Threads

See more results

Topics

Usernames

Mumsnet Logo
Please
or
to access all these features

Can someone explain why transgend is OK but transracial is not?
144

speakout · 20/09/2022 09:49

I am trying to understand the arguements.
My niece and I have been trying to find reasoned arguments or points of view to understand why transgender and transracial are so "completely different".
Other than the " if you can't see the difference you must be stupid".
Anyone found some logical explanation?

OP's posts:
Please
or
to access all these features

Sidaway · 20/09/2022 09:57

No, but that's a really good question! I'd like to know as well.

Please
or
to access all these features

WorkingItOutAsIGo · 20/09/2022 09:57

There is no logic or reason. It’s a matter of faith and belief, not rationality.

Please
or
to access all these features

StickywithSuncream · 20/09/2022 10:04

I’d like to know how this is justified also.

Please
or
to access all these features

timeofillusion · 20/09/2022 10:09

Because most of the 'loud' opinions put forward by transsexuals are made by men. The few transracial people are women. I very much doubt it's anything more than that.

Please
or
to access all these features

Halstead · 20/09/2022 10:10

timeofillusion · 20/09/2022 10:09

Because most of the 'loud' opinions put forward by transsexuals are made by men. The few transracial people are women. I very much doubt it's anything more than that.

Nailed it.

Please
or
to access all these features

Raul57 · 20/09/2022 10:10

Live and let live. Move along nothing to see here.

Please
or
to access all these features

speakout · 20/09/2022 10:13

It makes no sense. I have read arguments and discussions regarding this, why it isn’t okay for a white person to identify as black. It’s racist, it’s cultural appropriation it denies the hardship and power disparity that black people have suffered historically and still in the present day. We are told as white people we can never understand what it is to be black- the baggage, the discrimination, the
financial disparity,the many aspects that still leave black people at a advantage.
And I agree with that. As a white person I can never truly know what it is to be black- I can educate myself, examine my own priviledge and do what I can to help dismantle racism.
So while I agree and value that argument, surely much of this applies to women too, who have carried and still carry unfair burdens.been treated appalingliy in the past- almost as chattle, own a very unfair share of global wealth, and still continue to be discriminated against. How can a man really understand what is is to be a woman?
But it seems even trying to discuss these issues merits being closed down, labelled a transphobe or a terf, racist or just thick not to see the difference. I haven’t heard one single decent argument in defence.

OP's posts:
Please
or
to access all these features

speakout · 20/09/2022 10:15

Raul57 · 20/09/2022 10:10

Live and let live. Move along nothing to see here.

Glad you are happy. You don't have to join the thread- and you absolutely emphasise my point- there are many who don't want these discussions.

OP's posts:
Please
or
to access all these features

Helleofabore · 20/09/2022 10:20

I am parking myself here. I would like to see the answer. It has been asked numerous times and crickets!

Maybe this time you will be lucky OP!!

Please
or
to access all these features

NecessaryScene · 20/09/2022 10:20

One is that that the Woke "systems" for race and "gender" come from completely different, incompatible "academic" theorising. One's from "queer theory", which tries to blur all boundaries, and the other is from "critical race theory", which insists boundaries are sacrosanct, along with some sort of concept of original sin.

If you applied queer theory to race, then it would be your duty to "queer" racial boundaries.

If you applied critical race theory to sex, you could argue about the historical oppression of women, and how men couldn't just opt in to that history of oppression.

And these things can be different, because they're just pseudo-academic waffle with no real attachment to reality. There's no attempt to make a "universal model" with one set of rules. It's different rules applied by different people.

Some poor philosopher got in trouble a couple of years ago for trying to figure this out - she tried to reconcile them by saying "why not?" to racial identity. This managed to upset both Woke sides; the "trans" side were upset at the suggestion that their identity was in any way not innate - obviously it was a real thing, unlike any other choose-you-own-identity claim. And the "race" side were upset at her suggestion that racial identity could be a thing.

