Why is it seen as acceptable for a person be born the wrong sex but not the wrong ethnicity?

[goldtinged]

I saw a somewhat recent article about Rachel Dolezal, the caucasian American woman who identifies as a black woman, and it made me wonder. Why is this clearly wrong but it is (largely) socially acceptable for a man to identify as a woman? She says she has always felt she was a black person from a young age, and she was denounced for this. But if you denounce a man for saying he identifies as a woman, you are a bigot?

Sorry if this is a thick question, I really don’t understand why one is wrong and the other isn’t (I know it is wrong to GC feminists but I mean widely speaking it isn’t seen as wrong). I understand why it is wrong to pretend to be a black person, just in case that isn’t clear.

Israel is not the only ethno-state in the world - but it is the only Jewish one. There is no law saying that the Head of State must be Jewish, either; unlike in many countries in which the Head of State must be of a particular caste, denomination or religion.

It is, though, the one that British and other Leftists get most irate about. Most other religions and ethnicities have nation states ( or multiple nation states) which represent and protect their interests and culture; but you don't see weekly marches against them; or even that much interest in them at all.

At least Israel is multi-cultural and has a diverse ethnic population; including many muslims - who also have equal rights and a vote; and are to be found in every walk of public life.

Sixty percent of the Israeli population is either Sephardic or Mizrahi - with roots directly in the Middle East

Because, I think it IS the superior position. Just like I think being gender critical is the superior position, that Marmite is brilliant and we REALLY should stop the boats.

what a lot of opinions human beings have.

It’s an apartheid state set up where an awful lot of other people were already living - because the rest of the world felt justifiably guilty about having let the holocaust happen but were still too antisemitic to let Jews set up Israel in their own back yard.

look how well it’s worked out 76 years later.

I don’t have an alternative. But there again, I’m not a politician. Just a human being with opinions.

Those who latch themselves onto whatever is the current social issue that will gain them the most woke points. The faux-woke. Often they are male. They like to call themselves feminists then tell women what we should accept.

Regarding my post, I have attended inclusivity trainings (run by men) where there is a pie chart of inequality and transgender people are always listed as the most disadvantaged in all categories. It’s not up for discussion whatsoever. So this is why I said women come last in the hierarchy of disadvantaged groups as viewed (or rather decided) by this group. It’s virtue signalling, at the expense of women.

But 'pride' is suggestive of a certain moral superiority too.

Clearly I think it is the morally superior position, otherwise I would not hold it.

I hold many positions I believe to be superior, otherwise why the hell would I hold them? Rolled a dice? Picked it out of a hat? Like the font it was printed with?

You have no understanding of the word apartheid, clearly.

Israel does not operate apartheid .All citizens, including Muslims, Baha, Bedouin and Druze have the vote. There is no law against inter-marriage, and all citizens can be represented in the Knesset. Israeli Arabs can be found in all occupations and walks of life.

Having been to South Africa when apartheid was in operation I can safely say that Israel is in no way like South Africa - where black people were not allowed on certain sections of beach; could not be out after 8pm at night in certain areas; where inter-marriage was illegal, and so on.

The land of the former kingdom of Israel and Kingdom of Judah has been inabited, and ruled, by many peoples over the centuries. The Jewish people were amongst the first - given that Judaism is the world's oldest religion by almost a thousand years, and Jersualem ( the site of the first Jewish temple) is the holy site for Jewish people. Medina and Mecca are Islam's two holiest sites - and they are in Saudi Arabia.

It is a mediterranean land - much of which was desert ( and still is) or unihabitable swamp -traversed by nomadic bedouins,whilst wealthier arabs ( who originally came from Arabia) lived in cities such as Beirut, Damascus and Aleppo. Besides, most of Israel's population also have direct origins in the region - coming from Iraq, Persia ( Iran), Egypt, Morocco, Yemen......amd from Israel itself.

What do you think is superior about your anti zionism?

Hang on. There's a big difference between, (on the one hand) Marmite being brilliant (or not), and (on the other hand) stopping the boats (or not), being gender critical (or not) and being pro- or anti-Zionist.

-- Or are you really suggesting that morality is just a question of (no different from ...) taste?

