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.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

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).

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.

Whose rules are these?

How would that even work? Does she have to ask every African-American for permission?

How come those rules don't apply to gender identity?

 

[Malifice]

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

I accept there is a physical difference between men and women. Sexual diamporphism, chromosomal, reproductive organs etc.

But thats not the core issue here is it? The core issue is one of gender roles.

For example you dont see many (any) transgender people wanting gender reassignment surgery and then continuing to dress and act like their original biological sex, and conforming to a gender role that matches their original biological sex.

Its the gender roles that are vital. That and self perception and self identity.

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

I have answered this.

I dont think she deserves derision for her self identity as African American. I do argue that she is not African American though, until (and unless) she is accepted as such by African Americans.

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

While similar, race and gender are still different. I think conflating the two is disingenuous.

 

[ShanDog]

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?

Biologically, no, Caitlyn Jenner is not a female.

Edit: In much the same way Dolezal is not biologically black.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I accept there is a physical difference between men and women. Sexual diamporphism, chromosomal, reproductive organs etc.

But thats not the core issue here is it? The core issue is one of gender roles.

For example you dont see many (any) transgender people wanting gender reassignment surgery and then continuing to dress and act like their original biological sex, and conforming to a gender role that matches their original biological sex.

Its the gender roles that are vital. That and self perception and self identity.

And I'm not objecting to that for a second.

My question is whether we should accept people can be transracial, just as they can be transgender.

I dont think she deserves derision for her self identity as African American. I do argue that she is not African American though, until (and unless) she is accepted as such by African Americans.

But why does that matter?

Transgender people don't have to be "accepted" by other members of their preferred gender.

How would that even be verifiable?

While similar, race and gender are still different. I think conflating the two is disingenuous.

I'm not conflating them. I'm trying to be consistent in considering the separate questions of gender identity and racial identity.

I'm definitely not being disingenuous.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Biologically, no, Caitlyn Jenner is not a female.

OK, fair enough.

Edit: In much the same way Dolezal is not biologically black.

I appreciate the consistency.

In light of that, isn't it inconsistent when everyone welcomed Bruce Jenner's transition but condemned Dolezal?

 

[Malifice]

Whose rules are these?

The rules of the ethnic group. As a social construct, the rules are agreed on via social consensus.

I met a woman once with a Sri Lankan background. She was adopted by a Jewish family, and is now considered ethnically Jewish. Its what she ticks on census forms and so forth.

Aboriginal people are prepared to accept people with white skin as being Aboriginal. This isnt uniform, but they are a lot more accepting than the other way around, where Anglo-Europeans are far less likely to accept as Anglo-European any person with a skin color other than white.

If my Aboriginal wife and I (Anglo-Saxon) have children that have white skin, they're likely to be accepted as Aboriginal by Aboriginal people. If they have dark skin, they're highly unlikely to be accepted as being Anglo Saxon by other Anglo Saxons.

See also a recent article I read about a White American mother and African American father that had twins (one with white skin and one with black skin).

How would that even work? Does she have to ask every African-American for permission?

No, dont be silly. It's a question of social acceptance and social consensus by the group. Its not unanimous, but it is usually pretty self evident.

How come those rules don't apply to gender identity?

Because gender identity and racial identity are not the same thing. You keep conflating them as if they were. They're similar, but not identical.

 

[Malifice]

And I'm not objecting to that for a second.

My question is whether we should accept people can be transracial, just as they can be transgender.

Stop conflating race and gender! They are not the same thing.

And yes, people can be bi-racial (belonging to more than one race or ethnic group). In time, large enough bi-racial ethnic groups can become their own seperate ethnic group.

For example 'Anglo-Saxon.' Two different ethnic groups that are now one ethnic group.

Ethnicity is fluid and changes over time as new ethnic groups are agreed on and old ones die out or are replaced. You're trying to conflate this with biological sex (which has been the same since... well the beginning), and it isnt the same thing.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

The rules of the ethnic group. As a social construct, the rules are agreed on via social consensus.

This is news to me. Are you sure about this?

I'm a Caucasian but I'm unfamiliar with the rules of that ethnic group. What are they?

I met a woman once with a Sri Lankan background. She was adopted by a Jewish family, and is now considered ethnically Jewish. Its what she ticks on census forms and so forth.

Isn't that just how she identifies? Or was there a process of her being accepting by Jews? I guess religious conversion would be part of it, but ethnically? Granted the Jews are a unique kind of package deal in that they are a religion and a race (or a people).

