Could someone genuinely please explain this to me...

[DanglySpider]

Ok, so this might be a horrendous question, but I think that's what anonymous forums are supposed to be for, yes? So, (and this may be a stupid question, but I just honestly don't get it) - why are things like blackface, wearing other cultural hairstyles and clothes, and living your life as a black person when you're white, all considered to be heinous, but people of one gender choosing to wear the clothes, behave, and live their lives as another gender is ok? I'm probably completely misconstruing the differences, but it just seems a bit two-faced that one is wrong, but the other is totally acceptable. I've always thought of myself as someone who embraces diversity and people's rights of expression, but I'm really struggling to feel empathy with a lot of trans arguments that I've been seeing recently - the whole 'transwomen are women' and the 'they're women biologically' nonsense. Or am I just completely misunderstanding the whole thing and one is nothing like the other?

(Btw, I am NOT saying that the former examples are acceptable - they're clearly not - it's just that I used to be so positive and embracing of drag queens, but now it just seems like a lot of them dress up to make a mockery and an entertainment of being what is considered to be female - the makeup, the giant tits, the silly names based around sex, the ridiculously high heels - they're a parody of femininity, NOT a genuine person who wants to live their life as a women but was born with a penis.)

Hi welcome, and you won't get much disagreement on this board.

Preaching to the choir here!

As long as genitals are covered, I dont give a monkeys what people wear. But putting on a dress and claiming that makes you a woman is just offensive.

people of one gender choosing to wear the clothes, behave, and live their lives as another gender is ok?

It's because of the (deliberate) confusion between sex and gender. There's nothing inherently wrong with wearing whatever clothes you want -fashions are cultural, a style which a western man would find 'feminine' might be normal Male attire elsewhere. And what does it mean to 'behave as another gender'? Women don't, and shouldn't, all behave in some particular way and men in another.

But 'live their lives"... as a different sex - there's the thing. Humans are dimorphic. Men are generally bigger, stronger but completely crap at having babies. This has resulted in women being treated as the 'second sex' - disadvantaged because of sex - with imposed gender norms often being part of the oppression.

By all means males can be as 'feminine' as they wish - but that does not make them women. Woman is not a costume.

Biological sex is down to whether you have XX or XY chromosomes at conception and thereafter. Gender is only a social idea, based on how many stereotypes people happen to conform to. It isn't scientific or biological.

If blackface and cultural appropriation are wrong and offensive, then so are womanface and the appropriation of womanhood.

I know this misses your point, but the whole "blacking up" thing non-plusses me a bit.

Obviously the history of blackface is awful, and there's no condoning that.

But say, just as an example, there's a comedian and they want to do an impression of a famous black person. Let's use Rory Bremner as an example, incredible impressionist that does the voices of loads of people. If it were Boris Johnson, he's put on a floppy blonde wig. But say he wanted to do an impression of David Lammy, a prominent black MP, why would it be wrong to darken his skin?

From what I understand, the issue with blackface was that white folk "blacked up" to mock and poke fun at black people, purely due to their skin colour. It was a vile practice, unquestionably. But that isn't what's happening now - in the example above, it's just a person who's attempting to more closely resemble someone else in order to do the impression. If the impression is OK (which it is as impressionists lampoon everyone), why can't you alter your appearance to look more like the person you're impersonating?

Genuinely not trying to be an arsehole. And I"m not a racist shithead either - hence asking the question. I want to understand why it's racist because I can't figure it out. If a comedian blacked up to mock black people in general, I'd get it. But when you're just altering your appearance to look like a specific person, I don't understand the issue. I'm obviously just really thick. I promise I'm not a Farage/UKIP/Tommy Robinson moron 😅

And yes, I'm with you on the rest re gender. I support trans folk and 100% believe they should have the right to express their gender how they want, and agree they absolutely need protection - but I don't agree they share my identity as a woman, nor should they have the right to access single-sex spaces.

