Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Why can't I claim I'm black or disabled, but can claim I'm a bloke?

190 replies

SirChenjins · 07/03/2023 14:27

I'm none of the above btw...

I realise that sounds flippant and I genuinely don't mean it to be. Can someone please explain in simple terms (I'm still very much learning about the whole gender issue so realise I should probably know this) why I can't claim to be any of the other protected characteristics (and rightly so - because I'm not) but somehow we've got to a stage where I can call myself Mr Dave and everyone is expected to go along with it? Are we likely to see more cases of people challenging the other protected characteristics as time goes on?

OP posts:
SirChenjins · 10/03/2023 09:19

The reason I mentioned disability and race are because they’re protected characteristics btw - the other protected characteristics also apply here so perhaps it would help to think of those as examples.

OP posts:
Cleargreysky · 10/03/2023 09:27

Nationality is as much a social construct as gender where as race has an immutable scientific basis like sex

Is there a scientific basis for race? I mean there used to be racist pseudo-science that argued for differences and inferiorities/ superiorities based on race. I’m genuinely not aware of genuine scientific race theories. I’ve always thought race was pretty much a social construct, and definitely a spectrum, unlike sex which is a binary biological fact.

seXX · 10/03/2023 09:27

I saw this clip last night; Piers Morgan was speaking about the futility of IWD when so many leaders can't even define what a woman is. Angelica Malin was stating how it's complicated and definitions aren't needed and anyone could identify as a woman. PM then states at 4:05 that he could identify as a black lesbian, Angelica says he couldn't because of his skin colour! For the record, I obviously agree that he can't identify as black, or a lesbian but her reaction proves OPs point about why is claiming a different sex apparently acceptable for followers of gender woo?!

m.youtube.com/watch?v=LhlXDI1JSKk

SirChenjins · 10/03/2023 09:50

Much as I hate to find myself agreeing with PM, he’s correct - Angelica just wasn’t able to answer the question.

OP posts:
Ereshkigalangcleg · 10/03/2023 10:16

Angelica waffled on emptily for ages, but it was quite telling that she thought there were only "two genders", with some "gender fluidity".

FlappyValley · 10/03/2023 10:20

The reason I mentioned disability and race are because they’re protected characteristics btw - the other protected characteristics also apply here so perhaps it would help to think of those as examples.

I think this is clear to anyone approaching this conversation in good faith, OP. I cannot fathom the line of argument that deems it “problematic” to use any group to which you don’t belong to illustrate a point or ask a question. Where does it end? I’m mixed race but white passing: am I allowed to?! It makes no sense.

DemiColon · 10/03/2023 10:32

Cleargreysky · 10/03/2023 09:27

Nationality is as much a social construct as gender where as race has an immutable scientific basis like sex

Is there a scientific basis for race? I mean there used to be racist pseudo-science that argued for differences and inferiorities/ superiorities based on race. I’m genuinely not aware of genuine scientific race theories. I’ve always thought race was pretty much a social construct, and definitely a spectrum, unlike sex which is a binary biological fact.

I think the answer to this is both yes and no.

Some people do tend to equate race and ethnicity closely, but in reality they are not the same. Which is why you can have different definitions of race in different places, even between the UK and the US.

I find it helpful to remember that there are not only these regional differences now, but in the past there were more, within groups we now think of as "one". There was a time when many people considered the English and the French, or the Celtic peoples, as different "races" with different characteristics. Not only cultural, but biological, and these could be a real locus for prejudices.

Of course also in these instances, there were some real connections. But they also are hardly discrete groups. Nor are all the people in Africa, who happen to have darker skin, one group, many are not all that closely related though others are - it's a big continent after all.

The idea of race as a science depends on creating lines that are largely arbitrary, or could be drawn in different places. So you get people in the US who are mixed race - just as much of, say, Scottish as African descent, who are black ,or even Black - what that really means is how they look to others, but that's social, not scientific. Human ancestry isn't really all that amenable to that kind of approach, it's much too multi-faceted.

WillBeAbsolutelyFine · 10/03/2023 10:37

What I find unsurprising here is that someone with a disability has vehemently spoken out against the OP many posts ago and none but one person had a go at them.

But as usual, once race is mentioned, no matter how gently, all the pitchforks and 'I'm mixed race' posters come out of the woodwork and suddenly can never understand the point that's been made nor let go of said point and carry on with what they do care about, like a pitbull with a bone.

Shelefttheweb · 10/03/2023 10:48

Mixed race? Do you mean me saying race is not binary? Do you really think race is made up just of black people, white people, and those that are a mixture of black and white?

WillBeAbsolutelyFine · 10/03/2023 10:55

I have no idea what you're on about or where you came from. You may want to read the posts carefully, not selectively read so you don't assume what someone really thinks or that they're talking about you when you're not the only one posting, especially if their post isn't directly after yours.

