UKC

Professor says she lied about being black

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
cp123 05 Sep 2020

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-54008495

So clearly in her world, racial identity is so important that she decided in the past lying about her race would be the best way to proceed.

Does her being the 'wrong' skin colour mean her teachings are wrong?

 Dax H 05 Sep 2020
In reply to cp123:

She says she identifies as being black, should she get the same protections and rights in law as a person who identifies as the opposite sex (or and of the degrees in between).

I'm not posting this just to stir the pot I'm genuinely wondering, sexually it seems you can identify any way you feel so should race be any different ?

1
 Blue Straggler 05 Sep 2020
In reply to Dax H:

It was Solezal, not Krug, who used the term “identify as black” 

 marsbar 05 Sep 2020
In reply to Dax H:

I don't think that someone can identify as black.  

It appears she is aware she was lying.  

4
 yeti 05 Sep 2020
In reply to cp123:

well... we all have black ancestors, just depends how far back you want to go 

2
 planetmarshall 05 Sep 2020
In reply to Dax H:

> I'm not posting this just to stir the pot I'm genuinely wondering, sexually it seems you can identify any way you feel...

No, you cannot, at least in the UK, and at least as far as the legal recognition of your gender goes. There are various criteria to meet in order to be legally recognized as a particular gender, and even then there are still exceptions (such as participation in sporting events, access to single sex services etc).

There's a bit more to it than just "identification".

In any case, biologically speaking there is a world of difference between being of a particular race and being of a particular sex, even if the social implications may have superficial similarities.

11
In reply to Dax H:

I suppose at conception and during the development of a foetus it is possible that any one person could turn out to be either sex. So, although I don’t know much about it, it seems reasonable therefore that there are cases where brain and body develop in different directions and people are born the “wrong” gender. Certainly we know that there are rare cases where, for example a child is born with genitals that don’t match their biological sex. This is obviously very different to transgender identity, but I mention it since it seems perfectly plausible that if other features of sex can develop in ways that don’t match either our visual appearance or our genetic sex then the same could happen with the brain. There have been findings that transgender people have structural and functional features of the brain that are characteristic of the gender they identify with rather than the gender they appear outwardly to be. This supports an argument that being transgender is not something someone chooses or can change, which justifies it being a “protected characteristic”.

It’s not possible though for your biological parents and genetic heritage to ever change. That’s determined by who’s sperm and egg was involved. At no point in time would it ever have been possible for me to have suddenly develop African parents when I was conceived by two white English people. 

I might be misunderstanding or mischaracterising the current understanding of transgender development, but to me it seems like one difference between these situations is that identifying as another gender is not a choice someone makes, whereas claiming to have totally different genetic heritage is a choice. 

Edit to add: also don’t forget that there is a very long and convoluted process to being legally recognised as another gender and thus gaining the protections you speak of. From a legal perspective is certainly not just a case of saying that you want it to be the case. 

Post edited at 10:53
9
 planetmarshall 05 Sep 2020
In reply to Stuart Williams:

> I suppose at conception and during the development of a foetus it is possible that any one person could turn out to be either sex. So, although I don’t know much about it, it seems reasonable therefore that there are cases where brain and body develop in different directions and people are born the “wrong” gender.

That all seems a bit hand-wavy and contradictory. Your "brain" and your "body" are not different things - you are your body, and you only have one of them. So, if you say something like "'you' were born in the wrong body" - who is the "you", and how is it different from the "body"? It all sounds a bit like Cartesian mind-body dualism to me which might be popular with religious types but scientifically speaking was largely done away with with the advent of modern neuroscience.

7
 Chris_Mellor 05 Sep 2020
In reply to cp123:

There's cultural appropriation for you

In reply to marsbar:

> I don't think that someone can identify as black.  

Why not?

It seems like the exact same arguments about identifying as a different gender would apply and that the line between black and white is even more blurry than that between male and female if you try and resolve it with science.  

In reply to planetmarshall:

My point being exactly that the brain is a part of our biology. There are biological features that are typical of being either male or female, and there are cases where they do not develop in a way that matches our other features in the typical way. This has nothing to do with some other "essence" or "soul" or anything like that, simply that there are some observable structural differences between typically male and female brains.

Other aspects of our biology are also typical of being either male or female. For example testicles and ovaries. If a biologically male child is born with ovaries this would not be typical, but it does happen. I don't see anything outrageous about the finding that certain biological features of the brain might also develop in some cases to not match up in the typical way with other features of biological gender.

Nowt religious about it, although I am sure it could have been phrased better. I also spoke about genitals not "matching", but I note you don't accuse me of testicle-body dualism.

Post edited at 11:07
2
In reply to planetmarshall:

Also, just re-reading that - do you have a point other than the semantics of it? In the context of the conversation of race and transgender issues I can't work out if you are taking any other position than not liking me saying "brain and body" as opposed to perhaps something like "brain structure and other features of our biological makeup". Genuine question - did you have a point?

Post edited at 11:16
2
 Jamie Wakeham 05 Sep 2020
In reply to cp123:

It doesn't necessarily mean that her teachings have ben wrong.  However, rather like Rachel Dolezal, it seems unlikely she'd have been appointed to her position if she'd identified as white.

The comparison with gender identification has one significant failing: there's quite a lot of interest in the fact that people are being summarily executed by the police in America for the crime of being black in public.  Whilst it is undoubtedly more dangerous in some ways to be female than male, it's not the case that you risk the police shooting you simply for being a woman.

8
In reply to Jamie Wakeham:

> it seems unlikely she'd have been appointed to her position if she'd identified as white.

If she was suitably qualified for the post, would that not be race discrimination...?

My first thought was of Ali G.

 planetmarshall 05 Sep 2020
In reply to Stuart Williams:

> Nowt religious about it, although I am sure it could have been phrased better. I also spoke about genitals not "matching", but I note you don't accuse me of testicle-body dualism.

Because I think you are conflating a lot of different conditions under the umbrella term of "transgenderism". Intersex conditions such as those you describe are exceptionally rare and have distinct pathologies, whereas gender dysphoria is largely considered to be a psychiatric condition (though this is controversial in some quarters). 

For example, social expectations of gender have absolutely no bearing on the medical requirements of someone with intersex conditions. However, it could have a very large impact on someone experiencing gender dysphoria.

I think if you're going to make a comparison with racial identity it's a good idea to be specific about what you're actually comparing.

cb294 05 Sep 2020
In reply to cp123:

What a load of shit, but maybe I should try this too.

So, folks, from now on I identify as not being fat and definitely not going bald.

Anybody who claims otherwise is deliberately discriminating me.

Seriously, your genetic identity is 100% defined by the set of ancestors that contributed their haplotypes to your genome. It is an unchangeable fact, much less fluid than sexual/gender identity which can, at least to an extent, also be influenced by environmental factors such as hormone levels you were exposed to in the womb.

CB

7
 marsbar 05 Sep 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Because she lied to make herself seem more interesting.  She doesn't identify as black, she lied and said she was black.  

RentonCooke 05 Sep 2020
In reply to planetmarshall:

> No, you cannot, at least in the UK, and at least as far as the legal recognition of your gender goes. There are various criteria to meet in order to be legally recognized as a particular gender, and even then there are still exceptions (such as participation in sporting events, access to single sex services etc).

The problem here is, many will choose not to go through all those procedures and/or are likely to self-identify as X well before they obtain this legal status. Good luck challenging them on their claimed status during that period.

As the world goes right now, the moment someone chooses a gender/identity/race you better well agree to whatever they claim. Hence, for all practical purposes, this woman could claim to be black and there is very little anyone can do to dispute it.

3
 wintertree 05 Sep 2020
In reply to marsbar:

> I don't think that someone can identify as black.

