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?

@cocomump

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

Just the transwomen? Why does the response never include transmen? All transpeople are created equal but some are more equal than others eh?

Could it possibly be an extension of blackface v drag? I’ve heard quite a few people on here say that the two are not comparable because of their very different origins. Is it possible that the trans race and trans sex argument are merely borrowed from the acceptability of their dress up cousins?

@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?

Biological sex is defined genetically, race has genetic underpinnings but is socially defined.

It makes no sense that one can change sex, or gender, whilst one is unable to change race. It also make no sense that one is able to legally change sex regardless, it is no more possible from a scientific perspective (for humans) than being able to change species.

I 'll leave it to you to think about why those rich, powerful people are willing to put so much effort and money into changing the socially-agreed boundary of the grouping of men and women to the point where it effectively has no meaning.

And why they're not so interested in the boundaries for race.

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.

Amnesty also legitimise prostitution as "sex work" and believe there is a marked distinction between what they seem to see as 'the vast majority' of prostitutes who apparently freely consent to selling their bodies as a commercial business enterprise and all those other nasty kinds of prostitution that are nothing to do with that whatsoever.

IIRC Amnesty also argued that female prostitution is actually necessary for equality, because it facilitates disabled men's access to sex, which is apparently a human right that Amnesty was seeking to protect by ensuring provision of women's bodies for men to use as 'necessary'.

It doesn't surprise me at all that Amnesty have forgotten to ask women how they experience gender before publishing their gender identity pamphlet - they seem to centre men in everything they do.

It makes no sense that one can change sex, or gender, whilst one is unable to change race. It also make no sense that one is able to legally change sex regardless, it is no more possible from a scientific perspective (for humans) than being able to change species.

And yet apparently the government can determine your nationality but is unable to work out which sex you might be...

@Ellabella222
I’m going to give this a go. Wish me luck 🥴
Broadly speaking, the main difference between the current conceptions of gender and race is that they are underpinned by different ideologies-race by Critical Race Theory and gender by Queer Theory- and these two ideologies have very different understandings of what is meant by “identity” and, specifically, who belongs in their core group.
Critical Race Theory is a, very American, school of thinking that seeks to challenge ideas in society that are overtly and covertly racist. One of the main ideas of CRT is that “blackness” is something that is put upon someone by society and has to be reclaimed as a positive identity; it isn’t really something you can just choose to identify with. One of the reasons that “blackfishing” is so upsetting to many people is that it “cherry picks” the socially rewarding parts of what has historically been, and to a certain extent still is, a negative identity which “blackfishers” can then choose to drop if anything bad happens. Transracialists are seen as doing this. Another key issue is that if you seek to make the world a better place for a specific group of people then you have to know who does and does not belong to that group of people: some gatekeeping has to happen. Adding “ambiguous”/not so ambiguous people to the mix makes the edges fuzzy and so undermines the entire aim of CRT; it stops help getting to those who need it, especially when racists have no trouble at all distinguishing between skin colours.
Queer Theory is very different. Queer Theory originated out of post-WW2 deconstructionist thinking and puts the idea forward, very broadly, that the “status quo” and any behaviours/traditions associated with it are preventing social progress and so need to be undermined; this is known as “queering the discourse”. Unlike CRT in which “fuzzy edges” are a problem, in QT “unique” identities are encouraged-the further you are from the status quo and the more chaos this causes the better. An identity is something you choose/is a key part of who you are and how you see yourself and any “rules” that get in the way just need to be “queered”. This is why being transgender (or trans-age, trans-species etc) is not only fine, but a good thing, within modern gender discourse. It’s important to understand that in postmodern theory, the extent to which a person’s inner identity matches with the “real world” is largely irrelevant. Many postmodern thinkers argue that a person’s “inner world” is the closest that it is possible to get to any actual Truth-if your identity doesn’t line up with the world then your identity is more correct. Categories like “race” or “sex” don’t actually mean anything outside of a person’s inner identity.
I hope this makes at least some sense. It is very confusing to have two very different schools of thought running along side each other like this.

That’s a useful explanation. Thank you

I hope this makes at least some sense. It is very confusing to have two very different schools of thought running along side each other like this.

Even more confusing when they often seem to be regarded as the same by the commentariat - so right wing people view both as ‘identitarianism’ - demanding special treatment on the basis of identity, and some left wing people don’t seem to have a problem with CRT (which I think is often used as a general term for any race based class analysis) but also support queer theory which rejects a similar analysis of sex.

@LonginesPrime

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.

Amnesty also legitimise prostitution as "sex work" and believe there is a marked distinction between what they seem to see as 'the vast majority' of prostitutes who apparently freely consent to selling their bodies as a commercial business enterprise and all those other nasty kinds of prostitution that are nothing to do with that whatsoever.

IIRC Amnesty also argued that female prostitution is actually necessary for equality, because it facilitates disabled men's access to sex, which is apparently a human right that Amnesty was seeking to protect by ensuring provision of women's bodies for men to use as 'necessary'.