But if me and Angelina Jolie decide to adopt a little Cambodian kid, what happens? How does he get accepted as a Caucasian?

Aboriginal people are prepared to accept people with white skin as being Aboriginal. This isnt uniform, but they are a lot more accepting than the other way around, where Anglo-Europeans are far less likely to accept as Anglo-European any person with a skin color other than white.

If my Aboriginal wife and I (Anglo-Saxon) have children that have white skin, they're likley to be accepted as Aboriginal by Aboriginal people. If they have dark skin, they're highly unlikely to be accepted as being Anglo Saxon.

That's interesting. But I'm not sure it seals the deal with respect to your broader argument.

No, dont be silly. It's a question of social acceptance and social consensus by the group. Its not unanimous, but it is usually pretty self evident.

Well, this is where I struggle to accept what you're saying as being the litmus test of racial identity across the board.

Because gender identity and racial identity are not the same thing. You keep conflating them as if they were. They're similar, but not identical.

I don't assume or suggest they are identical.

But nor do I accept that you can simply assert a different standard for establishing racial identity when nothing remotely comparable exists for establishing gender identity.

Gender identity is just "I identity as female/male". But racial identity requires a whole checklist?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Stop conflating race and gender! They are not the same thing.

I didn't conflate them.

I am treating them as different but trying to be consistent.

And yes, people can be bi-racial (belonging to more than one race or ethnic group). In time, large enough bi-racial ethnic groups can become their own seperate ethnic group.

For example 'Anglo-Saxon.' Two different ethnic groups that are now one ethnic group.

I don't think that's what we're talking about.

Ethnicity is fluid and changes over time as new ethnic groups are agreed on and old ones die out or are replaced. You're trying to conflate this with biological sex (which has been the same since... well the beginning), and it isnt the same thing.

Again, I'm not conflating. I am seeking a consistent way to discuss issues of identity. I accept that race and gender are not two peas in a pod.

 

[Malifice]

This is news to me. Are you sure about this?

I'm a Caucasian but I'm unfamiliar with the rules of that ethnic group. What are they?

I was born in Africa and have jet black skin and curly hair.

Do Caucasians regard me as Caucasian?

There is your answer.

Isn't that just how she identifies? Or was there a process of her being accepting by Jews? I guess religious conversion would be part of it, but ethnically? Granted the Jews are a unique kind of package deal in that they are a religion and a race (or a people).

Jews are an ethnic group. 'Races' as you are using the term (biologically discreet races such as 'Blacks' and 'Caucasians' and 'Asians') do not exist.

She identifies as Jewish (when I asked her what her background was she answered Jewish, which surprised me). Jewish people accept her as such (she can exersize the right of return and move to Israel if she wants etc).

But if me and Angelina Jolie decide to adopt a little Cambodian kid, what happens? How does he get accepted as a Caucasian?

Again, presuming 'Caucasian' is an ethnic group (and I dont necessarily agree that it is) how many 'caucasians' are prepared to accept a kid that looks Cambodian as Caucasian?

Next to none. It is highly doubtful your and Angelinas child will ever be able to call himself Caucasian.

Again; contrast with Aboriginal people. They place a far lower emphasis on physical appearance for membership.

But nor do I accept that you can simply assert a different standard for establishing racial identity when nothing remotely comparable exists for establishing gender identity.

I dont care if you accept it or not. The reality is there are different standards. There are different standards because ethnicity and gender are different things, with different criterion for membership and acceptance.

Gender identity is just "I identity as female/male". But racial identity requires a whole checklist?

Pretty much yeah. Different checklists for different ethnic groups too (some longer than others).

We as a society could refuse to accept transgender people as the gender they self identify with of course. That's largely how we used to do it. But those rules have now changed, and we largely do accept them as such, and respect their right to live as the gender of their choosing.

 

[ShanDog]

OK, fair enough.

I appreciate the consistency.

In light of that, isn't it inconsistent when everyone welcomed Bruce Jenner's transition but condemned Dolezal?

I think maybe more people accept gender change because it's a dichotomous issue that suggests an underlying medical reason. Race is both a wider set of characteristic and also historical situated. Much harder to convince.

 

[FireKrakouer]

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?

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?

I think the "how many" question IS relevant. There are millions of people out there that do not feel that they belong to the XX or XY gender they were born with. It is not dissimilar to homosexuality, in that we don't quite understand its evolutionary purpose, but it is so common that it can't be ignored, and it is hurtful to many to call it an "illness".