Of course can.  Anyone can self-identify as whatever they want.

The validity of that, e.g., in the eyes of discrimination law, is another matter and it would be interesting (if spectacularly wasteful of court time and money) to see it go to court - how accurately can a person's race determined for the purposes of a fair and even application of the law?  Fraction of DNA, or sun-tan adjusted melanin levels?  Just how dark does someone have to be to define them as "black"?  I've always looked at the effectively random choice of tick-boxes on race and thought that I've never actually had any sort of scientific determination about my "race", and one doesn't have to go far up the Winter-family-tree to find some significant question marks.

The validity of that in the kind of "academic" circles this person publishes in is another matter and one I can bring myself to give 0.0 f***s about. No doubt page after page of introspective waffle heavily laden with long and clever words intended to make some basic observations look clever will be written, published and referenced and academic careers will be built on it.  (I have a similar take on several other subjects before anyone things this is a rant specifically devoted to academic discussion of "race").

 wintertree 05 Sep 2020
In reply to captain paranoia:

> If she was suitably qualified for the post, would that not be race discrimination...?

I suppose that depends how much you think that the validity of a person's views and opinions is dependent on their protected characteristics.  I would argue that the accuracy of their view is influenced by their past experiences, which in turn can be influenced by their protected characterises, but to short-cut the chain of inference is wrong, as there's more than one way to arrive at an understanding of the way things are, and not all those ways involve directly experiencing it all as an individual.

I look to the states and see a very different direction towards resolving inequality to in the UK, and I don't like it at all.  They have some far more serious problems than us deeply embedded in their society, but I am far from sure propagating "academic" studies rooted in a culture of classification, identity and division is the way to resolve it.  Good way to buck up the old citation count though trotting out centuries old discussions dressed up in new terms and the modern context.

Post edited at 13:04
 wintertree 05 Sep 2020
In reply to cb294:

> Seriously, your genetic identity is 100% defined by the set of ancestors that contributed their haplotypes to your genome. It is an unchangeable fact

Give or take mutation otherwise we'd all be black.  Or somer sort of weird Ape thing.  Or some primordial slime.  Then there's the possibility for some epigenetic link(s) and environmental links to gene expression - I don't see why that would apply only to gender and not other characteristics during development?

In reply to cp123:

I'd be more concerned about her describing pretending to be black as 'the very epitome of violence'. I am more comfortable with writing where words retain some shred of actual meaning, as opposed to being simply pleasant noises which give the writer a warm feeling.

jcm

 planetmarshall 05 Sep 2020
In reply to wintertree:

> Of course can.  Anyone can self-identify as whatever they want.

> The validity of that, e.g., in the eyes of discrimination law, is another matter and it would be interesting (if spectacularly wasteful of court time and money) to see it go to court - how accurately can a person's race determined for the purposes of a fair and even application of the law?  Fraction of DNA, or sun-tan adjusted melanin levels?  Just how dark does someone have to be to define them as "black"?

The thing is - if someone "identifies" with a particular demographic - is it not more a matter of identifying with the social history of that demographic? In which case, whether or not someone is genetically identifiable as Black, or specifically African American (I have no idea to what degree this is even possible) - is that not largely irrelevant? Even if they could be biologically identified that way - who is to say whether they did or did not have the social experience of being African American, if they were in fact treated for all intents and purposes as being Black (I am not saying that is the case here - in deed it seems not to have been).

This is different from the experience and struggles of being, for example, a woman, as they are to a large degree related to having the biology of a woman and everything that entails in addition to identifying with the social history of being a woman.

 planetmarshall 05 Sep 2020
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

> I'd be more concerned about her describing pretending to be black as 'the very epitome of violence'.

Yes indeed. I'd be particularly wary of throwing that word around in the context of race relations in the United States.

 mrbird 05 Sep 2020
In reply to cp123:

I sometimes like to identify as your typical middle/ upper class, plant based, dogooding, UKC life drainer by moaning about brightly coloured vans having a trip to the Lakes ruining my trip to the Lakes. 

3
In reply to planetmarshall:

I did try to make it clear that I was not including intersex conditions within the category of transgender, and indeed that they were not linked and are very different. It was simply a musing on the fact that the brain is not "special" when compared to other aspects of our biology, so if one aspect of biology can develop in a way that is incongruent with chromosomal sex, why can't another? This is not to say that the two things are linked or related in any way. I nearly removed the comparison in case it didn't come across as intended, and probably should have done.

Interesting that you seem to draw a neat distinction between psychiatric conditions and biological pathology, but pulled me up on referring to "brain and body". As you alluded to, our brain is a part of our biological body and a psychiatric condition has a biological component. The biopsychosocial model of psychiatric conditions broadly suggest that there are often biological factors that might make someone more or less susceptible to developing a condition, although whether and how this presents might then depend on psychological and social factors. 

My point, as I intended it, remains that it seems plausible that some component of transgenderism/gender dysphoria could be a relatively fixed trait determined by early brain development, rather than it simply being down to choice or environmental influences. Jessica Krug describes her assertions that she is black as being a "lie". She doesn't say that she truly believes she is black, or identifies with it, or anything like that. She frames it as an outright lie that she chose to tell. I don't see how that bears any similarity whatsoever to someone who has a strong and earnest feeling/belief that they are a gender other than that assigned at birth.

Post edited at 13:40
1
In reply to planetmarshall:

> The thing is - if someone "identifies" with a particular demographic - is it not more a matter of identifying with the social history of that demographic? In which case, whether or not someone is genetically identifiable as Black, or specifically African American (I have no idea to what degree this is even possible) - is that not largely irrelevant? Even if they could be biologically identified that way - who is to say whether they did or did not have the social experience of being African American, if they were in fact treated for all intents and purposes as being Black (I am not saying that is the case here - in deed it seems not to have been).

> This is different from the experience and struggles of being, for example, a woman, as they are to a large degree related to having the biology of a woman and everything that entails in addition to identifying with the social history of being a woman.

If only the colour of someone's skin was irrelevant to their overall social experience. Sadly both history and current events have clearly shown that to not be the case, regardless of how or where you were raised.

Post edited at 14:18
 melocoton 05 Sep 2020
In reply to captain paranoia:

> My first thought was of Ali G.

youtube.com/watch?v=ZHJmY6h-LV0&

In reply to marsbar:

> Because she lied to make herself seem more interesting.  She doesn't identify as black, she lied and said she was black.  

OK.  But what you said was 'I don't think someone can identify as black'.  

I agree that in this specific case she didn't identify as black, she thought she was white and therefore was lying when she said she was black.

But in general, if we accept that people can identify as a particular sex then there's no reason why they shouldn't identify as a particular race.

1
 planetmarshall 05 Sep 2020
In reply to Stuart Williams:

> If only the colour of someone's skin was irrelevant to their overall social experience. Sadly both history and current events have clearly shown that to not be the case, regardless of how or where you were raised.

Not the point I was making. Rather that there is an internal component to the experience of being a particular gender that is present to a far less degree in the experience of being a particular race.

1
 marsbar 05 Sep 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

I don't agree.  

2
 marsbar 05 Sep 2020
In reply to cp123:

Having looked into the stories of both women, I don't think it's a coincidence that both had abusive childhoods.  I think their childhood experiences could well be the reason for their fantasy reinvention of themselves.  

In reply to planetmarshall:

Fair enough. Out of curiosity, as I can’t quite tell, do you think that there is also an internal component that feeds into transgenderism (that doesn’t feel like I real word, but you know what I mean I’m sure), or are you saying that you think someone is whatever gender they are born and raised as?

cp123 05 Sep 2020
In reply to wintertree:

 

> The validity of that in the kind of "academic" circles this person publishes in is another matter and one I can bring myself to give 0.0 f***s about. No doubt page after page of introspective waffle heavily laden with long and clever words intended to make some basic observations look clever will be written, published and referenced and academic careers will be built on it. 

