Transgender

[ShanDog]

Please be aware that the tolerance of anti-trans language on BF is at an all-time low. Jokes and insults that are trans-related, as well as anti-trans and bigoted rhetoric will be met with infractions, threadbans etc as required. It's a sensitive (and important) topic, so behave like well-mannered adults when discussing it, PARTICULARLY when disagreeing. This equally applies across the whole site.

 

[FireKrakouer]

But in genetic terms, race is not necessarily a real division. Gender most definitely is – there are chromosomal differences. Hence my post above. If we're all about "fluid identity", then being transracial is less of a leap than being transgender.

I'm certainly no expert in the field, but people feeling that they belong to the opposite gender seems to be something that occurs worldwide to around 0.5% of people (that's the last stat I read, correct me if I'm wrong). With billions of people on earth, that makes for a lot of trans people. Whereas there is only one prominent case of someone being trans racial.

I get your point, but with powerful hormones acting on the brain, feeling masculine or feminine is an instinctive feeling, with associated behavior. Feeling "black" or "white" is not. Knowing what other cultures are like is a learned thing, whereas I believe that feeling like a male or a female is a more ingrained, natural thing.

I have worded this horribly, but hope my point comes across.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I'm certainly no expert in the field, but people feeling that they belong to the opposite gender seems to be something that occurs worldwide to around 0.5% of people (that's the last stat I read, correct me if I'm wrong). With billions of people on earth, that makes for a lot of trans people. Whereas there is only one prominent case of someone being trans racial.

With all due respect, so what?

Surely the question about what kind of identity is fluid can't boil down to a question of "how many".

If there were more people claiming to be transracial, only then would it become a thing? Surely we should address the claim on its merits, whether there's one person or 1 million?

I get your point, but with powerful hormones acting on the brain, feeling masculine or feminine is an instinctive feeling, with associated behavior. Feeling "black" or "white" is not. Knowing what other cultures are like is a learned thing, whereas I believe that feeling like a male or a female is a more ingrained, natural thing.

Yeah but doesn't that suggest that someone could be born ethnically Caucasian but come to identify as African-American? If it's learned behaviour then that should be no problem at all.

Religion is a learned behaviour, so you can be born into a Christian family but eventually identify as something else. Is racial identity different to that?

The people criticising Rachel Dolezal were saying something quite different: if you're not born black then you can't learn it.

But being transracial is a far lower hurdle genetically/biologically than being transgender.

If people can be born male but come to identify as female, why can't someone be born ethnically Caucasian but come to identify as African-American?

 

[ShanDog]

But in genetic terms, race is not necessarily a real division. Gender most definitely is – there are chromosomal differences. Hence my post above. If we're all about "fluid identity", then being transracial is less of a leap than being transgender.

The physiological differences between different ethic or racial groups is quite clear. Craniology is another topic altogether. Blurring the difference between culture and biology is where this issue becomes silly IMO. You can feel like you belong to any cultural group you want - but telling me you ARE the race/ethnicity associated with the group because you feel like it is essentially nonsense.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

The physiological differences between different ethic or racial groups is quite clear.

But genetic differences?

The genetic differences between races are not as profound as the genetic differences between genders.

So being transracial should be a lower hurdle to clear than being transgender.

Blurring the difference between culture and biology is where this issue becomes silly IMO. You can feel like you belong to any cultural group you want - but telling me you ARE the race/ethnicity associated with the group because you feel like it is essentially nonsense.

Is it nonsense to say you ARE a certain gender because you feel like it?

I'm kind of hoping that someone can tell me I'm missing a crucial piece of the puzzle here.

 

[ShanDog]

But genetic differences?

The genetic differences between races are not as profound as the genetic differences between genders.

So being transracial should be a lower hurdle to clear than being transgender.

Is it nonsense to say you ARE a certain gender because you feel like it?

I'm kind of hoping that someone can tell me I'm missing a crucial piece of the puzzle here.