@ExhaustedFlamingo

I know this misses your point, but the whole "blacking up" thing non-plusses me a bit.

Obviously the history of blackface is awful, and there's no condoning that.

But say, just as an example, there's a comedian and they want to do an impression of a famous black person. Let's use Rory Bremner as an example, incredible impressionist that does the voices of loads of people. If it were Boris Johnson, he's put on a floppy blonde wig. But say he wanted to do an impression of David Lammy, a prominent black MP, why would it be wrong to darken his skin?

From what I understand, the issue with blackface was that white folk "blacked up" to mock and poke fun at black people, purely due to their skin colour. It was a vile practice, unquestionably. But that isn't what's happening now - in the example above, it's just a person who's attempting to more closely resemble someone else in order to do the impression. If the impression is OK (which it is as impressionists lampoon everyone), why can't you alter your appearance to look more like the person you're impersonating?

Genuinely not trying to be an arsehole. And I"m not a racist shithead either - hence asking the question. I want to understand why it's racist because I can't figure it out. If a comedian blacked up to mock black people in general, I'd get it. But when you're just altering your appearance to look like a specific person, I don't understand the issue. I'm obviously just really thick. I promise I'm not a Farage/UKIP/Tommy Robinson moron 😅

And yes, I'm with you on the rest re gender. I support trans folk and 100% believe they should have the right to express their gender how they want, and agree they absolutely need protection - but I don't agree they share my identity as a woman, nor should they have the right to access single-sex spaces.

The term blackface used to have a much narrower meaning, it didn't really include, for example, an actor playing a role. Along with the widening of the sense it's used it's also been expanded to include what's now being called "brownface" which certainly includes things like Alec Guinness playing Prince Faisal in Lawrence of Arabia, or I've even seen it used for Angelina Joli playing a Hispanic woman and looking only slightly darker than her normal complexion.

It's a function of identity politics, it doesn't make a lot of sense outside of that perspective. Otherwise an actor changing their appearance would be like any other instance where they do that, or play someone of a different nationality, or sexuality, or ethnicity, etc. All of which are increasingly debated by id politics adherents. Even Samuel Jackson saying that black British actors shouldn't play black American roles as their historical background is different.

I see people dressing up as the other sex in a performance context as non-problematic. It's content of the performance that can be questionable.

@Goosefoot - thanks for your very considered response. I was slightly apprehensive about confessing not to understand the point that's being made - I feel a bit better now I've not immediately been lambasted 😅 I've seen loads of celebrities recently apologising for blacking up many, many years ago and quite often it seems like an unproblematic performance. The apology feels trite and I doubt many can explain why it's actually wrong. I don't want to be uninformed or ignorant, but I can't see the issue.

And absolutely, your last point is critical - it's the content of the performance which determines whether it's OK.

I question my own judgement because I don't take offence at a lot. I often describe myself as a bad feminist for that reason 😳😅 It's only fairly recently I've started to find my feet in this arena and discovered that actually I do have quite the passion for certain issues! But given my natural inclination, I was just wondering really if it was just me being short-sighted and missing a clear issue.

I had been thinking about the dressing up as a woman thing recently because I hate drag, and have always been uncomfortable with it and could never put my finger on why. Reading posts here from other people helped me put it straight in my head as to why I don't like it. It the sneering attitude and the exaggerated bitchiness and the innuendo.

Yet I don't always find it offensive when men dress as women for comedy purposes, like eg in The Life of Brian. Then that made me wonder if I'm just basing my dislike on personal taste, and am I being a hypocrite? But I'm not sure. I don't even find Mrs Brown's Boys offensive, even though it's just about the least funny thing I've ever laid eyes on. For me it's really just drag that I hate as it's entire reason for existence seems to be to mock women.

Just to be clear, although I think this and other elements of id politics are damaging and incoherent, not a lot of people will stick their neck out over this issue, it's become so fraught and emotionally charged. A prof at my local university last year wrote a book where he argued that all examples of people impersonating a member of another race were the same and context makes a difference, and he was denounced widely and in the end IIRC by the university itself.