Estrogen and testosterone play a powerful role in the brain of individuals, whereas skin colour does not. If one is born with a hormone profile that is more befitting of the opposite sex, then so be it.

Please note that I am a right-wing poster, with no obligation to defend transpeople. It just seems to me that it is something that occurs naturally, something that young children recognise in themselves, whereas being "transracial" is pure nonsense, only learned in adulthood.

 

[Malifice]

I think maybe more people accept gender change because it's a dichotomous issue that suggests an underlying medical reason. Race is both a wider set of characteristic and also historical situated. Much harder to convince.

Not really.

Society accepts that in a choice between [forcing a person to identify as the gender that matches their biological sex] and [allowing a person to identify as the gender of their choosing] the latter is preferable.

We (as a society) accept Jenner as a woman. Yes she was born a biological man (for all that this matters) but she is now a woman.

If African Americans as a social group were of the view that one can become African American by self identity alone, then you could become African American in largely the same way.

Unlike with our social agreement on gender (genuine self identification as a particular gender is in and of itself enough), African Americans dont agree on race (genuine self identification as African American is not in and of itself enough). So conflating the two is disingenuous.

That said there are ethnic groups out there that do allow members of 'other ethnicities' to join the ethnic group and be considered as such. Most ethnic groups dont (they require certain biological markers such as skin color, or proven descent ,or both for membership).

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I was born in Africa and have jet black skin and curly hair.

Do Caucasians regard me as Caucasian?

I assume not. But that doesn't clarify the rules of the ethnic group. Like I said, those are news to me.

Jews are an ethnic group. 'Race' as you are using the term (biologically discreet races) does not exist.

She identifies as Jewish (when I asked her what her background was she answered Jewish, which surprised me). Jewish people accept her as such (she can exersize the right of return and move to Israel if she wants etc).

But that might simply mean she is of the Jewish faith, no?

Again, presuming 'Caucasian' is an ethnic group (and I dont necessarily agree that it is) how many 'caucasians' are prepared to accept a kid that looks Cambodian as Caucasian?

Next to none. It is highly doubtful your and Angelinas child will ever be able to call himself Caucasian.

Well, that's what I assume. But you're telling me that people can come to be accepted by an ethnic group if they conform to certain rules. So I'm asking how that works?

I'm just trying to have a discussion. If Caucasian is the wrong shorthand, then I apologise.

I dont care if you accept it or not. The reality is there are different standards. There are different standards because ethnicity and gender are different things, with different criterion for membership and acceptance.

You are asserting this criteria as though it's something objective and official. What is the criteria for being African-American?

Pretty much yeah. Different checklists for different ethnic groups too (some longer than others).

Can you give me an example?

We as a society could refuse to accept transgender people as the gender they self identify with of course. That's largely how we used to do it. But those rules have now changed, and we largely do accept them as such, and respect their right to live as the gender of their choosing.

I'm not sure they're rules as much as social norms. And we accept them living as they choose but clearly some people don't consider Bruce Jenner to actually be a woman. We just say "live how you want". That's not the same thing.

I'm not being disingenuous. I appreciate the extra dimension you've brought to the discussion.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I think maybe more people accept gender change because it's a dichotomous issue that suggests an underlying medical reason.

Does it suggest an underlying medical issue? I don't know about that. I gather some transgender people don't like the idea of being "pathologised".

For example, in this article about the WHO dropping gender dysphoria as a mental health condition:

Sally Goldner, a spokesperson for Transgender Victoria - an organization that fights for the rights of trans people, told Gay Star News: "It is huge. It’s big because a big powerful organization is sending an affirming message saying being trans is part of human diversity rather than pathologizing us."

Make of that what you will.

Race is both a wider set of characteristic and also historical situated.

Well, some people say there are infinite genders. And gender is undoubtedly "historically situated".

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I think the "how many" question IS relevant. There are millions of people out there that do not feel that they belong to the XX or XY gender they were born with. It is not dissimilar to homosexuality, in that we don't quite understand its evolutionary purpose, but it is so common that it can't be ignored, and it is hurtful to many to call it an "illness".

OK, fair enough.

Estrogen and testosterone play a powerful role in the brain of individuals, whereas skin colour does not. If one is born with a hormone profile that is more befitting of the opposite sex, then so be it.