Genetics play the vast majority part in your appearance. They determine if you are black, have Asian facial features, are tall or short, and whether you are male or female. I'm not sure what the contentious issue is here. Genetics (and it's manifested physiology in humans) are one thing. Cultural groups are another. They overlap a lot, but that's circumstantial.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Genetics play the vast majority part in your appearance. They determine if you are black, have Asian facial features, are tall or short, and whether you are male or female.

But do you understand that as a matter of genetics, racial differences are negligible? The genetic differences between ethnicities are minor compared to the genetic differences between genders.

So in terms of genetics, being transracial is a small matter compared to being transgender.

Is that point not clear? I'm not sure how to say it otherwise.

I'm not sure what the contentious issue is here.

I feel like I've laid it out quite a few times.

If someone born male can come to identify as female, why can't someone born Caucasian come to identify as African-American?

You said: "telling me you ARE the race/ethnicity associated with the group because you feel like it is essentially nonsense". Does the same apply to someone claiming to be a different gender because they feel like it?

Why can someone be transgender but not transracial?

Genetics (and it's manifested physiology in humans) are one thing. Cultural groups are another. They overlap a lot, but that's circumstantial.

I'm not sure what you're saying here.

Is race a matter of biology/genetics or merely a "cultural group"?

Because if it's merely a matter of culture, then that should make it even more acceptable for someone to come to "identify" with another culture. Why would that be a problem? It's basically Dances With Wolves.

 

[ShanDog]

But do you understand that as a matter of genetics, racial differences are negligible? The genetic differences between ethnicities are minor compared to the genetic differences between genders.

So in terms of genetics, being transracial is a small matter compared to being transgender.

Is that point not clear? I'm not sure how to say it otherwise.

I feel like I've laid it out quite a few times.

If someone born male can come to identify as female, why can't someone born Caucasian come to identify as African-American?

You said: "telling me you ARE the race/ethnicity associated with the group because you feel like it is essentially nonsense". Does the same apply to someone claiming to be a different gender because they feel like it?

Why can someone be transgender but not transracial?

I'm not sure what you're saying here.

Is race a matter of biology/genetics or merely a "cultural group"?

Because if it's merely a matter of culture, then that should make it even more acceptable for someone to come to "identify" with another culture. Why would that be a problem? It's basically Dances With Wolves.

Sorry, I thought I was pretty clear. I'm trying to make it clear there is a difference between culture and race for the purposes of this discussion. You've said that the genetic differences between races are small, but that's not been supported by any evidence you've provided, nor does it change the matter at all if true. There's difference - that's not in question.

Regarding the circumstantial nature of race and culture - culture is simply a shared value and behaviour system between people. Race has nothing to do with that other than circumstances - meaning people of the same race (i.e. who have closely related genetic ancestry that creates similar physiological appearances and biological characteristics) happen to make up the majority of groups and therefore set the culture. But the two things (race and culture) are separate.

With that in mind, a person cannot be a member of a race when their genetics are not. The same applies in a strict sense to gender. But, if you "identify" with another cultural group or gender that's fine. Whatever. Out of courtesy, I'll even refer to you as your chosen pronoun (unless it's bloody xer or something else silly - another conversation entirely).

Does that clarify it?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Sorry, I thought I was pretty clear. I'm trying to make it clear there is a difference between culture and race for the purposes of this discussion. You've said that the genetic differences between races are small, but that's not been supported by any evidence you've provided, nor does it change the matter at all if true. There's difference - that's not in question.

The genetic differences in gender vastly exceed the genetic differences in race. Gender differences are chromosomal. Racial differences are minor in comparison. We share 99.9% of our DNA, regardless of race or ethnicity.

I'm not a geneticist, clearly. But there's quite a bit of literature on this, indicating the consensus among biologists that race is mostly a social construct - they now talk more about "ancestry" than a genetic, biological basis for race.