Think about it. De gustibus non disputandum ... ('there's no arguing about taste ...') ... , but you might be right or wrong about Zionism and/or asylum seekers etc. depending on your reasons for such (moral) beliefs.

So, yes, people may have different opinions. But these opinions themselves need distinguishing; (mere) taste is not the same as opinion on moral questions.

Tldr: Your opinion that anti-Zionism is superior requires justification that your opinion that Marmite is brilliant doesn't. In the light of which we are likely to wonder what your justification is. Hmm ...?

Sex, the answer is sex.

Other people have said similar upthread. Race appropriation pisses some men off because it impacts them. Gender ideology mostly benefits men.

Some men thought women were getting too many rights, so they've 'identified' a way to erode them whilst claiming it is progressive.

If it impacted men's rights it would not be happening.

The belief that men should not wear dresses in public because of gendered stereotypes and expectations - that is a matter of taste.

The belief that men should not wear dresses in public because they force other people to be unconsenting participants in their sexual fetish - that is certainly a superior position, as it takes into account the well-being of others, rather than just prejudice.

Morality is not absolute it’s always ALWAYS subjective. As subjective as marmite.

No. Your "Morality is not absolute it's always subjective," itself expresses a moral proposition, which, if true, is false. So it's false.

--Consider, also, the possibility of moral disagreement, and then consider the truth of de gustibus non disputandum est.

Morality is not absolute it’s always ALWAYS subjective. As subjective as marmite.

Whether or not an individual likes Marmite has no impact on others. Morality is irrelevant. But if that individual obliges others to eat or abstain from Marmite against their will, then it does have an impact on others, and becomes an issue of morality.

Morality is subjective - issues with people are subjected to are issue of morality.

Much as I love Marmite, it would be immoral of me to require that everyone eats Marmite.

You can use big words off the internet as much as you like.

morality is always subjective.

... But - morally speaking - is it always subjective that morality is always subjective? Or is it just (absolutely) true? Because if it is absolutely true, morally speaking, since it says it isn't (and it's true), it isn't.

As I said, if it's true, it's false. So it's false.

And if it is always subjective, it isn't absolutely true. So it's false.

If it's true it's false and if it's false it's false. So it's false.

See?

tl;dr

your words are worthless. Morality and ethics are subjective.

You don't understand. That's OK.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

Actually, some of chat gpt’s responses are extremely interesting and are EXACTLY the reason it’s wrong for a man to claim to be a woman:

‘…is considered problematic because it appropriates a culture, history, and lived experience that is deeply tied to systemic oppression and historical context. It often ignores the real discrimination that people […..of that race - or women] face and can be seen as taking on the "identity" without facing the same challenges’.

Men don’t share our ‘lived experience’, never mind our biology, and it’s both offensive and scientific nonsense for them to claim to do so.

Chat GTP isn't capable of any critical thinking so just regurgitates trans activist catch phrases. If the person who programmed Chat GTP has those biases then so will Chat GTP. And worse - people who express opposing arguments on the internet are often deleted and banned, which has the effect of censoring opposing arguments which Chat GTP might otherwise be able to pick up on.

I’m suggesting that the ‘argument’ that CGTP presents for why it’s offensive to cosplay a race is exactly the same argument for why it’s offensive when men play women.

Sorry, yes, I get what you were saying.

My comment is more that Chat GPT is just regurgitating trans activist arguments, which are shit. Chat GTP isn't capable of understanding that there is no difference between what it is saying about identifying as a different race being offensive due to the history of racial oppression, and and identifying as a woman being offensive due to the history of sex based oppression. It isn't capable of critically examining the arguments it is making, which shows the limitations of AI. To put it crudely, you put shit in, you get shit out.

In a way this is reassuring because it shows that AI isn't actually all that intelligent and that there is no substitute for proper human brain power. But on the other hand it's terrifying, because the risk is that we will rely so much on AI that everything will become dumbed down to the limit of what AI is capable of, and the personal biases of the people who programmed the AI will become established in places they have no business being. For example, democratically elected human politicians could debate a new law using their human capacity for critical thought and debate, and then confide the legislative drafting to AI which will put a trans activist slant on it because that's what the programmers believe.

Try asking it in reverse: why is it OK to identify as another race but not ok for men to identify as women.
I tried this on another AI app and it didn't answer this question. It answered the original question instead.