It doesn't surprise me at all that Amnesty have forgotten to ask women how they experience gender before publishing their gender identity pamphlet - they seem to centre men in everything they do.

Amnesty International have also been involved in a huge scandal about bullying within the organisation.

@Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g

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.

Interestingly, what this article doesn't mention (though the pictures make it fairly obvious) is that Chloe Jennings-White is also male but identifies as a woman.

There have also been a few other cases I have read about where a white man identifies as both a woman and another race; news reports usually accept the identifying-as-a-woman bit as absolutely fine but the trans-racial/trans-abled bit as weird and unacceptable, whereas to me they are clearly part of the same psychological phenomenon.

Just the transwomen? Why does the response never include transmen? All transpeople are created equal but some are more equal than others eh?

For this, and the post to which it is responding, the question also overlooks non-binary or agender people; this does not simply address the gender ideology of those who self-id as trans.

There is a lot to unpack in terms of why these double standards are currently held.

However you saw how quickly a poster came to correct you to their personal belief that a man presenting as a woman is not the same as a TW, and there you see how strong political influence to affect language can affect the situation. And that to some people, they sincerely believe it is more complicated.

To other posters, it's not complicated, and yes, it is the same. They do not hold the same belief on gender identity that a TW is something other than a male person who prefers to name themselves as a TW. And that is ok, because imposing political or religious beliefs on others is not a socially acceptable or legal thing to do.

If you go by objective reality and shared meaning of words, then an adult is not a child. A tall person is not a short person. A black person is not a white person. A male is not a female. A paralysed and unable to walk person is not a walking person. And then yes, there are connotations, political aspects and potential aspects of disrespect in presenting as a characteristic you are in fact not, particularly when you have the power to identify into that characteristic in a way that personally benefits you, but those born into bodies that hold that characteristic 24/7 do not have the same power to identify out and benefit by doing so.

One concept that hasn’t crossed over is the idea that you can be racially fluid and operate in ‘white mode’ or ‘black mode’, I suppose because the inherent privilege would be too obvious. Also the idea that you can choose to opt out of having a race.

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

This is so true. In Mexico there are over a hundred different ethnic groups but although each group does have particular genetic markings, their identities are made up by culture and sometimes language, rather than being genetic.

My kids are mixed race. They vary which box they tick, white, mixed, black. If someone ever compares their history on forms they will be very confused. I have asked them about it and they say they tick the box they feel like ticking on the day. I don't know if this indicates they are very comfortable with who they are or the opposite.

I'm mixed race too. I could truthfully identify as having black heritage and enjoy celebrating and exploring my genetic ancestry - but the bottom line is that no one looking at me would have the faintest hesitation in saying my skin is white. I therefore have no idea what it is like to live as a black person, I have no personal experience of racial prejudice, only the memories of others within the family . I have borrowed ideas of it that I feel personally connected to through that family member. But how can I have any real concept of something I haven't and never will experience as a reality?

But I could, if I was solely interested in my own interest and feelings on the matter, express myself as being mixed race and exploring that identity as if it was exactly the same as a black person's, instead of the reality of a white person's with some very safely distanced connection through family history. And I could build a lot of linguistic bridges to attempt to justify it. I wouldn't, because it would be wrong.

Interesting regarding race. I see what people mean regarding their own identity and rave not being binary in the same way sex is.

It’s such a rich area to op set. It’s a shame there can’t be a healthy discussion about sex and gender.

To discuss.

@Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g

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.

This is an interesting article about this condition. www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2000/12/a-new-way-to-be-mad/304671/

I’ve been wondering this too.

I think it’s because certain powerful lobby groups believe that sex is nonbinary but race is binary. Which is odd, because it’s the other way round in reality. But reality doesn’t bother this kind of people.

And apparently gender appropriation is fine, even encouraged, because the only people it causes problems for are women.

Cultural appropriation is apparently wrong, I’ve never understood why, sounds very apartheid to me.

Any of the above will be used to bully successful women and sabotage their careers. Keep an eye on it and watch how many successful men get attacked when they do the same behaviour. Clue: not many.

It’s just more misogyny in a self-righteous veneer.

Blackface is socially unacceptable; womanface isn't. I know, beats me!

There"s a fundamentalist group - I know, tainted source - that put out a video of vox Pop interviews taken on a US college campus. People were saying they would accept it if the young, white, male interviewer stated he was a 5yo Chinese girl. 🤷🏼‍♀️

Come back, George Orwell, all is forgiven!

White men with blond dreads: cultural appropriation. Adele with Bantu knots: cultural appropriation. Throwaway Mexican hats in a restaurant: cultural appropriation.

Any man in dress, heels, makeup, sashay and falsetto: stunning and brave.

And how about "murdered nurse" Hallowe'en outfit?

*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?8

It's easy, OP. If you offend black people you are racist, which is bad. If you offend women you are misogynistic, which doesn't matter. Black people matter, women don't.

@Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g A fantastic post. I have rarely seen the issue exposed so eloquently.