For example, this from Harvard University's Science site:

The popular classifications of race are based chiefly on skin color, with other relevant features including height, eyes, and hair. Though these physical differences may appear, on a superficial level, to be very dramatic, they are determined by only a minute portion of the genome: we as a species have been estimated to share 99.9% of our DNA with each other. The few differences that do exist reflect differences in environments and external factors, not core biology.

Ultimately, there is so much ambiguity between the races, and so much variation within them, that two people of European descent may be more genetically similar to an Asian person than they are to each other.

In the biological and social sciences, the consensus is clear: race is a social construct, not a biological attribute. Today, scientists prefer to use the term “ancestry” to describe human diversity. “Ancestry” reflects the fact that human variations do have a connection to the geographical origins of our ancestors—with enough information about a person’s DNA, scientists can make a reasonable guess about their ancestry. However, unlike the term “race,” it focuses on understanding how a person’s history unfolded, not how they fit into one category and not another.

Like I said, I'm not a geneticist. I don't have a chapter-and-verse handle on this. But the reading I have done supports this view. I'm a hobbyist. I'm totally happy for someone with a more detailed understanding to correct me.

Regarding the circumstantial nature of race and culture - culture is simply a shared value and behaviour system between people. Race has nothing to do with that other than circumstances - meaning people of the same race (i.e. who have closely related genetic ancestry that creates similar physiological appearances and biological characteristics) happen to make up the majority of groups and therefore set the culture. But the two things (race and culture) are separate.

Again, the genetic differences that constitute race are minor compared to the differences constituting gender.

With that in mind, a person cannot be a member of a race when their genetics are not.

But we share 99.9% of our DNA, regardless of race or ethnicity. The differences between genders are far more profound.

The same applies in a strict sense to gender. But, if you "identify" with another cultural group or gender that's fine. Whatever. Out of courtesy, I'll even refer to you as your chosen pronoun (unless it's bloody xer or something else silly - another conversation entirely).

Does that clarify it?

So you are equally accepting that people can be transracial as well as transgender based on how they "identify"? Regardless of the biology.

I guess that's my question.

 

[ShanDog]

The genetic differences in gender vastly exceed the genetic differences in race. Gender differences are chromosomal. Racial differences are minor in comparison. We share 99.9% of our DNA, regardless of race or ethnicity.

I'm not a geneticist, clearly. But there's quite a bit of literature on this, indicating the consensus among biologists that race is mostly a social construct - they now talk more about "ancestry" than a genetic, biological basis for race.

For example, this from Harvard University's Science site:




Like I said, I'm not a geneticist. I don't have a chapter-and-verse handle on this. But the reading I have done supports this view. I'm a hobbyist. I'm totally happy for someone with a more detailed understanding to correct me.

Again, the genetic differences that constitute race are minor compared to the differences constituting gender.

But we share 99.9% of our DNA, regardless of race or ethnicity. The differences between genders are far more profound.

So you are equally accepting that people can be transracial as well as transgender based on how they "identify"? Regardless of the biology.

I guess that's my question.

We also share a large amount of DNA with primates. Can you identify as an orangutan and therefore ACTUALLY be a monkey? The figures about DNA aren't relevant. Also, if we share 99% of our DNA, how can the differences in gender be any more than 1% on a DNA level?

Regardless, the answer to your question is sure - I can be accepting of people who are "transracial". But make no mistake - it's in their head, not their body, and I accept them because I'm nice and for no other reason.

 

[ShanDog]

Oh and regarding the "race is a social construction" thing - don't look too far into this. Race is quite obviously a social construction, just like every other thing we have come up with to help identify and categorise similarities and differences between people. Does this make the concept of race invalid? If not, then carry on. If yes, then someone can't really be transracial can they?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

We also share a large amount of DNA with primates. Can you identify as an orangutan and therefore ACTUALLY be a monkey? The figures about DNA aren't relevant.

Come on, you can't just dismiss the evidence like that.

I suggested to you the genetic differences in race are minor. You disputed this. I then showed you some of the literature, explaining that we share 99.9% of our DNA, regardless of race or ethnicity. Now you say that's not relevant.

