Quick question about ethnic identity and gender

[Ellabella222]

If Jesy Nelson is called out for presenting with black women’s characteristics but with the privilege of being white, how come men who present as women are not? Why is one bad and one acceptable?

Indeed. Excellent question.

I'm confused - did you mean to ask about transwomen?

Most people (including most women) are blind to misogyny, whereas many are (thankfully) waking up to racial oppression and race privilege.

It's more about what's accepted by the majority than any absolute logic,

@cocomump

I'm confused - did you mean to ask about transwomen?

I’m not trying to be clever. It’s a genuine question. Am I asking about trans women? I suppose I am. I just don’t understand how identify is supposed to work and why it’s so different between race and sex or gender.

If some says they are black (and they are not) it is accepted that this is nonsense. If a biological make resents as a woman then we have to accept this because his/her self identity has to be upheld.

Genuinely….how is one different to the other?

Sorry about the typos. It’s early!

Don't worry about the typos. If you're genuinely curious and interested to learn, the Amnesty International site has a good introductory article that can explain the basics:
www.amnesty.org.uk/LGBTQ-equality/gender-identity-beginners-guide-trans-allies

It's a mystery. See also: identifying as disabled when you aren't; identifying as a child when you aren't; identifying as a gay man when you're a female attracted to men but have a trans identity; identifying as a lesbian when you're a male attracted to women but have a trans identity. In both the latter cases, gay men and lesbians have been told they are bigots and have a genital fixation for not including opposite sex people in their dating pool.

Thanks I don’t think that site answers my question though. I understand the arguments of GC feminism and Trans rights. What my question is about is how race identity is conceptualised v sex/gender identity.

Amnesty is, very sadly IMO, entirely captured by gender ideology, a variable set of beliefs about the concept of gender, but one that many feminists find deeply sexist and homophobic at its core, and so is rejected by many including the majority on this board. By all means do read the link provided by cocomump (who I do not believe was confused about what you meant at all btw, your post is very clear), but know it is written by lobbyists wanting to present one particular view, not universal fact. It’s good to read many opinions though obviously.

OP I think your question is a great one, and one that genderists seem unable to satisfactorily, straightforwardly answer. The closest I’ve seen recently is the UCU saying that they actually do support self-identifying as black anyway (and disabled to boot), so at least they’re being consistent with themselves, if still deeply offensive to many!

None of it stacks up.
People who would be horrified if black people were being told that it is reductionist to define themselves by the colour of their skin, trot out that it is bigoted and reductionist for women to define themselves by their sex.

Yes Gasp it is a mystery!

They are different because sex is binary and race is not. There is a long history of mixed race people 'passing' or trying to pass as the race with power (we recognise this as different to the cultural appropriation of various pop stars). See also the dutch journalist who wanted to change his age from 69 to 49 (again, age is not binary and lots of people appear younger or older than their actual age).

What difference does it binary make?

It makes it even more ridiculous.

That question is never answered.

People do everything they can to shame anyone asking it though.

Like the live demonstration on this a thread it seems…

Imagine there was a white man who had a fetish in presenting as someone of another race. He does this and gets off on it. How acceptable would that be:
in public,
in his workspace, or
in a space that people of that race tend to view as their space?

Do you think that such behaviour would be viewed as so unacceptable he'd have to restrict it to his own home and to dedicated spaces for this activity?

According to Kathleen Stock's former trade union, their members can identify as black,disabled and a member of the opposite sex.

Sometimes it's clearer if you look at it in terms of who has power and who hasn't.

1. White person with olive skin and naturally curly hair decides henceforth to identify as mixed race, and acting on this (but without spelling out that it's an adopted identity) gets a job or political position where being mixed race or Black is either a prerequisite or seen as a very useful background to have. Clearly this individual is appropriating the experiences of a group that has less power and has taken a job/position that was meant to go to a genuine member of said group, who grew up in a racist society and knows first-hand what that has meant to their family/friends/neighbours. (Rachel Dolezal is the best known example here, but there have been others.)

I think we all know what would happen if a white supremacist regime were to gain power in their country. This individual would revert asap to being white. This is not a possibility for those who are genuinely not white.

1. Person who is actually in pretty good health with full use of limbs etc identifies as being disabled and requires others to assist with daily living/push person around in a wheelchair, and so on. Person is insistent that this is not a psychological problem, their body should be affected in the way they pretend it is. This is incredibly insulting to people who actually do have a disability of one kind or another or who live with chronic pain or a chronic health problem. There is no identifying in or out of a genuine physical health problem.

Should said person find themselves in a dangerous situation, e.g. a fire, I'd be very surprised if the assumed identity stopped them jumping out of the wheelchair and running for safety.

1. Men/women. Who has more power in society? We all know the answer to this. We all also know there is no identifying out of one reproductive role and into another one.

There have been some revealing comments on social media over the years from males who claim a trans identity but still dress and present in a conventionally male way at work as to do otherwise would affect their careers. Generally speaking, women can't do this. An employee who becomes pregnant has a strong chance of being overlooked for promotion and so on, even if the employee identifies as a transman.

2 above may seem incredible. I think (hope) it's rare. It's not unknown, though. Daily Mail link here: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2366260/Body-Integrity-Identity-Disorder-Chloe-Jennings-White-58-disown-legs.html There are others if you want to avoid the Mail. Search for Chloe Jennings-White.