OK, no problem.

Please note that I am a right-wing poster, with no obligation to defend transpeople. It just seems to me that it is something that occurs naturally, something that young children recognise in themselves, whereas being "transracial" is pure nonsense, only learned in adulthood.

How do you know that Rachel Dolezal didn't identify as African-American earlier? And even if it was "learned" why does that prove it's not real?

 

[Malifice]

I assume not. But that doesn't clarify the rules of the ethnic group. Like I said, those are news to me.

No, again you're being disingenuous.

I could ask you right now to define Caucasian. Is Jackie Chan Caucasian? What about the Queen? What about Aliir Aliir? What about my son (I am Anglo Celtic and my wife is Black African).

In the latter case, does it matter than my son has white skin (takes after his father) or black skin (takes after his mother)?

Just because there is a broad consensus as to who gets membership in an ethnic group, doesnt mean there arent corner cases or grey areas as well.

For example are Spanish 'caucasian'? What about Italians, Greeks, Slavs, fair skinned Jews, or Turks? Where is the line drawn exactly?

But that might simply mean she is of the Jewish faith, no?

I was hitting on her in a bar and I asked her what her ethnic background was (she was 4 foot 10 and black skinned). Her response was Jewish.

I highly doubt she took that as an invitation to discuss her religious beliefs.

This was confirmed by the next 30 minutes of conversation. She was adopted from Sri Lanka, but does not consider herself Sri Lankan, and considers herself Jewish (as does the Jewish community to which she belongs, and indeed as would Israel).

Well, that's what I assume. But you're telling me that people can come to be accepted by an ethnic group if they conform to certain rules. So I'm asking how that works?

No I am saying it requires acceptance by that group AND self identification.

You cant be African American unless they agree you are. 50 Cent is considered African American by African Americans. I on the other hand, am not.

You are asserting this criteria as though it's something objective and official. What is the criteria for being African-American?

Ask them. Skin color is very relevant but not determinative. See Megan Markle for example. What is vital is proof of a historical descent from Africa, and possessing American nationality.

That said, the lighter your skin color, the more likely you are to be rejected.

As for 'white people' as defined by Stormfront (and you would think they would know) they use a geographical descent criteron (must originate from west of the Caucasians mountains) and must not have 'one drop' of 'non white' blood in you (one non white ancestor and you're out).

Not that this is accepted by most Europeans of course. If I found out that my great great great grandfather was an Arab, Id still consider myself Anglo Celtic, and would be accepted as such by the majority of every other Angle Celtic person I met.

I'm not sure they're rules as much as social norms. And we accept them living as they choose but clearly some people don't consider Bruce Jenner to actually be a woman. We just say "live how you want". That's not the same thing.

Of course some people dont accept her as a woman. Consensus isn't the same thing as unanimous.

Most of us do accept it (she can choose to be whatever gender she wants). Ergo, she can choose to be whatever gender she wants.

 

[Malifice]

Remember gender roles are not real things.

They're just something we make up, and then socially agree on. Like nations, or religions, or sporting codes or ethnicity and other artificial social constructs that comprise human society.

This is different to biological sex. Thats not socially agreed on. You are either are born with a wang, or you are not.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

No, again you're being disingenuous.

I assure you I'm not.

I could ask you right now to define Caucasian. Is Jackie Chan Caucasian? What about the Queen? What about Aliir Aliir? What about my son (I am Anglo Celtic and my wife is Black African).

In the latter case, does it matter than my son has white skin (takes after his father) or black skin (takes after his mother)?

Just because there is a broad consensus as to who gets membership in an ethnic group, doesnt mean there arent corner cases or grey areas as well.

For example are Spanish 'caucasian'? What about Italians, Greeks, Slavs, fair skinned Jews, or Turks? Where is the line drawn exactly?

Yeah, I don't know. I guess I'd look at a variety of factors and guess. But it's not an issue of acceptance vs non-acceptance.

I was hitting on her in a bar and I asked her what her ethnic background was (she was 4 foot 10 and black skinned). Her response was Jewish.

I highly doubt she took that as an invitation to discuss her religious beliefs.

This was confirmed by the next 30 minutes of conversation. She was adopted from Sri Lanka, but does not consider herself Sri Lankan, and considers herself Jewish (as does the Jewish community to which she belongs, and indeed as would Israel).

My point is that Jewish is a double descriptor, combining religion and ethnicity.

You cant be African American unless they agree you are.