Honestly, that's not a fair-minded way to discuss this. I have no agenda here. I'm just sharing the literature as I understand it. You can't ask for evidence or substantiation and then claim it's irrelevant when I provide it.

But I welcome your question, I'm happy for you to ask it. But you then also have to ask, if you're born a man with XY chromosomes, can you identify as a woman and ACTUALLY be a woman?

This woman identifies as a cat. Is she ACTUALLY a cat?

Also, if we share 99% of our DNA, how can the differences in gender be any more than 1% on a DNA level?

Because the differences in gender are chromosomal. It's the difference between XX and XY.

Regardless, the answer to your question is sure - I can be accepting of people who are "transracial". But make no mistake - it's in their head, not their body, and I accept them because I'm nice and for no other reason.

Does that go equally for people who are transgender?

It's in their head, not their body.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Oh and regarding the "race is a social construction" thing - don't look too far into this. Race is quite obviously a social construction, just like every other thing we have come up with to help identify and categorise similarities and differences between people.

With respect, if the consensus among the scientific community is that "race is a social construction", I'm not sure your offhand dismissal carries much weight. Come on, neither of us are geneticists. You can't dismiss the consensus any more persuasively than I can.

Height is not a social construction. Having blue eyes is not a social construction. But should we start to divide people up by height or eye colour and insist that those differences matter or are determinative of something, that would be a social construction.

There are genetic differences. But the genetic differences in race/ethnicity are tiny. That's my understanding, anyway.

Does this make the concept of race invalid? If not, then carry on. If yes, then someone can't really be transracial can they?

You'd have to ask Rachel Dolezal that. From what I can gather, she thinks race is a lived experience and if you "identify" with the African-American experience, then you're able to identify as African-American, regardless of your ancestry.

I'm not saying I agree with that, but that seems to be her explanation, from what I've gathered.

 

[ShanDog]

Come on, you can't just dismiss the evidence like that.

I suggested to you the genetic differences in race are minor. You disputed this. I then showed you some of the literature, explaining that we share 99.9% of our DNA, regardless of race or ethnicity. Now you say that's not relevant.

Honestly, that's not a fair-minded way to discuss this. I have no agenda here. I'm just sharing the literature as I understand it. You can't ask for evidence or substantiation and then claim it's irrelevant when I provide it.

But I welcome your question, I'm happy for you to ask it. But you then also have to ask, if you're born a man with XY chromosomes, can you identify as a woman and ACTUALLY be a woman?

This woman identifies as a cat. Is she ACTUALLY a cat?



Because the differences in gender are chromosomal. It's the difference between XX and XY.

Does that go equally for people who are transgender?

It's in their head, not their body.

I am not being unfair - the DNA statistic is just that - a statistic. Stats aren't information. You need to link stats to something to make them valuable - stating we share 99.9% of our DNA has nothing to do with the implications we are discussing. It's a footnote at best, because as we've already concluded, people are different. It's plainly visible or we wouldn't even have such concepts as race or ethnicity. Therefore I dismiss that evidence due to relevance issues.

No that girl is not a cat. She's in need of a psychologist.

Regarding transgender people, as far as I am aware, there's not been any findings that show feelings of being the opposite gender are biologically founded (i.e. genes, DNA, hormones etc). That leaves psychology as the best-guess reason. So yes - it's in their head. I suspect there is a biological reason and we just haven't pinpointed it.

 

[ShanDog]

With respect, if the consensus among the scientific community is that "race is a social construction", I'm not sure your offhand dismissal carries much weight. Come on, neither of us are geneticists. You can't dismiss the consensus any more persuasively than I can.

Height is not a social construction. Having blue eyes is not a social construction. But should we start to divide people up by height or eye colour and insist that those differences matter or are determinative of something, that would be a social construction.

There are genetic differences. But the genetic differences in race/ethnicity are tiny. That's my understanding, anyway.

You'd have to ask Rachel Dolezal that. From what I can gather, she thinks race is a lived experience and if you "identify" with the African-American experience, then you're able to identify as African-American, regardless of your ancestry.