You can look the Wikipedia article on that, although I don't think learn much to answer your original question, but you can admire the histrionics.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypatia_transracialism_controversy

The best I've seen them do as an argument is that you can look at a whole community, and they'll be of one race, but every community has males and females. Therefore you can identify a separate disadvantaged black community, but you can't identity a separate disadvantaged female community. Every man has a woman in his family, therefore the female identity and any oppression is part of his culture (inherited from his mum!), unlike the identity of a different race.

Something like that seems to be where they end up if you keep pushing.

In practice, people particularly in America will use the "self-id" principle for race, if they don't care to call you out. Maya Forstater's employer in her tribunal did say that they would accept Rachel Dolezal as black, because they use self ID as policy. Individual actors, including companies, will not dare to challenge a race claim.

But the mob will challenge it,just like they would challenge any "cultural appropriation claim".

As a previous poster has said though, there is probably a more fundamental reason why the two have ended up different - "queer theory" was invented by and pushed by boundary-breaking men. It's a rationalisation of what men want - no boundaries. And the "critical race theory" thing is a rationalisation of what a particular type of activist wants - continued racial grievance with clear boundaries to keep themselves in work. They're both constructed to achieve activist goals, not actually neutral academic studies, and they have different goals.

("Constructed to" might be a bit strong, but certainly they've evolutionary adapted to fill those roles, and it's clear that they attract proponents of those goals.)

Please
or
to access all these features

stickynoter · 20/09/2022 10:29

Glad you are happy. You don't have to join the thread- and you absolutely emphasise my point- there are many who don't want these discussions.

Nobody has said we don't want these discussions but if someone is transgender or transracial and it has no impact on you then why get so caught up in it

If someone is transgender and happy (and not harming anyone else in doing so) accept it

If someone is transracial and happy, (and not harming anyone else in doing so) accept it

Please
or
to access all these features

Lilithslove · 20/09/2022 10:30

I think the difference is that gender dysphoria is a recognised condition which has been around for a long time where as race dysphoria isn't. But the whole thing has been confounded by thee new thinking that someone doesn't need dysphoria to be trans and NB identities.

Please
or
to access all these features

speakout · 20/09/2022 10:31

NecessaryScene yes thanks, I have just been listening to a (two hour long!) podcast about exactly this.
I am still none the wiser.
If queer ideology wants to blur gender boundaries then why are transgender people so keen to preserve it- their gender identity relies on the existing constructs.
I am no further forward!

OP's posts:
Please
or
to access all these features

threecupsofteaminimum · 20/09/2022 10:33

I'd love to know too

Please
or
to access all these features

FrankTheThunderbird · 20/09/2022 10:34

It's obvious isn't it?

It's because of the...
And then there's the...
And don't forget the...

Yea. I have no idea either.

Please
or
to access all these features

StillWeRise · 20/09/2022 10:36

nobody can explain it because it defies logic and science
sex is an objective biological category that has a clear purpose- on top of that we have gender, a social/cultural construct which varies with time and place and usually operated to the detriment of women
race is totally a cultural construct which varies with time and place- although there are features of 'race' which are genetically controlled (like skin colour say) the purpose of these and the meaning assigned to them are cultural. Consider that there is more genetic variation within the continent of Africa than outside it. Yet from a white perspective all those African people are coded 'black' and the same. Of course within Africa the differences between different tribes have meaning and can be observed. But in the global North the significant difference is 'white' vs 'black' so that's what drives racism.
Because 'race' is a cultural construct it makes far more logical sense for the boundaries of race to be fluid and for someone to be able to identify into or out of a race. Although I accept that because of the power imbalance inherent in the cultural construct it would be insulting and nonsensical to do so. But not illogical.

Please
or
to access all these features

speakout · 20/09/2022 10:39

FrankTheThunderbird · 20/09/2022 10:34

It's obvious isn't it?

It's because of the...
And then there's the...
And don't forget the...

Yea. I have no idea either.

I have asked this question several times- online and in real life.
And yes I have been told it "is obvious" or I am asking a stupid question=.
.