I agree in part, but the issue is the ideas purported by these academic circles appear to be spreading into mainstream culture (and many ideas, such as STEM subjects are inherently sexist, are being accepted) as their students leave the classrooms and enter the real world. I think this is worth caring about.

 Yanis Nayu 05 Sep 2020
In reply to marsbar:

You’d imagine you could just look and see. Mind you, I wouldn’t know Meghan Markle was black if she wasn’t always mentioning it. 

5
 Tom Valentine 05 Sep 2020
In reply to Yanis Nayu:

She isn't "black" if one of her parents is white. 

I would describe her as a mulatto but expect it might rub a few people up the wrong way.

Post edited at 19:05
17
 bouldery bits 05 Sep 2020
In reply to cp123:

I identify as a boulder. 

In reply to Tom Valentine:

> I would describe her as a mulatto but expect it might rub a few people up the wrong way.

 I imagine you’d be right there. Had to look that one up, but given that multiple dictionaries mark it as “dated; offensive” that doesn’t bode well. The etymological comparison with mules seems pretty ugly, even without accounting for the word’s associations with slavery and the history of the word explicitly being intended to mean that people are a separate and lesser species to white Europeans. 

Post edited at 19:31
 planetmarshall 05 Sep 2020
In reply to Yanis Nayu:

> You’d imagine you could just look and see. Mind you, I wouldn’t know Meghan Markle was black if she wasn’t always mentioning it. 

Has she ever mentioned it?

cb294 05 Sep 2020
In reply to wintertree:

In a way, it is by definition. If we classify groups by genetic markers, your mix of inherited alleles tell you into which bin you get sorted. Claiming that psychology beats that is as bizarre as my examples.

The funny thing is that some of the hunter/gatherer guys who lived round here (before they largely got displaced by the first farmers from Anatolia and most of these again by Yamnaya herdsmen who had invented the plague) were black but clearly with bright blue eyes!

edit for typos

Post edited at 20:04
Removed User 05 Sep 2020
In reply to Tom Valentine:

I think the accepted word is 'mixed race'but I believe a lot of mixed race people identify as black and will probably be treated as black in the US.

In reply to Tom Valentine:

> She isn't "black" if one of her parents is white. 

The US segregation-era definition of 'coloured' was a bit more strict. IIRC, it was 1/16.

 Clarence 05 Sep 2020
In reply to captain paranoia:

> The US segregation-era definition of 'coloured' was a bit more strict. IIRC, it was 1/16.

South Africa had a similar definition, when I enquired about working there I was told I would be designated "coloured" as my maternal grandfather was a mixed race chap from Trinidad. I'm what my girlfriend calls bluegrey, grey hair, bluegrey eyes and pale blue skin (nearly), I can't ever imagine getting away with identifying as "black". I was never really welcome at the Caribbean Club where my grandfather used to go for a drink and the family pretty much splits along "whiter looking"/" blacker looking" lines. Its all pretty stupid really.

 marsbar 05 Sep 2020
In reply to Tom Valentine:

I thought better of you.  

1
baron 05 Sep 2020
In reply to Removed Userjess13:

> I think the accepted word is 'mixed race'but I believe a lot of mixed race people identify as black and will probably be treated as black in the US.

I believe that Lewis Hamilton identifies as black.

I presume his mother is either fine with this or couldn’t care less.

It does seem a bit strange to identify with one parent more than the other as far as skin colour is concerned.

 marsbar 05 Sep 2020
In reply to baron:

People with one white parent still experience racism.  

1
 planetmarshall 05 Sep 2020
In reply to baron:

> It does seem a bit strange to identify with one parent more than the other as far as skin colour is concerned.

I can't speak for Lewis Hamilton, but it's possible that it's less about identifying with a particular skin pigmentation than it is identifying with the shared social experiences and history of other young black men.

baron 05 Sep 2020
In reply to marsbar:

> People with one white parent still experience racism.  

I’m sure they do.

If I was a racist I probably wouldn’t differentiate between a black person and a person of mixed race when it came to giving them a hard time.

baron 05 Sep 2020
In reply to planetmarshall:

> I can't speak for Lewis Hamilton, but it's possible that it's less about identifying with a particular skin pigmentation than it is identifying with the shared social experiences and history of other young black men.

Possibly.

Can’t he identify as mixed race given, as Marsbar stated previously, that they also suffer from racism?

 nathan79 05 Sep 2020
In reply to planetmarshall:

I can speak for Lewis Hamilton (or rather from the same position as him) so you know how the likes of Tom V would describe me. 

Wholeheartedly agree that his experiences are likely to be much closer to those of his black father than his white mother, and similar to those of a other young black/mixed/[insert racist term of choice].

As for Krug and Dolezal, they're effectively doing 24/7 blackface. As Marsbar says they've both got troubled histories and it's clear some mental issues explain but not excuse their actions.

Old Skooled 06 Sep 2020
In reply to Jamie Wakeham:

> However, rather like Rachel Dolezal, it seems unlikely she'd have been appointed to her position if she'd identified as white.

This simply isn't true. I personally know many white people working in American universities teaching and writing on black history. 

 Andypeak 06 Sep 2020
In reply to marsbar:

> I don't think that someone can identify as black.  

> It appears she is aware she was lying.  

The law in the UK says you can. 

 Tom Valentine 06 Sep 2020
In reply to marsbar:

Here's a bit of background to my post.

Suspecting it might now be offensive I simply looked it up in Wikipedia. I've now read the entry twice and cant find any reference to it being offensive even though the US census has stopped using it. The Wiki article even describes Obama as the first US mulatto president. So I posted my comment on UKC, still expecting some people to bridle at it.

Then I changed my mind and deleted the second part of my post, or at least thought I had. Apparently not.

So I don't know where the word stands currently. I would have thought that Wikipedia would have reacted to any significant number of complaints and modified its article accordingly.

1
 marsbar 06 Sep 2020
In reply to Tom Valentine:

Well at the risk of sounding condescending, we teach the children that Wikipedia has its uses, but cannot be considered reliable. 

If you had used Google instead, it comes up with a dictionary for the first result which gives the definition and that it is offensive.  

6
 Tom Valentine 06 Sep 2020
In reply to marsbar:

I wasn't looking for a definition: I've known what "mulatto" means since I first went to a folk music night at the age of fifteen. 

I assumed that if it was widely regarded as offensive then a Wiki article might point this out.

If you did a bit deeper you will find  quite a few articles on google where it is used interchangeably with Creole (but I think this is a mistake) and at least one young American rapper that uses the name to describe herself. I imagine that's OK because she is "reclaiming" it.

Post edited at 10:08
3
 Robert Durran 06 Sep 2020
In reply to marsbar:

With the offensiveness (or not) of so many words and terms concerning race often in flux, it really is a minefield and I think the civilised thing to do in most cases when somebody gets it wrong is to politely point it out and for the user to accept the the advice gracefully and endeavour to get it right next time. 

In reply to marsbar:

> I don't agree.  

How do you even define race?   Skin pigment?  If so where exactly along the continuum of possible shades do you draw the line?   Biological marker in DNA?  Which one, and what about people who have that marker but don't have any of the other ones which would popularly be associated with race.   Social/cultural factors - what about a 'white' kid raised in a 'black' family?

If we go back 10 generations we all have 2^10 = 1024 ancestors.  How many ancestors from that group do you need to have before you can identify as a particular racial group?  

