantle that concept. These things are only invisible to you if you do have that privilege.

Thank you!! This, 100%.

It almost feels like woke virtue signalling

Why would you word it like this. For this alone YABU. I really despise how certain demographics have co-opted the word woke and dragged it all the way to hell.

That aside, representation is a nuanced topic. I see no issue in someone saying "Black woman, holding balloon, sitting in park" or whatever - especially given the default norm is almost always cis-white heterosexual wo(man).

If it's a requirement I'd imagine it SEO related, it will show in Google Searches. If it's on a website rather than SM Alt Tags also help partially sited/blind people.