As far as drag mocking women, a lot does. But I've generally felt that really, it's a comedy or art form that is really very much directed to gay men, and needs to be understood as playing with or even subverting gender norms and changing their meaning, more than it's really talking about women as women. It's always seemed weird to me that it's become something directed to a wider audience. And a lot of it is just bad, like bad comedy.

Should be that he argued that NOT all examples were the same. Geez.

@Goosefoot

Just to be clear, although I think this and other elements of id politics are damaging and incoherent, not a lot of people will stick their neck out over this issue, it's become so fraught and emotionally charged. A prof at my local university last year wrote a book where he argued that all examples of people impersonating a member of another race were the same and context makes a difference, and he was denounced widely and in the end IIRC by the university itself.

As far as drag mocking women, a lot does. But I've generally felt that really, it's a comedy or art form that is really very much directed to gay men, and needs to be understood as playing with or even subverting gender norms and changing their meaning, more than it's really talking about women as women. It's always seemed weird to me that it's become something directed to a wider audience. And a lot of it is just bad, like bad comedy.

That is poss the most eloquent way of expressing how I feel about the issue. Thank you 🙏

Drag doesn't bother me. I have known loads of drag artists over the years and spent lots of time in gay pubs that have drag. But... none of the drag artists demanded access to the ladies loo, or demanded access to women's sport or demanded that we change our language to exclude ourselves. And that is the difference between drag artists and TRAs.

Thanks everyone for the kind replies and common sense responses - I completely get that it's a complex situation, but recently I've just been so confused over the issues around it all - DH and I ended up having a bit of an argument with DD (21, bi and very woke) around the Adele appropriation argument. She said (because Twitter had fed it to her) that it was outrageous, and we pointed out she had to put it in context, and that she was attending the Notting Hill Carnival festival, where dressing up in costumes is a thing, and that it's all about cultural sharing, and most of the attendees and locals were absolutely fine about it - in fact, they said that the history of the carnival is all about that. (I knew this already from previously being a Londoner, anyhow). SO that makes sense to me - like drag artistry. And I completely think that people of any sex should be supported to live their lives as another gender as far as possible, as long as it doesn't put anyone else's safety or rights at risk of infringement. A while ago, a teenage child of mine sadly decided that they wanted to live with my ex and not see my side of the family at all. We were all devastated, and felt that he'd been brainwashed. As he was a young teenager, we felt we had to go through the motions of going to court to apply for contact, and although we warned as much, the predictable result happened where they ruled that his feelings were paramount, and if he didn't want to see us, he didn't have to. His feelings trumped that of ours and our younger siblings, and that was that. I feel the whole argument of TRAs is much the same - THEY feel that THEY (the minority percentage) have the right to go and do what they want, when they want and how they want, and there's no consideration for the vast majority of women who are being discounted, their safety disregarded, and their rights eroded. Have I got that right?

As far as drag mocking women, a lot does. But I've generally felt that really, it's a comedy or art form that is really very much directed to gay men, and needs to be understood as playing with or even subverting gender norms and changing their meaning, more than it's really talking about women as women.
Yes, thank you for saying this. I tried to say that drag traditionally isn't about women not so long ago on FWR and got dragged through the mud (maybe a slight exaggeration! I'm not bitter ) by women who told me I was being stupid for not agreeing that all drag is misognist mockery of women. I don't believe it is. I've seen a lot of drag acts in gay clubs and yes, a lot of them are terrible, but it's clear that it's most often directed towards gay men and isn't really about women. And yes, it's weird that it's been brought into the mainstream, because part of its inherent function is to be outside the norm. So if you make it 'normal' then it automatically becomes not-drag in the traditional sense. It is especially weird that kids are being introduced to drag as really it is outsider art for adults.

Drag mocks femininity, generally, although can be actually misogynistic. I think it's important not to conflate femininity and being a woman.