Race is such a blurry thing that fixing it legally by how someone identifies doesn't seem that unreasonable.

 marsbar 06 Sep 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Someone with all white ancestors as far back as anyone knows is white.  This applies to both of the women in the article.  

If someone who has (for example) 1 out of 16 great grandparents black and wants to identify as black then that would be up to them.  Odd but their choice.  As Clarence says the black community wouldn't see it that way.  

So my feeling is that we would be looking at parents or grandparents, immediate ancestors. 

However these women don't have any black ancestors to anyones knowledge.  So they are not black.  As Nathan says they are pretending to be something they are not and that is blackface.  

I don't agree that living within a black family makes you black.  That is the case for one of the women.  She had black adopted siblings and lied about herself to marry a black husband (now her ex) and she has a black son.  

Post edited at 11:24
5
 marsbar 06 Sep 2020
In reply to Robert Durran:

I would have done so if he hadn't posted in such a way that suggests he was aware it was offensive and he was going to use it anyway.  

3
 off-duty 06 Sep 2020
In reply to marsbar:

> Someone with all white ancestors as far back as anyone knows is white.  This applies to both of the women in the article.  

> If someone who has (for example) 1 out of 16 great grandparents black and wants to identify as black then that would be up to them.  Odd but their choice.  As Clarence says the black community wouldn't see it that way.  

> So my feeling is that we would be looking at parents or grandparents, immediate ancestors. 

> However these women don't have any black ancestors to anyones knowledge.  So they are not black.  As Nathan says they are pretending to be something they are not and that is blackface.  

> I don't agree that living within a black family makes you black.  That is the case for one of the women.  She had black adopted siblings and lied about herself to marry a black husband (now her ex) and she has a black son.  

And then we have Anthony Lennon...

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/sep/07/anthony-lennon-theatre-direct...

 marsbar 06 Sep 2020
In reply to off-duty:

Well as he has a DNA showing a significant amount of West African, alongside his looks, his identity issue is most likely due to one of his grandparents being black, and the family keeping it secret.  Or his mother did have an affair with someone.  Given that he has family resemblance to his father, the most likely answer is that it was a grandmother who got pregnant out of wedlock.  

 off-duty 06 Sep 2020
In reply to marsbar:

> Well as he has a DNA showing a significant amount of West African, alongside his looks, his identity issue is most likely due to one of his grandparents being black, and the family keeping it secret.  Or his mother did have an affair with someone.  Given that he has family resemblance to his father, the most likely answer is that it was a grandmother who got pregnant out of wedlock.  

If you read the article, as far as he and his family are concerned - convinced even - that none of those issues are the case.

Regardless, it does make your argument boil down to "if you look black from birth you are entitled to be black, otherwise not".

Which I think makes an interesting parallel to the trans debate - if your argument had the word black replaced with woman then you'd probably be being called a "TERF".

 marsbar 06 Sep 2020
In reply to off-duty:

I read the article.  Surely you are not going to assume that people always tell the truth.  

It says he is convinced his mother didn't have an affair.  That fits with him looking like his dad, although its entirely possible that is wishful thinking.  

Nowhere in the article does it discuss the likelihood of either grandmother having an affair, or getting married while already pregnant. It's likely he has a black grandfather.  

I refer to his looks for several reasons.  They back up his DNA test.  

 His looks are the reason he is in the situation in the first place.  He has suffered racism.  He had good reason to question his white identity due to his looks and hair. He suffered due to his looks.  

He isn't changing his appearance.  So he can't be accused of blackface.   

He isn't lying.  Someone in his family has lied somewhere along the way.  He is entitled to identity as black because his DNA shows he has significant black ancestry.  

The 2 women mentioned earlier were lying.  One of them lied about her father.  The other about her family in a variety of different scenarios.  They are not black.  They changed their appearance to look black.  

I see the parallel to the TEFF argument.  But I don't think race is the same as gender.  That is my opinion.  

Post edited at 13:19
2
In reply to marsbar:

> Someone with all white ancestors as far back as anyone knows is white.  This applies to both of the women in the article.  

That's a fairly arbitrary distinction.  Most people aren't interested enough to trace their ancestors back very far.   But if someone was motivated there are services they could use, and if they went back far enough they would be very likely to find some ancestors of different races.

> If someone who has (for example) 1 out of 16 great grandparents black and wants to identify as black then that would be up to them.  Odd but their choice.  As Clarence says the black community wouldn't see it that way.  

What if they purchased a DNA test and it showed that further back than great grandparents they had some black ancestors?   Drawing the line at great-grandparent is arbitrary.

"The black community wouldn't see it that way" is basically conceding the point that race is self-identified.  Instead of letting an individual self-identify as a particular race you are arguing 'the black community' should self-identify who its members are.

Letting 'the community' identify its members is even worse than letting the individual identify.  'The community' is just as nebulous as 'race' itself.  Who speaks for the community?   'The black community' isn't a membership organisation with elections.  In practice the people speaking for it are activists who may or may not represent the views of the majority.

 off-duty 06 Sep 2020
In reply to marsbar:

> I read the article.  Surely you are not going to assume that people always tell the truth.  

Seems a bit harsh to accuse him of lying because he doesn't fit in to your categorisation? He's been entirely consistent with his account all through his career.

> It says he is convinced his mother didn't have an affair.  That fits with him looking like his dad, although its entirely possible that is wishful thinking.  

And his two brothers also appearing to be mixed race.

> Nowhere in the article does it discuss the likelihood of either grandmother having an affair, or getting married while already pregnant. It's likely he has a black grandfather.  

The article mentions his family being unable to find a black ancestor. I'd agree it's possible his grandmother had an affair - but his parents don't appear to mixed race.

> I refer to his looks for several reasons.  They back up his DNA test.  

>  His looks are the reason he is in the situation in the first place.  He has suffered racism.  He had good reason to question his white identity due to his looks and hair. He suffered due to his looks.  

> He isn't changing his appearance.  So he can't be accused of blackface.   

> He isn't lying.  Someone in his family has lied somewhere along the way.  He is entitled to identity as black because his DNA shows he has significant black ancestry.  

He's "entitled to be black" because he looks black. Unless you are advocating DNA tests for everyone who appears mixed race.

> The 2 women mentioned earlier were lying.  One of them lied about her father.  The other about her family in a variety of different scenarios.  They are not black.  They changed their appearance to look black.  

> I see the parallel to the TEFF argument.  But I don't think race is the same as gender.  That is my opinion.  

I think it's interesting that "race" ultimately boils down to little more than the colour of skin. Yet that is what the arguments boil down to - in direct contradiction of the dream of MLK about being judged by the content of character rather than colour if skin.

I've seen similar in policing - a cop asked to join in a BAME photograph because they looked mixed race. (They were south American). Superintendent Jay Dave - heralded as a key highly ranked South Wales BAME officer - he "looked" Indian and was of Indian heritage, but grew up in Tanzania and Cardiff. 

Are we really so shallow that the key to diversity is about skin colour?  

I think there are really interesting parallels with the trans debate - the motivations of people who, for whatever reason, consider themselves to identify as black is dismissed as malicious - "lying".  And simply saying race is different from gender seems a bit of an opt out. I'd have thought race - based on skin colour - is a whole lot less of a deal than gender, but yet the objection to changing race is far fiercer.

It also gives a bit of a hit to critical race theory. If everything is racist and results in oppression based on race - what possible motivation could there be for wanting to assume BAME identity? (I'm sure there will be some fairly convoluted critical race theory to explain why this is just an extension of oppression, there usually is...)

 Timmd 06 Sep 2020
In reply to marsbar:

> I see the parallel to the TEFF argument.  But I don't think race is the same as gender.  That is my opinion.  

Scientists have recently found that there are subtle brain differences in trans people when compared to none trans. 