Thing is, it's not entirely unreasonable to identify as an ethnicity outside your genetic heritage. Ethnicity is entirely a social construct based mostly on skin colour and culture. If you grew up in a culture but don't have the usual skin colour or features, is it really unreasonable to identify with that group?

Whereas sex affects your skeletal structure, muscle mass, height, blood oxygenation, pain tolerance, ability to read non verbal cues, susceptibility to various illnesses, which organs you have, which gametes you produce, whether you can bear children, muscle fibre types and many other things.

Most of the cultural aspects (gender) of sex are false stereotypes. The ones that aren't are usually oppressive and often directly linked to sex differences like strength.

Thus it's always utterly meaningless to 'identify' as another sex except in terms of gender stereotypes.

I think it's utterly fine for Jessy Nelson to dress like she's from another culture, but it's also fine for people to think she's crass and silly. What's not fine is dressing up to mock other cultures. It wasn't fine for Rachel dolzeal to gain advantage by pretending to be black.

Similarly it's fine (often positive) for people to dress in ways which subvert gender stereotypes. Done in a crass way, it's fine for others to think that person a fool. It's not fine to dress up to mock women or to try to gain advantage (e.g. access women's sports or prisons).

[quote cocomump]Don't worry about the typos. If you're genuinely curious and interested to learn, the Amnesty International site has a good introductory article that can explain the basics:
www.amnesty.org.uk/LGBTQ-equality/gender-identity-beginners-guide-trans-allies[/quote]
Unfortunately the explanation on the Amnesty site is rather sexist so you will have to explain further.

For instance

"a gender identity and umbrella term for people whose gender differs from, or does not sit comfortably within, the gender they were assigned at birth."

Gender is cultural expectations of how somebody should behave and present, based on their sex, so for women, whether they should be allowed to vote, go to school or wear practical clothes, have short hair or speak up in meetings.

Why would you assume that anyone is assigned a gender identity at birth? Why would you assume that anyone would identify with it? Why would you assume that this is a helpful way to categorise humans?

[quote cocomump]Don't worry about the typos. If you're genuinely curious and interested to learn, the Amnesty International site has a good introductory article that can explain the basics:
www.amnesty.org.uk/LGBTQ-equality/gender-identity-beginners-guide-trans-allies[/quote]
Amnesty also say women who don't agree that transwomen are women, and don't want their daughter getting changed alongside men who say they are women, should have their right to vote removed and media should silence them. Amnesty campaigns for women who belief in biology to be completely disenfranchised.

They also have a pimp on the board.

They are different because sex is binary and race is not

That's a good thing to point out - although not in the way the poster intended. There is much less difference between different races than between males and females. Also, people are often a mix of races whereas sex is binary. This make it much more logical to recognise identifying as a different race as valid than identifying as a different sex.

But where a society chooses to give resources (scholarships, sports opportunities, separate spaces) to a particular group for whatever reason (eg offsetting inequality due to discrimination, or else safety) then it's as a society that the boundary of that group is defined.

For the grouping of sex, there are a lot of very powerful, rich people who want to identify into the group of women and have created powerful lobby groups to try to make that social change.

That hasn't happened for race. That's the only difference.

I've never seen a satisfactory explanation from proponents of gender ID but not race ID. They are always attempts to rationalise a decision that's already been made.

I actually think race identification is going to become more acceptable, and you already see lots of people insisting on "self ID" for it, and disabilities.

But the practical effect of that is it becomes a power test - if you're powerful enough, people will be criticised for calling you out. If you become weak, then people more powerful than you will be able to do so. Weird sort of mob justice.

James Lindsay attempted a detailed explanation here, but it's one of his longer and more rambly podcasts.

Why You Can Be Transgender But Not Transracial

One of the more peculiar features of the Theory of Critical Social Justice for many people is why it is acceptable under Theory to be trangender but absolutely forbidden to be transracial. The short answer to this question, which is sometimes given (usually after someone steps on the landmine of thinking they can pull off a transracial argument or identity), is that Critical Race Theory and Queer Theory approach the issue of identity differently. This is correct on a superficial level but facile to the way that the overarching Critical Social Justice ideology thinks about power and its interaction with identity. Understood more deeply, both Theories are doing the same thing in different ways. In this episode of the New Discourses Podcast, James Lindsay goes through all of this heavy Theoretical detail to explain why it is, from within Theory, that you can be transgender but not transracial. He then shifts to explain how and why these Theories likely developed the way that they did by investigating the proximate incentive structures that motivated their developments.

Amnesty also say women who don't agree that transwomen are women, and don't want their daughter getting changed alongside men who say they are women, should have their right to vote removed and media should silence them. Amnesty campaigns for women who belief in biology to be completely disenfranchised.

They also have a pimp on the board.

I am sure coco will be along any minute to address these points lovelyrice.

Maybe it will go along the lines of …

hateful women don’t deserve political representation or to be able to voice their hateful (yet scientifically proven and accepted) views…. feminists are the nurturers of the world and should never be unkind enough to point out reality where it is not wanted.

And

a pimp… sex work is work. And whether it is coercive doesn’t matter, look at OxFam out there doing such good works….