OP's posts:
Please
or
to access all these features

NecessaryScene · 20/09/2022 10:39

I am no further forward!

You never will be. There's no internal "answer" here, within the systems, in a logical sense. The most you will get is "rationales" that you can't fully reconcile.

This isn't maths, or physics, or any sort of rigorous philosophy.

The answers are external - about the social forces driving those making the claims, and why some claims are accepted and others aren't. You need to approach this as a sort of anthropological study to see what desires and external forces lead people to believe what they believe say what they say. (Corrected - who knows what they believe?)

And yes, you're right, even within the gender stuff, there's internal inconsistencies, and it's not stable - the "infinite genders" stuff does not mesh well with the "I need to wear huge prosthetic breasts to school cos I'm a woman" or "children need puberty blockers" logic.

Please
or
to access all these features

Helleofabore · 20/09/2022 10:41

If someone is transgender and happy (and not harming anyone else in doing so) accept it

If someone is transracial and happy, (and not harming anyone else in doing so) accept it

And there is the point.

Only someone who views males demanding priority when the rights of female people are in conflict as not harming the females who need those protections to remain focused on females, as righteous, would deny ‘harm’ being done to the class of people who are female.

When we consider the rights of all females, of women and girls, we view this collectively, as a category analysis based on a sex class. Not on an individual by individual case.

This is in effect moving focus so ‘my mate is kind and gentle and caring’ can be used to distract from the cumulative effect of ‘case by case’, or that even that mate is potentially causing females harm in the changes they seek.

Please
or
to access all these features

BloodyHellKen · 20/09/2022 10:42

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Please
or
to access all these features

pattihews · 20/09/2022 10:43

speakout · 20/09/2022 09:49

I am trying to understand the arguements.
My niece and I have been trying to find reasoned arguments or points of view to understand why transgender and transracial are so "completely different".
Other than the " if you can't see the difference you must be stupid".
Anyone found some logical explanation?

That's something that many of us have asked time and time again, OP. No one has ever been able to answer it.

Fred Sergeant, who was at the Stonewall riots in 1969, was attacked by TRAs while carrying a sign saying no to black-face and woman-face — ie, he was saying that you can't simply become a woman or black by identifying as a woman or black. He was knocked to the ground for carrying that sign.

Please
or
to access all these features

BloodyHellKen · 20/09/2022 10:45

pattihews · 20/09/2022 10:43

That's something that many of us have asked time and time again, OP. No one has ever been able to answer it.

Fred Sergeant, who was at the Stonewall riots in 1969, was attacked by TRAs while carrying a sign saying no to black-face and woman-face — ie, he was saying that you can't simply become a woman or black by identifying as a woman or black. He was knocked to the ground for carrying that sign.

@pattihews The assault on Fred Sargeant was a disgrace and I'm glad it has received coverage in the press (mainly US)

Please
or
to access all these features

TheClogLady · 20/09/2022 10:47

I think the difference is buried deep in Queer Theory v Critical Race Theory (which sound like they are more closely related than they are, but they are more like second cousins than siblings).

I might’ve heard James Lindsay explain the lore but I forget where…

Please
or
to access all these features

Musomama1 · 20/09/2022 10:47

No idea, and I've used this when debating about 'identity', how people stop belief at identifying as a different ethnicity but not as a different sex.

OP, with regards to your niece, I imagine that's because there are no loud lobby groups pushing trans racialism! Maybe she could explain her position further?

Please
or
to access all these features

pantsofshame · 20/09/2022 10:48

When I've had this discussion with family members it seems to come down to a belief that:
a) women as a class are not really being oppressed now (at least in the western world)- the 'we have had 3 female prime ministers so the problem must be fixed' argument. So identifying as a woman is not identifying in to an oppressed culture; and
b) Even if a) is not true, transwomen are MORE oppressed so still not the same.

Please
or
to access all these features
Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

Sign up to continue reading

Mumsnet's better when you're logged in. You can customise your experience and access way more features like messaging, watch and hide threads, voting and much more.

Already signed up?