Says who?

Ask them. Skin color is very relevant but not determinative. See Megan Markle for example. What is vital is proof of a historical descent from Africa, and possessing American nationality.

That said, the lighter your skin color, the more likely you are to be rejected.

As for 'white people' as defined by Stormfront (and you would think they would know) they use a geographical descent criteron (must originate from west of the Caucasians mountains) and must not have 'one drop' of 'non white' blood in you (one non white ancestor and you're out).

Not that this is accepted by most Europeans of course. If I found out that my great great great grandfather was an Arab, Id still consider myself Anglo Celtic, and would be accepted as such by the majority of every other Angle Celtic person I met.

You talk about this "acceptance" like it's some kind of formal, codified process. Are there other people who have been rejected by African-Americans?

Of course some people dont accept her as a woman. Consensus isn't the same thing as unanimous.

Most of us do accept it (she can choose to be whatever gender she wants). Ergo, she can choose to be whatever gender she wants.

Would you say she is biologically a woman? Or simply that she is free to live as a woman because she identifies as one?

Remember gender roles are not real things.

They're just something we make up, and then socially agree on. Like nations, or religions, or sporting codes or ethnicity and other artificial social constructs that comprise human society.

This is different to biological sex. Thats not socially agreed on. You are either are born with a wang, or you are not.

OK. So Jenner is not biologically a woman. Right?

 

[Malifice]

Well, some people say there are infinite genders.

Who says this, and what are these infinite genders?

Also, where is the social agreement and construction of these infinite genders?

There could be infinite genders, if we agreed there was (and socially constructed them). At present though we only have the two.

And yes I realize this *s up the rare hermaphrodite who are left without socially agreed on gender roles and get stuck in no (wo)mans land.

They tend to choose a gender role (male or female) and live as that gender, despite being biologically both.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Who says this, and what are these infinite genders?

I picked it up in the debate around gender pronouns. Someone asked an activist to say how many genders there were and they were unable to put a number on it. My understanding is that it's a spectrum.

Also, where is the social agreement and construction of these infinite genders?

There could be infinite genders, if we agreed there was (and socially constructed them). At present though we only have the two.

And yes I realize this ****s up the rare hermaphrodite who are left without socially agreed on gender roles and get stuck in no (wo)mans land.

They tend to choose a gender role (male or female) and live as that gender, despite being biologically both.

I'm just paraphrasing what I've heard some activists say.

 

[Malifice]

But it's not an issue of acceptance vs non-acceptance.

Yes it is!

Its socially constucted. If the world agrees that the color the sky is, is now called squirdblop, the sky is now the color squirdblop. We have social consensus on it. This consenus was accepted and that is now the reality.

If the people of the Somboidobo ethnicity agree that one can be Sombidoiboidian by self identification and by kissing the magic bloop bloop tree, then by self identifying as Sombidoibian and kissing the magic bloop bloop tree, you become Somdidobian. Congratulations, you're accepted. You're a member of that ethnic group.

Get it yet? Ethnicity (and Gender) are made up socially constructed things. Part of that social construction includes a social consensus on the criterion for membership.

If you, me and Harry agree to call ourselves the 'Cool kids gang', and also agree that one can only become a member of the 'Cool kids gang' by stealing from Alf Fishers shop, then those are the rules to become a member of the Cool gang.

My point is that Jewish is a double descriptor, combining religion and ethnicity.

Not really. Some ethnic groups are predicated on membership of a religion. You cant be a member of that ethnic group unless you belong to a certain religion.

Youre looking at ethnicity as biological race again. Wrongly. Ethnicity is not just biological (but often to be a member of an ethnic group, one is required to have biological traits like skin color or hair color etc).

Says who?

African Americans. They dont accept this woman as African American, and they wouldnt accept me either.

You're being intentionally obtuse now. You know African Americans would not accept Jackie ******* Chan as being African American. So stop arguing it.

You talk about this "acceptance" like it's some kind of formal, codified process. Are there other people who have been rejected by African-Americans?

Jackie ******* Chan.

Ring 100 African Americans. Ask them if Jackie Chan is African American. Then ask them why they answered 'No' (as they will).

Did they all secretly get together beforehand to collude or something? Why are the answers pretty much uniform?

Would you say she is biologically a woman? Or simply that she is free to live as a woman because she identifies as one?

For the billionth time, NO. She was born, biologically as a man.

Thats not in debate by anyone, not even ******* Jenner.