1
 Timmd 06 Sep 2020
In reply to off-duty:

> Are we really so shallow that the key to diversity is about skin colour?  

It is, when society is still shallow enough for people who aren't white to still seem to face hurdles because of their skin colour, or background. 

Post edited at 13:56
 marsbar 06 Sep 2020
In reply to off-duty:

I absolutely am not accusing him of lying.  I'm saying he isn't lying.  He has probably been lied to.  

If in a future perfect world people are no longer treated badly due to their skin colour, then it will be irrelevant  how someone looks.  Right now we live in a world where he was treated badly because of how he looks.  

Unlike the 2 women who did lie, I believe him.  I believe he is black.  

As for the motivation to assume a BAME identity, I already said that the 2 women assumed a fantasy identity due to childhood trauma.  One of them probably due to feeling her parents loved her black adopted siblings more than her, and the other one to make herself seem more interesting.  It isn't a sane thing to do.  It probably did result in trouble for them.  But again I'd expect you to know that people with very traumatic childhoods can be the last people to exhibit rational behaviour and avoid being treated badly.  

 off-duty 06 Sep 2020
In reply to marsbar:

> I absolutely am not accusing him of lying.  I'm saying he isn't lying.  He has probably been lied to.  

Bit of a removal of agency from him, but yep it's possible.

> If in a future perfect world people are no longer treated badly due to their skin colour, then it will be irrelevant  how someone looks.  Right now we live in a world where he was treated badly because of how he looks.  

> Unlike the 2 women who did lie, I believe him.  I believe he is black.  

Literally based on skin colour.

> As for the motivation to assume a BAME identity, I already said that the 2 women assumed a fantasy identity due to childhood trauma.  One of them probably due to feeling her parents loved her black adopted siblings more than her, and the other one to make herself seem more interesting.  It isn't a sane thing to do.  It probably did result in trouble for them.  But again I'd expect you to know that people with very traumatic childhoods can be the last people to exhibit rational behaviour and avoid being treated badly.  

And yet if you suggest a potentially trans kid might need counselling rather than surgery and hormone treatment....

 marsbar 06 Sep 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

If there are going to be situations such as Lennon's where being black entitled him to something, then there has to be an arbitrary line drawn somewhere.  It's not up to me to draw that line.   I'm just looking at it from various points of view.  

It's a bit like the Irish passport I sadly can't have.  My great grandfather doesn't entitle me to it. But had my mother or grandfather applied before I was born then I could have.   Who knew back then that an Irish passport would be sought after?!  

RentonCooke 06 Sep 2020
In reply to off-duty:

> It also gives a bit of a hit to critical race theory. If everything is racist and results in oppression based on race - what possible motivation could there be for wanting to assume BAME identity? (I'm sure there will be some fairly convoluted critical race theory to explain why this is just an extension of oppression, there usually is...)

Yes, it has been pointed out a few times that you'd be hard pushed to find whites identifying as black during apartheid and Jim Crow. Whereas now there is a cultural cache in being black, not just in popular culture but seemingly in academia.  

Seems the examples of racism people cite when they claim ill-treatment come from periods of time closer to the advent of the Model T Ford rather than the Boeing Dreamliner.

4
 marsbar 06 Sep 2020
In reply to off-duty:

Based on skin colour and a DNA test.  

I'd be the first to suggest that a child have counselling if they were considering transitioning.  Do you think kids are being given surgery and hormones without?  

 marsbar 06 Sep 2020
In reply to RentonCooke:

Clueless.  

You really think there is no racism these days?  Wow.  

4
 Timmd 06 Sep 2020
In reply to marsbar:

> Clueless.  

> You really think there is no racism these days?  Wow.  

Absolutely. The grimace and turning away of a man when he saw the black lady I was with approaching a few weeks ago is a case in point. A lovely friend of a friend, and this guy had some kind of a problem.

Post edited at 14:26
 off-duty 06 Sep 2020
In reply to marsbar:

> Based on skin colour and a DNA test.  

Woah- you can't be advocating a DNA test for determining race? How "much" DNA is "enough"?  What if I'm mixed race - with a black mother but not "enough" DNA from whatever arbitrary ethnic group has been designated "black"?

> I'd be the first to suggest that a child have counselling if they were considering transitioning.  Do you think kids are being given surgery and hormones without?  

That's part of the case against the Tavistock - I think one one of the claimants states they had 3 one hour sessions prior to being prescribed hormones.

 marsbar 06 Sep 2020
In reply to off-duty:

So 3 hours of counselling then?  

>And yet if you suggest a potentially trans kid might need counselling rather than surgery and hormone treatment....

Post edited at 14:19
1
 Timmd 06 Sep 2020
In reply to off-duty:

> Woah- you can't be advocating a DNA test for determining race? How "much" DNA is "enough"?  What if I'm mixed race - with a black mother but not "enough" DNA from whatever arbitrary ethnic group has been designated "black"?

You'd be found to be mixed race, and what is the problem with that? It seems like a slightly strange question, to be fair.

Post edited at 14:20
 off-duty 06 Sep 2020
In reply to marsbar:

> So 3 hours of counselling then?  

> >And yet if you suggest a potentially trans kid might need counselling rather than surgery and hormone treatment....

Not an awful lot for life changing surgery is it?

I take it you give no credence to your own argument about childhood issues causing a decision to identify as black, when they are applied to the trans debate (which already includes well- recognised issues such as gender dysphoria)

2
 off-duty 06 Sep 2020
In reply to Timmd:

> You'd be found to be mixed race, and what is the problem with that? It seems like a slightly strange question, to be fair.

The DNA test was raised by marsbar in response to Anthony Lennon. Who identifies as mixed race. 

Seems a slightly strange comment, to be fair.

 Timmd 06 Sep 2020
In reply to off-duty:

I don't understand, why where you suggesting that a DNA test for race is potentially controversial?

 off-duty 06 Sep 2020
In reply to Timmd:

> I don't understand, why where you suggesting that a DNA test for race is potentially controversial?

You don't think saying to BAME people that in order to identify as BAME they need a DNA test might be even "slightly" controversial?

 marsbar 06 Sep 2020
In reply to off-duty:

To get as far as referral to the Tavistock would usually require going through Cahms and the GP first.  So 3 hours at the Tavistock with a specialist for a child with no history of trauma, who has already discussed the issue with their GP and then had an assessment and sessions with Cahms seems fine to me.  

If a child has a traumatic history then I assume Cahms would work on that first.  Not all children go straight onto hormones.  In my experience they have to live with their new name first.  

I still don't see your point though.  We have got off topic.  

2
 marsbar 06 Sep 2020
In reply to off-duty:

Clearly Mr Lenmon felt it necessary to have a DNA test to prove himself.  

 off-duty 06 Sep 2020
In reply to marsbar:

> Clearly Mr Lenmon felt it necessary to have a DNA test to prove himself.  

There is a very big difference between getting a DNA for your own personal reasons, whatever they may be, and expecting that if you "want" to identify as BAME you have to undergo a DNA test.

 Timmd 06 Sep 2020
In reply to off-duty:

> You don't think saying to BAME people that in order to identify as BAME they need a DNA test might be even "slightly" controversial?

Answering a question with a question can seem to be slightly argumentative?

'The context in which I was suggesting that a DNA test for race could be controversial, is as follows...'

Oh, right, thanks off-duty. Very straight forward of you to answer a question with an answer.

Post edited at 14:52
4
 off-duty 06 Sep 2020
In reply to Timmd:

> Answering a question with a question can seem to be slightly argumentative?

> 'The context in which I was suggesting that a DNA test for race could be controversial, is as follows...'

> Oh, right, thanks off-duty. Very straight forward of you.

