LBC now - topic is questioning whether transgenderism is logically the same as transitioning from white to black

[chocciechocface]

Just letting you know ....

Maajid Nawaz doing a good job, I think (from the little I've heard so far). But he'll be getting a lot of hate mail.

Do they have listen again links on LBC?
These are important and revealing questions.

This is what I've never understood about the transgender thing. To me it is the same as trying to change your race, which isn't seen as acceptable 🤷🏻‍♀️

I really hope they have listen again. I really hope you don't miss this. My pulse is racing. He's defending JK Rowling's argument and pointing out her argument is logically consistent. Mind blown. (Although I did comment to DH he can only get away with this because he's a man). If he was a woman it would be the end of his career.

It will be available here later usually

www.globalplayer.com/catchup/lbc/uk/

He is brave to say this. I wouldn't dare except to DH!

It gets particularly confusing for me when sex and gender are used interchangeably. There are scientifically proven differences between the two sexes. Is there an actual biological difference between races? I'm not a scientist so I don't know. I'm obviously aware of the cultural and social traditions that can be related to race but is there any actual scientific difference? Or is it more a psychological identity, like gender?

Interesting

Well there are biological differences between races - skin colour being one of them .

Some races are more likely to fall ill with different diseases than others - sickle cell being the most well known of these.

It's important to for medical people to know what sex you are, and what race you are (particularly if this isn't obvious due being just the slightest bit mixed race).

He definitely gets the self id critical debate, he did a phone in on self id at the weekend too. He is doing it from 11-1 today, with the focus of comparing gender self ID to race self ID, he is defending JK Rowlings stance too.

There are no significant genetic differences between races. There are more differences within racial groups than between them. Race markers are very superficial.

There are far fewer differences between the races than between the sexes. You are much, much closer biologically to another woman of a different race than you are to a man of your own race.

This is why I find it interesting when activists try to split hairs over biology in order to erode the importance of sex. They argue that there are grey areas, that there aren't simple binaries, and that is enough justification in itself to allow someone to identify as another gender and that it's really no big deal.

Yet, identifying as another race is invalid.......even though the differences between us racially are much much smaller than the differences between us biologically in terms of sex.

I don't think that white people should be identifying as black and entering competitions or applying for scholarships designed for them.......but it's a shame that there's no sympathy understanding the other way around when it comes to sex isn't it? Is it because the people who are negatively affected by this whole debate are mainly women??

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans:_Gender_and_Race_in_an_Age_of_Unsettled_Identities

I'd recommend this book to anyone interested. Its academic but fascinating- a comparison between the identity claims of Caitlyn Jenner and Rachel Dolezal

Interesting bbc article today in a similar vein:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-54008495
Jessica Krug: George Washington University professor says she lied about being black

In Maya Forstater's case this was raised. Her employers were crystal clear that they saw both race and gender as matters for self-ID. That they would accept whatever race and gender a person claimed for themselves. That doesn't tend to get mentioned - lies that claim she misgendered a (non-existent) trans colleague do instead.

That's absolutely the logical standpoint. It's just that people who vehemently argue that gender matters and sex is irrelevant, and that gender is defined 100% by the individual and their pronoun choices, tend to become apoplectic with rage if the same is tried about race. Almost as though they know, in fact.

Been fun watching the Twitter spats about this today.

Not one single coherent argument as to why there should be a difference between them. When you ask you get "Educate yourself you transphobic bitch" and the like. But watching them flail around not even being able to come up with a nonsensical argument is quite fun.

Re: genetic markers for “race”, genetically speaking where your ancestors are from is something detectable genetically. That’s how 23andme and so on are able to work at all. The issue is this connects only partly with the constructs of race. For example in the US if you had one black ancestor you were of the “negro race” so it would be illegal for you to marry a “white” person Under Jim crow miscegenation laws.

sex is analogous to ancestry, while Gender is analogous to race.

In terms of how someone looks we can guess where someone’s ancestors are from (Very broadly speaking) relatively easily because There are real genetic differences that lead to differences in how people appear in terms of traits like skin tone, hair color and texture and so on. Like sex existing this is obvious to anyone with half a brain. But this only Really Applies if these ancestors came from one broad region. People with mixed ancestry are often difficult to guess, which is in fact part of the whole history of humanity - peoples have always mixed. So ancestry is unlike sex because it is much less binary. it’s determined by inheritance of thousands of tiny variants rather than a single big one (sry).

Btw someone above said there are thousands of genetic differences between males and females. I think that person is talking about gene expression perhaps? It doesn’t make sense to say we are more genetically related to women with different ancestry. Relatedness is a measure of what variants we have inherited by decent - aka how much ancestry we share. So I’m equally genetically related to my mother and my father. He has a Y I have nothing to do with though.

So is racial dysphoria/euphoria and thing or not?

*a thing

I suffer from a genetic disorder that only affects females. As I am female how does the "other side" explain this. Men cannot be diagnosed with the form of the illness I have.

This was good, speaking of sex and illness.

People have to be allowed to self identify their race. No other approach makes sense. You can’t tell someone they don’t look black enough or white enough to tick that box.

Isn't the main similarity the oppression aspect?

If men and women were treated exactly the same, and there was no such thing as patriarchal control, there wouldn't be such a problem.

The same with racism. If it didn't exist between blacks and whites, the power dynamic, which in this case allows a white person to identify into the oppressed group, wouldn't exist.

It's less to do with proving the actual, physical differences, than understanding how the differences manifest in a power dynamic.

Everyone is extremely aware of the power balance in racism. It's an incredibly prevalent topic. Hence the outrage of people like Rachel Dolezal.

And although the power dynamic between men and women is, of course, recognised, it's not got the traction that should have, and it's in the interests of half the population to keep it going. By normalising it.

I have actually seen a paper by a renowned doctor (peer reviewed) that men (XY) cannot get the illness I have, because it only affects XX

Let's say there's a prize for BAME writers and that woman won it. Would it be any different to a TW winning a women-only race, or that TW in a pink frock being in the Top 100 Women in Business list?