I wondered this when I read this article and posted a thread about it (but didn’t get many many responses so reposting here, sorry to jump on your thread!)

medium.com/@jessakrug/the-truth-and-the-anti-black-violence-of-my-lies-9a9621401f85

’Intention never matters more than impact. To say that I clearly have been battling some unaddressed mental health demons for my entire life, as both an adult and child, is obvious. Mental health issues likely explain why I assumed a false identity initially, as a youth, and why I continued and developed it for so long; the mental health professionals from whom I have been so belatedly seeking help assure me that this is a common response to some of the severe trauma that marked my early childhood and teen years.’

How does this apply to race but not biological sex? I know people don’t like to draw a comparison, my mind is struggling not to.

Can people who say drag is directed towards gay men expand on that, please? I unstated that a lot of the "artists" are gay men, and that a lot of the followers are gay men, at least until it became more widespread on TV. It still just looks like gay men expressing withering scorn at women to me. I've always found it creepy and breathed a sigh of relief when others said it's sexist as hell because it made sense as to why I found it creepy. But I'm willing to learn.

Comedians dressing up as black people is still problematic because a) you can't disentangle it from the history of blackface and b) it's a white (often man) making jokes at the expense of black person - the power dynamic is that of punching down not a fair match, if that makes sense?

White actors and actresses playing black characters are problematic because why was a white actor/tress chosen instead of a black person to portray the role in the first place? Again, it's within the context of a pre')-existing power imbalance.

Imo what makes the 'blacking up' of the past objectionable in retrospect, in contexts like Laurence of Arabia or Olivier's Moor, was that there presumably wasn't any attempt to find a great Arab or 'moorish' actor. The acting profession was massively white-dominated. Even if there were explicitly non-white European roles, they went to white Europeans. When I was growing up there was Sidney Poitier and... um... no, that's about it. It was perhaps not dissimilar to the theatre in Shakespeare's time, entirely male.

It's a healthy change that whereas a few decades ago, we had "a passage to India' - mostly white characters, with one of the main Indian roles again being taken by Guinness - now we have A Suitable Boy with brilliant Indian actors, with a few white people in appropriate big parts.

In serious theatre, nowadays it's pretty much de rigeur for there to be some sort of 'gender reversal' (if you see stage to screen productions the person introducing always mentions that in hilarious breathy 'ooh how exciting and radical' tones) - mostly this is fine, and can be interesting. And it's done fairly even-handedly. OTOH I wasn't greatly impressed by David Suchet squandering his talents playing Lady Bracknell - one of the relatively few classic parts for an older woman. Coming out lots of people were gushing 'oh, wasn't he maahvelous' ... well, no, he really wasn't, it was a caricature - it would have been much better played by any number of mature women actors.

If you actually believe that being a woman is simply a costume that you can put on and wear (like in a play) then it all makes sense. Of course have to be a fucking idiot to believe this. Don't you?

Ooh I love it when you get to watch someone peak.
Welcome to the coven.

I've wondered this too. But hey, I can't actually become a black person. But a man can become a woman apparently.

The former ie the blacking up is done to poke fun at one category of ppl ie reducing a whole bunch of people to a few stereotypical exaggerated traits and the other is called gender dysphoria, it is a condition.

Not according to Stonewall, Sith.

“ [trans is] An umbrella term to describe people whose gender is not the same as, or does not sit comfortably with, the sex they were assigned at birth.
Trans people may describe themselves using one or more of a wide variety of terms, including (but not limited to) transgender, transsexual, gender-queer (GQ), gender-fluid, non-binary, gender-variant, crossdresser, genderless, agender, nongender, third gender, bi-gender, trans man, trans woman,trans masculine, trans feminine and neutrois”

Asserting that dysphoria is a fundamental part of being trans makes you transphobic, or truscum, if you are yourself dysphoric, according to Stonewall. Don’t shoot me, I’m just the messenger.

Nobody mention AGP, either