The context in which I was suggesting that a DNA test for race could be controversial is as follows: telling someone who is BAME that in order to "identify" as BAME they need to undertake a DNA test to demonstrate that, despite their skin colour they really are BAME.

As suggested by marsbar: "Based on skin colour and a DNA test. "

 Timmd 06 Sep 2020
In reply to off-duty:

Yes, thank you. I think I possibly haven't slept enough and am slightly 'scratchy'  

Post edited at 14:56
1
 marsbar 06 Sep 2020
In reply to off-duty:

Should I ignore the article then?  Before you told me to read it, and that it contained information it doesn’t.  Now I’m being made to seem a TERF when my view is quite different and I’m advocating mandatory DNA tests for mixed race people because I mentioned something in the article.  I’m not. 

My position

I support (trans) women and (trans) men and their right to be themselves.  

I don't believe Karen White is a genuine trans woman. Karen White is a rapist who lied about being a trans woman.  

I believe that children who want to transition should have counselling.  Hormones aren’t surgery BTW.  

I believe that the 2 women mentioned above are white, and that they lied.

I believe the man you mentioned is black.  

I believe that being South American or Indian would both count as BAME, I have no idea why you wouldn’t.  Neither are an ethnic majority in this country and ME stands for minority ethnic.  

 off-duty 06 Sep 2020
In reply to marsbar:

> Should I ignore the article then?  Before you told me to read it, and that it contained information it doesn’t.  Now I’m being made to seem a TERF when my view is quite different and I’m advocating mandatory DNA tests for mixed race people because I mentioned something in the article.  I’m not. 

So when you said that you should identify as BAME based on skin colour and DNA tests, and when you used his DNA to "justify" LENNON's identity as BAME then you didn't mean it.  Or maybe didn't express your point clearly enough.

> My position

> I support (trans) women and (trans) men and their right to be themselves.  

Yep, I agree.

> I don't believe Karen White is a genuine trans woman. Karen White is a rapist who lied about being a trans woman.  

Not even sure who she is.

> I believe that children who want to transition should have counselling.  Hormones aren’t surgery BTW.  

I agree. I also believe that counselling should explore their issues, and potentially address them. Part of the current controversy appears to be that some believe that the counselling centres around confirming their trans identity, rather than exploring perhaps more deeply. But I'm far from an expert. 

> I believe that the 2 women mentioned above are white, and that they lied.

> I believe the man you mentioned is black.  

Yes. Generally in agreement here - the reason I brought up Lennon is because his experience and identity didn't match the means of identifying as BAME that you had just expressed. Which then resulted in to all this discussion of DNA testing.

> I believe that being South American or Indian would both count as BAME, I have no idea why you wouldn’t.  Neither are an ethnic majority in this country and ME stands for minority ethnic.  

Yep, fair point, I was probably meandering off topic a bit into the police approach to diversity which is very much based on skin colour.

For what it's worth my south American colleague very much identifies as "white other", there not being a box for "White south American". In relation to the retired south Wales Supt. I just find it interesting that the key factor he was judged on was skin colour as I am unaware of a shortage of Tanzanian staff.   

I've always wrestled with the argument that a middle-class university educated black colleague is the best person to police an inner city estate in comparison to an inner-city estate white colleague, or the best person to represent "diversity".

As an aside I find the parallels to the trans debate interesting. As I've already pointed out, if you were to accuse a trans person of just "lying" you'd be criticised, if you were to deny that they had the ability to identify as the opposite gender without "looking right" or passing a DNA(or similar) test - again massive criticism.  

​​​​​​

 TobyA 06 Sep 2020
In reply to Timmd:

> I don't understand, why where you suggesting that a DNA test for race is potentially controversial?

Because to have the racial or ethnic classifications that we all think in now, some one would have to decide how much or what type of DNA is sufficient. It would be ridiculous at best or nightmareish at worst - like children in Apartheid South Africa being taken from their families because by some ridiculous arbitrary rule and a fluke of all our mixed genetic heritage, they were too black or too white for the family they were born into.

I hadn't read about Anthony Ekundayo Lennon before the very interesting article off duty linked above but his whole racial identity seems to have been solely the product of how other people reacted to his looks. If that isn't a great example of how race or ethnicity is (to a great extent) a social construct, I don't know what is. Just like many African Americans who managed to pass for white and live life as white people, or Eastern European Jews who managed to pass as non-Jewish and survived the holocaust as a result - what your DNA is doesn't really matter if you happen to look like a socially constructed 'different' 'race' to whatever your DNA is. 

Post edited at 16:00
cp123 06 Sep 2020
In reply to off-duty:

This isn't just aimed at off-duty, he was just the last person to post, but do we think it is correct that say theatre grants are only available to certain people based upon their skin colour?

I personally think it is right that access to the typical 'privileged' professions; acting, judges, journalists etc is widened so you don't need financial and aspirational wealth in order to consider participating, but only giving grants to certain people based upon skin colour is using discriminatory methods even if the desired outcome is more equal representation.

[If you want to use the like-dislike to agree disagree please do, but I'm also interested in why people think the way they do]

Post edited at 15:59
 TobyA 06 Sep 2020
In reply to marsbar:

> I believe that being South American or Indian would both count as BAME, I have no idea why you wouldn’t.  

Well what if you are a Chilean with both your parents and all your grandparents being white German? Or indeed one of those Argentinians from Patagonia with four grandparent who were all Welsh-speaking white Welsh people? 

It's "minority ethnic" that is mega complicated to untangle. My kids are "white other" on census information and only one of the 3 is a British citizen - if they become police officers could they join an organisation for BAME officers? No one ever treats them as anything other than white British even though they aren't... 

 Timmd 06 Sep 2020
In reply to TobyA: Yes indeed, to all that you've written. 

I think I had in mind a mixed race friend of a friend having a DNA test to find out her background, and it not being an issue for herself or others one way or the other, she was just interested in finding out.  

I think my question was more 'in the abstract', without it in mind at the time how abused the issue of race has been towards dreadful aims (which I'm not unaware of too). 

Post edited at 16:32
 wintertree 06 Sep 2020
In reply to cb294:

> In a way, it is by definition. If we classify groups by genetic markers, your mix of inherited alleles tell you into which bin you get sorted. 

But are genetic markers 100% correlated with racial identity?  As other posters have said above, it's partly about culture and identity.  The time that is wasted trying to define this when it shouldn't matter...

 Timmd 06 Sep 2020
In reply to wintertree:

It almost strikes me that the science (genes and DNA) needs to be separated from the rather fraught social constructs which can result from humans being as we can tend to be.

I understand that in certain races there are predispositions to have particular health outcomes, which may mean that it's a helpful thing to be able to define different races. 

If it wasn't for humans being flawed in certain ways, there wouldn't be the same problem with defining people by race (not as individuals, but as just one means of looking at things)...

Post edited at 17:03
 Tom Valentine 06 Sep 2020
In reply to marsbar:

He thinks you are probably right and wonders if he should contact Miss Mulatto to tell her where she's gone wrong. Clearly, if he knows deep down that mulatto is as offensive as quadroon and octaroon, so does the young lady in question. In fact, he's watched her in an interview almost glorying in the controversy her name choice has provoked.

Difference is, he's white and she's not.

Anyway, looks like "Sally Brown" is off the playlist at the next open mike folk night .....     

2
cb294 06 Sep 2020
In reply to wintertree:

I would say that this is the only sensible (i.e., not open to personal interpretation) approach. Not that it makes much sense to speak about race with respect to an individual, anyway: If you go back a few generations most of us will be some mixture, to a varying degree.