Wellies54 · 10/03/2023 12:56

Isn't it more interesting to discuss what 'identify as' means? What strikes me is that any kind of identification which is based on untruth is essentially narcissistic and about control. For example, when Oli London identified as Korean it was a superficial, visual identity. A person from the UK could immerse themselves in a culture, learn a language, live in a country and contribute by working there, but so often it is just about a look. The same with men identifying as women. If they love the idea of womanhood they could take an interest in women's concerns, work in a female dominated profession, look after the kids and home. The fact that it's all about appearance and taking over the meaning of the word 'woman' , forcing others to acknowledge them as something they are clearly not shows it is superficial and about them being controlling.

2022again · 10/03/2023 13:43

Cleargreysky · 10/03/2023 09:27

Nationality is as much a social construct as gender where as race has an immutable scientific basis like sex

Is there a scientific basis for race? I mean there used to be racist pseudo-science that argued for differences and inferiorities/ superiorities based on race. I’m genuinely not aware of genuine scientific race theories. I’ve always thought race was pretty much a social construct, and definitely a spectrum, unlike sex which is a binary biological fact.

Exactly!! i'm sure eugenicists might try and pull some "research" out on the difference between "races", this was what the Nazi's spent rather a lot of time doing.
If we ONLY determine protected characteristics on the basis of how people look then of course someone who's had breast implants, genital surgery and takes female hormones is a woman.....in this view of the world, to be a transman/woman is equal to defining someone's race.
Equally we would only then classify someone to be disabled on the basis of visible disability rather than eg. autism, learning disability.
However sex is "luckily" rather more easy to define as it is based on DNA albeit with exceptions for those who are intersex or have conditions such as androgen insensitivity or other rare sexual development genetic disorders.

Nooyoiknooyoik · 10/03/2023 13:50

Wellies54 · 10/03/2023 12:56

Isn't it more interesting to discuss what 'identify as' means? What strikes me is that any kind of identification which is based on untruth is essentially narcissistic and about control. For example, when Oli London identified as Korean it was a superficial, visual identity. A person from the UK could immerse themselves in a culture, learn a language, live in a country and contribute by working there, but so often it is just about a look. The same with men identifying as women. If they love the idea of womanhood they could take an interest in women's concerns, work in a female dominated profession, look after the kids and home. The fact that it's all about appearance and taking over the meaning of the word 'woman' , forcing others to acknowledge them as something they are clearly not shows it is superficial and about them being controlling.

Oh so true

SirChenjins · 10/03/2023 16:17

Absolutely agree @Wellies54

OP posts:
Wellies54 · 10/03/2023 16:47

Something else occurred to me. Humans are predisposed to role play, act, make believe. Story telling, song, dance, acting, are all about telling a story and the audience suspends their disbelief. Humans have pretended to be people and sometimes animals for all of eternity. Think about fairy stories - they are full of people changing form or pretending to be something they are not. Sometimes it is to con others, sometimes for fun, sometimes to achieve an aim. There will always be a few rare and remarkable cases in which people take things to a new level e.g. the case of Sacheen Little Feather, the famous Native American activist who has been revealed after her death to be of Spanish-Mexican descent, or Anna Delvey who convinced many people that she was an heiress until she was found out. But these are so rare they do not have great cultural or social significance.

Also, men have always dressed as women, women have always dressed as men in the theatre, for fancy dress, drag, fetish, comedy. It's part of our culture. But people have always known where to draw the line.

What has changed is the internet. We know that Men + sex + the internet is having a great effect on our society. Online communities and the proliferation of porn are creating larger communities of men with the same interests. They have found each other and drawn others in. This gives them power and the confidence to push boundaries, to break taboos, to expose what would once have been behind closed doors. No other group of 'impersonators' is such a large homogenised group with such a strong motivation.

Role playing is a game humans have always played and Gender Ideology is a game. I believe those playing the game, know that this is the case and are pushing it further and further. It began as going out 'dressed as a woman' along a continuum to 'changing the law to say that I am a woman and anyone who says I am not will be vilified' They are seeing who they can manipulate to play along. They are having fun with the contradictions. Think of all of the amazing contradictions here:

A man in a dress is a woman and yet EVERY other form of cultural appropriation or assumed 'identity' as addressed here, is social death.
There are women who join violent, aggressive men protesting against feminists
Charities set up to promote gay rights advocating for the sterilisation of children and bullying of lesbians
Women who oppose young women having double mastectomies being told they are fascists
Schools throwing safeguarding out of the window
Victims of crime, courts, having sworn an oath to tell the truth, being ordered to refer to their rapist as 'she'
Children being told that parents who love them and tell them they are perfect are hateful bigots
Victims of male violence being told by the organisations set up to support them that they must accept males in their sanctuary and reframe their trauma
Intelligent, well educated, experienced politicians being totally flawed by a simple question about whether a rapist is a man or a woman or whether only women have a cervix.

So a very long winded way to say, OP, that the answer to your question is that yes this is a massive contradiction and that's the point - it is all part of the game.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Swipe left for the next trending thread