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?

I'd be interested what explanation TRAs would give.

It seems mad to me that you can self-identify as a woman even while having a beard and a penis and women are expected to shut up about it even though this ideology is actually physically dangerous for women and girls, but if you have tanned skin and look Black (but are racially white) you must be very careful not to associate with any part of Black culture because that's racist.

Framing a contested allegation in the form "If Jesy Nelson is called out for presenting with black women’s characteristics but with the privilege of being white..." makes it sound as if she has in fact done something wrong.

She has been accused of a particularly nasty motive for using fake tan or having tanned skin and curled hair while singing. But it's not a fact that she has done that. As I understand it, she has rejected that, explained that she has grown up around a certain genre of music and that's what she's steeped in - and she also apologised.

It's not clear beyond doubt that she has done anything wrong, let alone trying to pass herself off as something she's not. It's contentious, with people arguing back and forth from different sides.

If she’s being called out….she is being called out. I don’t say if I agree either way.

@BFrazzled, thanks!

It is a 'hot' topic. As mentioned above, the UCU (University College Union) which has been in the Press only recently, is an enthusiastic advocate for transracialism, and has included being able to self-id as black in its national policy.

In the US in 2017 Dr. Rebecca Tuvel addressed this question in her paper;

In Defence of Transracialism

It was originally published in the feminist philosophy journal Hypatia, but a social media pile-on resulted, provoked by the editors themselves, suggesting that the subject hit a very raw nerve amongst the advocates for self-id. Dr. Tuvel's experiences after the original publication is detailed in her interview at People were absolutely vicious towards me

Notably, amongst her critics and online abusers were a number of self-declared bigots , similar to those who are currently abusing Dr. Kathleen Stock (also a feminist philosopher) and who made it clear that they have not read the paper in question;

Many people who signed the letter and commented on the paper admitted to not having even read it

(extract)
In this article, I argue that considerations that support transgenderism extend to transracialism. Given this parity, since we should accept transgender individuals’ decisions to change sexes, we should also accept transracial individuals’ decisions to change races. I entertain and reject four objections that suggest a society should not accept an individual’s decision to change races. I then turn to Sally Haslanger to argue for an account of race that allows for racial membership on the basis of social treatment, and, I will add, self-identification. I conclude that if some individuals genuinely feel like or identify as a member of a race other than the one assigned to them at birth—so strongly to the point of seeking a transition to the other race—we should accept their decision to change races.

After throwing Dr. Tuvel under-a-bus, and despite reorganised and later being taken-on by Cambridge University Press (and changing its Twitter account due to the adverse feedback it received) Hypatia is pretty much a 'dead' journal, not rightly trusted by potential contributors or subscribers and one that is not best seen adorning an academics coffee table.

@thinkingaboutLangCleg

*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.

I know what you mean, but is it that black people are genuinely seen as mattering (I think many would disagree) or is it more that currently a certain type of person and group who often hold a lot of power and public voice are currently finding black people's rights a fashionable cause and to provide useful publicity for themselves, and like to be seen speaking in support of them?

Supporting women is currently right out of fashion.

This kind of 'equality' is terrifying; based on no real values or beliefs but on what currently serves popular people to be seen to be believing. Which means vulnerable groups can only hope they manage to stay in fashion.

@Artichokeleaves

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.

Different to my kids then as they don't look white but people can't actually identify what their heritage is. A typical "Where do you really come from" situation. Have been identified as Spanish, Moroccan, Egyptian, Indian, Italian and Afro Caribbean and probably more I don't remember. Maybe no surprise if they get confused.

Which means vulnerable groups can only hope they manage to stay in fashion.

And don’t threaten the status quo.

It’s striking that ‘allies’ seem to hold a lot of power in progressive circles.

Basically because misogyny, sexism, and patriarchy are part of the furniture. Taken for granted rather than taken seriously.

So much so that some even deem the comparison offensive! Yet as has been pointed out, "race" is a social construct, while sex differences are biological and significant.

Oppression based on both is, of course, very real.

JennieTheZebra

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.

Thank you for the explanation.
(I did touch on postmodern theory as part of my degree, but more from the POV of having many subjective realities rather than an ultimate truth.)

The thing I don't understand about this is: if it's just the subjective inner world that matters, we all have our own reality, blah blah... Then why are they trying to change laws and insisting everyone agree with their viewpoint? Can't they understand that everyone else also has their own unique viewpoint and inner world that is most important to them? And if they are acknowledging the shared reality of the world, things like laws and social behaviour (and trying to change these), how can they completely disregard other aspects of it?

Or, to put it another way...
Why is a transwoman's internal identity as a woman more valid than our identities as women (based on factors that do not include transwomen in the definition of "women")?
If their internal identity overrides everything else, why does it matter so much that we agree with them?

cocmump that amnesty link didn’t address op’s question.
I went to it thinking ‘ok finally an article which might start to address this very logical question - let’s see what they say’ - it was simply about how to be a trans ally.