It absolutely does make sense, though, when talking about populations. Along the lines used eleswhere in biology, I would define race as a population of some species with characteristic allele combinations that shows limited introgression by foreign haplotypes despite documented interbreeding.

This has two corrolaries: First, few haplotypes are absolutely unique to a certain population, so presence of most others can at best give you probabilities as you could have got them from different sources. Personal DNA sequencing services of the kind that give you a nice printout certifying 7.3% Inuit and 0.4% Yoruba ancestry are therefore complete BS.

Second, if talking about race pretty much only makes sense in terms of genetics, "Black" is not a useful category: The deepest branchpoints between population that we see today are within subsaharan Africans!

CB

 Tom Valentine 06 Sep 2020
In reply to cb294:

Some aspects of the "nice printout" may be BS but the birthday present DNA gift I got introduced me to a grand niece I didn't know I'd got so I don't feel completely robbed ( no Inuit or Yoruban in mine, btw...    )

cb294 06 Sep 2020
In reply to Tom Valentine:

The example was obviously picked to be implausible. Of course it can be nice to learn something about your ancestry (even if it is just rough probabilities) or meet relatives you did not know about.

It is more problematic that you do not only reveal your own genetic makeup to whoever wants to use that information (which is of course your choice), but also destroy the genetic anonymity of all your relatives without their consent being required: Current guesses are that within the next two or three years enough people will have voluntarily submitted their DNA info that security services will be able to identify anybody based on their DNA using data from (distant) relatives only.

Europe is lagging a bit, but I find this brave new world rather scary. Remember, all these services do not really sell the sequencing and analysis, their business is the collection and aggregation of genetic data for sale later.

CB

 Tom Valentine 06 Sep 2020
In reply to cb294:

Am i right in thinking that in buying a DNA kit I am doing nothing different from submitting to a police requested DNA swab?

 marsbar 06 Sep 2020
In reply to Tom Valentine:

????

 aln 06 Sep 2020
In reply to marsbar:

> ????

???? 

 Tom Valentine 07 Sep 2020
In reply to marsbar:

If I provide a DNA sample for a family history project it has implications for my children and grandchildren. This is a widely held reservation about kits such as the Ancestry.com package which I got for my birthday.

I'm assuming that if the police ask me for a swab and I provide it, it will have the same implications for my descendants.

But apparently only one in six genealogy DNA providers are happy with their details being handed over to the police.

Post edited at 00:10
cb294 07 Sep 2020
In reply to Tom Valentine:

Except that, in civilized countries at least, there are rules of who can access police DNA data (in particular, not your health insurance), how long this information can be stored, under which circumstances it has to be deleted, etc....

Hand your genetic data over to some American company, and they will sell that information to anyone. Indeed, that is the entire business model. The "ancestry analysis service" is not where the money will eventually come from: I don't know about the small print of Ancestry.com, but in general the genetic data become theirs to do as they please.

I do believe that your genome is yours and you should have a right to the information contained therein, be that for health or genealogy or whatever. However, if you use such a service, the ethical problem is that you make the decision to forfeit your genetic privacy for a large group of people you may not even know about! Yes, the sections you share with another person wil decrease the more distantly you are related, but with a bit of additional information only a few genomes among my distant relations will be enough to make me uniquely identifiable by DNA. It will also make it possible for, say, my health ensurer or potential employer to estimate my genetic risk to contract certain diseases. The US certainly are not far from that stage.

I am not at all happy how the essentially fraudulent business model of "ancestry testing" is used to abolish my genetic privacy. By all means, allow personal genetic health advice and general, distant ancestry analysis (i.e., whether someone in the  generation of your great-grandparents came, with certain probability, from Finland or whereever). It is pretty much useless anyway.

However, sharing of that genetic information and database searches to identify individual relatives are the stuff of GATTACA like nightmares.

CB

 Jon Stewart 07 Sep 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> But in general, if we accept that people can identify as a particular sex then there's no reason why they shouldn't identify as a particular race.

This, I'm afraid really grinds my gears, but I'm in a good mood as I'm back from a good climbing trip, so I'll try not to be an arsehole while explaining why your understanding of the issue is incorrect. I'm afraid this isn't a matter of all opinions being valid, there's a biological truth here that if we, as a society, understood then so many people wouldn't get treated like shit for facts about them that they didn't choose and don't do others any harm.

"Identifying as" the opposite sex is nothing like identifying as black, an attack helicopter, a boulder, or anything else. This is just a confusion caused by the language we use to describe the biological phenomenon of transgenderism.

A just as a person broadly *is* or isn't black, as you could define by some crude and badly fitting definition, regardless of how they identify, a person *is* or isn't trans (again by some difficult/imperfect definition). It's a fact about them.

Gender identity and sexual orientation are very similar aspects of human biology (and therefore psychology). We have evolved these two separate brain functions (we know they're separate because they don't always match) because as a social, sexually reproducing species, we have to have

1. a drive to have sex with members of the opposite sex

2. an internal sense of which sex we are (this only becomes obvious when there is a conflict between birth sex and gender identity - another source of confusion)

In the vast majority of cases, males develop sexual orientation towards females (heterosexuality) and male gender identity (cis-gender in current lingo). In a small minority of cases in both sexes sexual orientation develops anomalously (homosexual, bisexual, asexual). Similarly, in a small minority of cases, gender identity develops anomalously (trans and non-binary). These are facts about biology, and as Ben Shapiro would say, "facts don't care about your feelings".

I use the word "fact" here with a little bit of caution, but I'm happy to go that far, because all the evidence points in exactly that direction, (e.g. from cutting up the brains of trans people and finding reliable anatomical differences typical of the opposite sex - although this is more complex than "male brain in female body") and it provides a completely compelling explanation of things we know are true.

It used to be commonly thought that homosexuality was a choice, or a result of bad parenting ("weak father"), and under that understanding, homosexual people were persecuted. Can I ask if you have ever believed that homosexuality was a choice, or a result of some failure of proper socialisation? Do you, and have you always, just accepted that as a brute fact of biology, some people are gay, and that's just a part of the world, and any "disagreement with" homosexuality is ridiculous, because it's like "disagreeing with" the ocean or male pattern baldness? 

Trans issues are more complex than sexual orientation (e.g. how to counsel kids who think they're trans, when is it appropriate to use hormones, sports, etc.). But we're starting on the wrong foot. We, as a society, haven't even accepted yet that some people just *are* trans and non-binary. The language "he/she identifies as" is a source of this confusion. The crucial fact that requires recognition is that some people *are* trans. That's how their brain has developed, just like the way some people *are* homosexual.

Once we recognise that people have innate characteristics that they don't have a choice about and don't harm others, then we can have a society with equal rights. Without that understanding, we're not going to get there.

Many people will "dislike" or disagree with this post. But be clear, we're talking about scientific facts, and a good deal of research has been done. All opinions are not valid, there are facts which you can be mistaken about. There are right and wrong answers to this question, "is identifying as black the same as identifying as a woman?". The answer is a factual no. Gender identity is a feature of the human brain we evolved because it drives sexual reproduction, whereas "race identity" is simply a vague cultural way of seeing oneself. 

Post edited at 12:25
 blurty 07 Sep 2020
In reply to cp123:

I f**king love to see the bedwetters tying themselves up in knots trying to explain this one away. Bloody great.

5
 Jon Stewart 07 Sep 2020
In reply to blurty:

What do you mean?

Old Skooled 07 Sep 2020
In reply to blurty:

There's almost nothing to explain: someone has proved to be a serial liar - that's it. 

cb294 07 Sep 2020
In reply to Jon Stewart:

I agree with you 100% with your description of sexual identity as a consequence of biology, a "fact" that cannot be changed because it is driven by genetic factors acting during development.