I'm not saying I agree with that, but that seems to be her explanation, from what I've gathered.

I'm not dismissing it - I said it is quite real. But I don't think the implications of that mean what you think they mean. The concept of race as a social construct is one that comes from sociology. It's an ideological issue largely, as it concerns how we view race and (ideally) not how race is treated in a scientific manner such as in biology. It would appear Harvard has decided it's science should be shaped by that. More fool them IMO. It's language games in the world of science, which doesn't end well.

 

[Malifice]

The physiological differences between different ethic or racial groups is quite clear. Craniology is another topic altogether. Blurring the difference between culture and biology is where this issue becomes silly IMO. You can feel like you belong to any cultural group you want - but telling me you ARE the race/ethnicity associated with the group because you feel like it is essentially nonsense.

This is totally not true.

Race is a wholly social construct. People arbitrarily might lump certain equally arbitrary biological markers into a race (skin color for example) but its not uniform. Those arbitrarily assigned biological markers are simply socially agreed on.

There are no objectively determined groups of different 'races'. This is different to gender, where one objectively is biologically male or female (or rarely a hermaphrodite or similar).

For example you cant call yourself a Native American unless you conform to a 'blood rule.' You must have a certain number of 'pure' Native American parents and grandparents. Native Americans deny you membership of the race.

To be a member of a race you need three criterion. Genuine self identification as a member of that racial/ ethnic group, acceptance by that group as a member (according to whatever standards the group applies for membership), and an element of descent (not necessarily biological; this depends on the groups rules for membership as well).

Biology has nothing to do with it, unless the group says it does.

 

[ShanDog]

This is totally not true.

Race is a wholly social construct. People arbitrarily might lump certain equally arbitrary biological markers into a race (skin color for example) but its not uniform. Those arbitrarily assigned biological markers are simply socially agreed on.

For example you cant call yourself a Native American unless you conform to a 'blood rule.' You must have a certain number of 'pure' Native American parents and grandparents.

To be a member of a race you need three criterion. Genuine self identification as a member of that group, acceptance by that group as a member (according to whatever standards the group applies for membership), and an element of descent.

Biology has nothing to do with it, unless the group says it does.

Yes, I've said it's a construct. As are the required criterion. In relation to the woman we have been discussing, does she meet them? Or would it be nonsense to suggest that because a middle class white girl identifies with a racial group that she is therefore actually black?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I am not being unfair - the DNA statistic is just that - a statistic. Stats aren't information.

It's evidence supporting my statement that the genetic differences in race/ethnicity are tiny. I'm not sure what more you want.

You need to link stats to something to make them valuable - stating we share 99.9% of our DNA has nothing to do with the implications we are discussing. It's a footnote at best, because as we've already concluded, people are different. It's plainly visible or we wouldn't even have such concepts as race or ethnicity. Therefore I dismiss that evidence due to relevance issues.

Come on, don't do this. My proposition is quite straightforward.

Genetic differences in race/ethnicity are minor compared to differences in gender. I have demonstrated that. You have the evidence for that. Therefore, if someone can be transgender, why can't someone be transracial? If anything, the biological hurdles to being transracial - such as they exist - are lower.

Can I just reiterate, I have no agenda here. I'm actually hoping someone can come along and explain to me where I'm going wrong here, in a way that establishes a meaningful distinction.

Because, at the moment, I'm struggling to see how we can be OK with one kind of "fluidity" pertaining to gender but reluctant to accept another "fluidity" when it pertains to race/ethnicity.

I'm sceptical of Dolezal's claims and I'm sympathetic to trans people. But if I'm being consistent, I have to address their claims equally.

No that girl is not a cat. She's in need of a psychologist.

You won't be leaving her a little saucer of milk? Shame on you.

Regarding transgender people, as far as I am aware, there's not been any findings that show feelings of being the opposite gender are biologically founded (i.e. genes, DNA, hormones etc). That leaves psychology as the best-guess reason. So yes - it's in their head. I suspect there is a biological reason and we just haven't pinpointed it.