 

[Malifice]

I'm just paraphrasing what I've heard some activists say.

I could paraphrase what I've heard people on here say. That doesnt mean there is any truth to it.

Look outside in sociiety. There are (broadly speaking) two gender roles. Again this is why hermaphrodites in our society have such a hard time - they generally have to pick one.

In societies where hermaphrodites are common, they actually have three gender roles (male, woman and both).

There is a tribe in PNG from memory as well where most children are born a girl, and then at puberty half of them become boys. They have several gender roles as well.

In Western society however, there are pretty much just the two gender roles.

 

[Malifice]

Im thinking about my Aboriginal friends.

If a child has an Anglo Parent and an Aboriginal Nyongar parent, the Nyongar consider that child Nyongar (and Aboriginal).

Skin color and physical appearance is not determintive (although it helps, and expect to be stigmatized if you look 'too white').

Things get more complicated with a child with a Nyongar parent and a Yamatge parent. My understanding is it then depends on the mothers ethnicity (Yamatge or Nyongar) to determine which specific ethnic group you belong to (and there are further nuances even then).

It's very different with Native American people. They use this:

Blood quantum laws or Indian blood laws are those enacted in the United States and the former colonies to define qualification by ancestry as Native American, sometimes in relation to tribal membership. These laws were developed by Euro-Americans and thus did not necessarily reflect how Native Americans had traditionally identified themselves or members of their in-group, and thus ignored the Native American practices of absorbing other peoples by adoption, beginning with other Native Americans, and extending to children and young adults of European and African ancestry. Blood quantum laws also ignored tribal cultural continuity after tribes had absorbed such adoptees and multiracial children.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_quantum_laws

Different ethnic groups have different rules (and sub rules) for membership that have been socially agreed on (or in the above case with blood quantum, largely imposed on them by a foreign ethnic group).

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Yes it is!

Its socially constucted. If the world agrees that the color the sky is, is now called squirdblop, the sky is now the color squirdblop. We have social consensus on it. This consenus was accepted and that is now the reality.

If the people of the Somboidobo ethnicity agree that one can be Sombidoiboidian by self identification and by kissing the magic bloop bloop tree, then by self identifying as Sombidoibian and kissing the magic bloop bloop tree, you become Somdidobian. Congratulations, you're accepted. You're a member of that ethnic group.

Get it yet? Ethnicity (and Gender) are made up socially constructed things. Part of that social construction includes a social consensus on the criterion for membership.

If you, me and Harry agree to call ourselves the 'Cool kids gang', and also agree that one can only become a member of the 'Cool kids gang' by stealing from Alf Fishers shop, then those are the rules to become a member of the Cool gang.

This is silly.

You asked me whether I would consider a person to be Caucasian under various scenarios. I answered as honestly as I could, saying I'd consider a variety of factors and then guess. But that consideration would not be about whether I "accepted" them into my ethnic group. I wouldn't be invested enough to consider it in those terms. In response, you've flown off the handle. It's unnecessary.

Why are you being so aggressive? Have I said something that has offended you?

Not really. Some ethnic groups are predicated on membership of a religion. You cant be a member of that ethnic group unless you belong to a certain religion.

Youre looking at ethnicity as biological race again. Wrongly. Ethnicity is not just biological (but often to be a member of an ethnic group, one is required to have biological traits like skin color or hair color etc).

Which other ethnic groups overlap with religion the way Jewishness does?

African Americans. They dont accept this woman as African American, and they wouldnt accept me either.

You're being intentionally obtuse now. You know African Americans would not accept Jackie ******* Chan as being African American. So stop arguing it.

I haven't said anything about Jackie Chan. That's your example.

At what point did African-Americans stipulate this criteria for being African-American?

Jackie ******* Chan.

Ring 100 African Americans. Ask them if Jackie Chan is African American. Then ask them why they answered 'No' (as they will).

Did they all secretly get together beforehand to collude or something? Why are the answers pretty much uniform?

Did Jackie Chan claim to be African-American? What are you talking about?

Of course I'm not going to ring 100 African-Americans.

Why are you erupting like this? I honestly don't think I've done anything to provoke this kind of response.

For the billionth time, NO. She was born, biologically as a man.

Thats not in debate by anyone, not even ******* Jenner.

OK, no problem.

Relax, mate. You're meant to be a moderating influence, not the powder keg.

You're carrying on far more tempestuously than anyone else.