Gender appropriation vs cultural appropriation

[BusterBluth]

In the woke world of today, with people in uproar about JKR and determining loudly that TWAW - it's interesting to see the difference between the thumbs-up for sexual/gender appropriation and examples such as those below, of people who identify and present as black, but are in fact white.

These people have been criticised for taking opportunities reserved for BAME people - and faced a backlash that argued you can't just 'identify' and appropriate another race.

They were criticised, with arguments including the disregard for lived experience, oppression and - crucially - the difference in DNA.
So even if the woke had clapped and cheered and said "YES! WHITE WOMEN ARE BLACK WOMEN!" - we'd all know that, deep down, they aren't.

So my question is, if self-ID reformists insist that anyone can identify as a woman, should we not also extend this to anyone identifying as the race they choose? Why reject one and not the other?

I fear the answer is simply: 'because women'.

Rachel Dolezal (aka Nkechi Amare Diallo)
Who, when challenged, claimed that 'race is a lie' (sound familiar?)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Dolezal

Anthony David Lennon (aka Soweto Alkebulan Ekundayo)
www.independent.co.uk/voices/anthony-ekundayo-lennon-black-theatre-arts-council-england-theatre-rachel-dolezal-transracial-a8616851.html

It doesn't make a lot of sense to have that particular sort of objection to "transracialism" but then to be ok with it for transgenderism, at first glance.

They really are only comparisons though, because they are different in several ways. There is an objectivity to sex that there isn't for race. And Dolzal, in a way, is maybe not the best person to look at, I think she has some real struggles that prevent her from thinking clearly and she's not really up to the pressure of defending her POV, because it is a manifestation of a sort of illness. And that's kind of obvious.

A more interesting example, if anyone remembers it was posted here in an article a while back, is that there is a town in the US where everyone was considered to be black - it was a sort of place where social outcasts live near a larger town. In reality many had no biological or ancestral connection to Africa, they were entirely of European descent. But they came to consider themselves black, they were treated as black because they were from that particular place, and their descendants considered themselves black and some still do. Some of the people did marry into black families but not all.

I think this is a fairly robust example of why sex and race are basically different, race can include whatever we agree upon socially.

But if we look a little more closely, actually supporting gender ideology and nor transracialism does fit together. They are both essentialist viewpoints. Many people are both gender essentialists and race essentialists, because essentialism is how they think about all identity issues.

Here it is, @Goosefoot

www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jul/25/race-east-jackson-ohio-appalachia-white-black

Yes, that's it, thanks! I thought that was such an interesting article, and the people are much more sympathetic than people trying to claim transracialism, it's a good illustration of the difference.

BluBooby posted this video in the other thread yesterday, it's about essentialism and intersectionality. It's slightly quick and dirty as an explanation but it's very understandable, and I think it goes a long way to seeing why the same people would believe in gender essence and race essence.

www.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=4FngeEwsVLU&app=desktop

Are there White people who have asked to be identified as Black? Are they suicidal or depressed because they are in the wrong body?

With respect, I think this is the wrong question to ask. Better questions would be:

• Does my woke friend think it is OK for a white person to be officially recognised as black and take awards/positions etc intended for black people (aimed at celebrating black culture/helping tackle inequality etc)? If not, why?
• If transwomen are feeling suicidal and depressed because they feel trapped in the wrong body is it impossible for them to dress/act as they see fit and be supported as individuals without allowing any man who wishes to be legally treated as a woman (and therefore enter safe spaces for women, take women's awards etc)? Is it really impossible for the safety, wellbeing and right to equality of transwomen to be protected and supported without sacrificing the safety, wellbeing and right to equality of women?

I agree with @Collidascope

Sex is polarised, with a very small third category for intersex people. And I believe most intersex people consider themselves to be male or female in general, iyswim. But basically you're either male or female. Both has distinguished chromosomes.

Whereas with race, obviously it is completely possible to be biologically from multiple 'races'. And we all are, when you think about it. All of us have ancestry from different races, and I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that the human race in its entirety evolved from a point in Africa. Therefore there is much more scope for identifying with a different race, as it is very possible you have ancestry (and possibly DNA) from that race.

Furthermore, regardless of race, we are all (aside from intersex people) male or female. So when you think about it, appropriating the female sex is also appropriating race, as you would be claiming to be a 'woman' in general as opposed to, say, a white woman.

Does that make sense or am I rambling

Grown women have a CULTURE beyond just individual lived experience. A culture handed down from aunts and mothers to daughters. Handed down in organisations such as the Guides. In some countries women's culture is secret from men. In some countries (eg Japan) it is encoded in forms of the language.

Trans women grew up as boys, and boys and men have a different culture. So this goes way beyond simple gender or sex appropriation.