OK, fair enough. I appreciate your consistency.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Yes, I've said it's a construct. As are the required criterion. In relation to the woman we have been discussing, does she meet them? Or would it be nonsense to suggest that because a middle class white girl identifies with a racial group that she is therefore actually black?

Is it nonsense to suggest Bruce Jenner, born a man with XY chromosomes, is now actually a woman?

 

[ShanDog]

Is it nonsense to suggest Bruce Jenner, born a man with XY chromosomes, is now actually a woman?

Socially or biologically?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

This is totally not true.

Race is a wholly social construct. People arbitrarily might lump certain equally arbitrary biological markers into a race (skin color for example) but its not uniform. Those arbitrarily assigned biological markers are simply socially agreed on.

There are no objectively determined groups of different 'races'. This is different to gender, where one objectively is biologically male or female (or rarely a hermaphrodite or similar).

For example you cant call yourself a Native American unless you conform to a 'blood rule.' You must have a certain number of 'pure' Native American parents and grandparents. Native Americans deny you membership of the race.

To be a member of a race you need three criterion. Genuine self identification as a member of that racial/ ethnic group, acceptance by that group as a member (according to whatever standards the group applies for membership), and an element of descent (not necessarily biological; this depends on the groups rules for membership as well).

Biology has nothing to do with it, unless the group says it does.

May I ask where you come down on Rachel Dolezal?

 

[Malifice]

But I welcome your question, I'm happy for you to ask it. But you then also have to ask, if you're born a man with XY chromosomes, can you identify as a woman and ACTUALLY be a woman?

Gender isn't just physical though is it?

There is biological sex (male/ female/ other) but there is also socially constructed gender. You know; girls like pink, boys like blue. Nature and Nurture and all that.

We're talking someone who associates with the different gender roles in society, and does not associate with the gender roles for their biological sex. The fact they have a wang has nothing to do with it.

At that point you either force them to conform to gender roles for their arbitrarily assigned biological sex (which is clearly wrong) or we say there is nothing wrong with a person associating and belonging to a gender of their choice (which is clearly the right option).

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Socially or biologically?

I think it's a biological question at this point, isn't it?

Socially, no one is denying her right to live as a woman if she wants. That's a given.

So yeah, biologically, is it nonsense to suggest Bruce Jenner, born a man with XY chromosomes, is now actually a woman?

 

[Malifice]

May I ask where you come down on Rachel Dolezal?

She falls down at the second arm of 'race'. She is not accepted as African American by other African Americans. She also lacks the element of descent.

She can self identify all she wants. It takes more than simple self identification to be a member of an ethnic group (unless that ethnic group agrees that self identification is all it takes of course).

 

[Malifice]

Yes, I've said it's a construct. As are the required criterion. In relation to the woman we have been discussing, does she meet them? Or would it be nonsense to suggest that because a middle class white girl identifies with a racial group that she is therefore actually black?

See above.

Self identification alone is not enough to make one a member of an ethnic group, unless that ethnic group agrees it is.

The ethnic group needs to accept you as one of their own.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Gender isn't just physical though is it?

No. But it is also physical. There is an empirical chromosomal difference between men and women - setting aside those who are intersex.

There is biological sex (male/ female/ other) but there is also socially constructed gender. You know; girls like pink, boys like blue. Nature and Nurture and all that.

We're talking someone who associates with the different gender roles in society, and does not associate with the gender roles for their biological sex. The fact they have a wang has nothing to do with it.

That's fine. I have no problem with that. People can live how they want, obviously.

At that point you either force them to conform to gender roles for their arbitrarily assigned biological sex (which is clearly wrong) or we say there is nothing wrong with a person associating and belonging to a gender of their choice (which is clearly the right option).

Absolutely. But does Rachel Dolezal have the same freedom to live as an African-American without being howled down for stealing their identity?

Or do we somehow cast race as being roped off in way gender is not?