We are not fish, where certain species can switch sex and the associated behaviour back and forth once or in some species even several times throughout their lifetime. We are also not guinea pigs, where male homosexuality is so common that - were we talking about guinea pig "society" - it would barely make sense to even identify homosexuality as a deviation from the norm. Some people simply are gay, other trans, the majority cis and straight, but so what.

I disagree, though, about racial identity. Race, in humans as in all other animals, clearly is defined genetically.

So, identifying as "black" (which I argued above is actually rather useless due to the large genetic divergence within Africans) IMO should be equal to making the claim of having a relatively recent African ancestor. This is testable, and either true or false.

Arguing that race is a social construct, or that you can pick your race by self identification, as if it was just another political or religious affiliation, smacks of postmodernistic idiocy: Some "philosophers" of science have in all seriousness argued that physical laws are social constructs, too, and that literary devices like saying "from that discovery on, the speed of light in vacuum was universal and constant" should be read literally.

CB

edit for clarification in second to last paragraph

Post edited at 17:27
RentonCooke 07 Sep 2020
In reply to Jon Stewart:

Isn't the comparison actually being made more wrt gender self-identity and the demand that any claimed identity may not be challenged? 

Maybe I'm reading your text incorrectly but you appear to be saying that a psychological state (I feel like X) carries the same validity as a biological state (dissected brain looks like X) when it comes to self-identification. I don't necessarily disagree with that. But if both are the same then claims to malleable gender-identity (and accordant demands on others to accept those claimed identities, even as they change) is a problem for those who say a white cannot identify as a black because they don't carry that requisite melanin. It's possible a white living in the Bronx or adopted by black parents could arguably be 'more black' than someone like Candice Owens, and (to invert an oft-used argument used against racism) more variability may well exist between blacks than exists between whites and blacks. So surely 'I [white] am black' is just as valid a claim as saying 'I [male/trans female] am female'?

I can't shake the feeling that a fair number of people who currently (and newly) claim to be gender non-binary (usually in their teens and early 20s), and demand others accept their identity, are just repeating what kids in the 70s were doing when choosing to sport a mohawk and sex-pistols jacket. They're either crying out for attention, extending a digit to what they perceive as overly strict societal norms, projecting a social/political view, or simply emphasising their sexual orientation. By no means all. But I really wonder how many will still be identifying as non-binary in years to come and who, in hindsight, will come to view themselves as simply having been a typical male or female young adult.

To put it bluntly, for many, gender identity, may very well be a choice. That's fine. People may fake/choose all manner of identities they view as socially expedient (rich, single, black, unique-gendered), just as this woman appears to have done. The problem is that in the fight to obtain recognition for some identities we have gone down the cul-de-sac of demanding any claimed gender-identity be accepted without question. Hence the analogy being drawn, and the rhetorical question being asked, about how is this woman's choice of identity any different from the range of other identities people are being told they must accept.

Also, hasn't the 'trans' issue moved on? I get the impression that everyone accepts that 'trans men/women' exist (just as intersex people exist). They even accept that some 'trans men/women' may identify as 'men/women'.

Instead, the bone of contention seems to be that a trans person (or even third parties) can demand you drop the adjunct 'trans' label when referring to or identifying them and instead be referred to as simply a 'man/woman'. This seems to be where the opposition, which may look like denial ('No, you're not a woman!), lies. The right to identification has to extend both ways and surely a person has as much right to define someone as any sex they see fit as that person has to define themselves as a certain sex? A 'trans man/woman' being a 'trans man/woman', and that being something different from being a 'man/woman'? 

The whole thing is a mine-field, and not one I've got to grips with myself, so may have misunderstood your argument on that one. Apologies if so.

Post edited at 20:19
 TobyA 07 Sep 2020
In reply to cb294:

> So, identifying as "black" (which I argued above is actually rather useless due to the large genetic divergence within Africans) IMO should be equal to making the claim of having a relatively recent African ancestor. This is testable, and either true or false.

Are white South Africans black then? Or not African? And what about a Aboriginal Australian who is now a British resident and citizen - I'm sure there are one or two. Are they not "black" despite being, well, black.

Post edited at 20:36
 marsbar 07 Sep 2020
In reply to TobyA:

White South Africans could mostly be considered white Dutch by heritage or ethnic origin I'd have thought.  They are called Afrikaners I think, a white ethnic category. 

They aren't African by ethnicity but are by nationality.  

Similar to British Indians.  British nationality and Indian ethnic group.  

Post edited at 20:50
1
 TobyA 07 Sep 2020
In reply to marsbar:

It's not that I don't understand this, but rather I'm trying to suggest to cb294 that his idea of race being definable by DNA is going to be ultimately an arbitrary social construct that he is trying to avoid in the first place because we're not ultimately interested in who has African DNA we're interested in who our contemporary society calls "black" - there will be a considerable overlap between the two, but plenty of confusing outliers too.

Afrikaners call themselves another African tribe - just a white tribe. And of course there is no "African" nationality. South African, Zimbabwean, Namibian etc. But my point is cb294 is saying you have to have some African genetic heritage to be "black". What is "African", if Afrikaners aren't African? My gran told me her family were Huguenots, the Hugeunots came to Britain about the same time that people who would become known as Afrikaners were moving to Africa!

I was listening to a black senior lawyer talking the other day about in the 70s when she was a kid getting called "Paki" when people abused her. That theatre director grew up being told he was black, or mixed race, so that's how he saw himself, regardless of his DNA.

 off-duty 07 Sep 2020
In reply to TobyA:

So as far as race goes it's entirely defined by appearance.  And changing it is "bad".

And as far as gender goes it entirely isn't defined by appearance. And changing it is "good".

?

cb294 07 Sep 2020
In reply to TobyA:

Your examples pretty much make one of my points, many human groups have evolved dark skin pigmentation, differences between these groups (say San vs. Bantu) are deeper than any other split between primary African groups.

Australian aborigines may have "black" skin but otherwise are as far from our shared African ancestors as you can possibly be (e.g. their rather large admixture of Denisovan DNA that is absent from Europeans or West and North Eurasians).

If there were any more proof needed that it makes no sense to discriminate someone based on their skin pigmentation, genetics therefore tells you that human evolution has preserved genetically distinguishable population structure (races in any other field of biology), but putting people in bins based on skin colour does not remotely recover that structure (never mind support any other spurious claims about these supposed races).

White South Afrikans are essentially mostly Dutch or English, and their rather unpleasant political system managed to keep it this way rather successfully.

My main point is that the racial (or even lower level, such as national or regional or even religious) pattern of your ancestry is an unchangeable fact of your personal history that is reflected in and can be recovered from your DNA (even if I argue above that the precise percentages offered by the commercial personal sequencing services are largely voodoo). It is not a question of me "identifying" as some genotype or other, I am what I am gentically because of who my ancestors liked (i.e., German with a dash of Polish...).

CB

cb294 07 Sep 2020
In reply to TobyA:

> It's not that I don't understand this, but rather I'm trying to suggest to cb294 that his idea of race being definable by DNA is going to be ultimately an arbitrary social construct that he is trying to avoid in the first place because we're not ultimately interested in who has African DNA we're interested in who our contemporary society calls "black" - there will be a considerable overlap between the two, but plenty of confusing outliers too.

OK, now I am getting a better idea where you are aiming at.

I think that treating race as a social construct leads us down a dangerous path. For that reason I am also unhappy with people, including biologists, who argue that there is no such thing a races in humans. Both claims are plainly wrong and discredit the aim of abolishing discrimination based on race (which I clearly share!). Much better to accept that our genetic profile reflects our ancestry and simply is what it is, but does not provide a justification for discrimination!

However, in some cases it may. Just think of the increased risk of severe Covid outcomes in "black" patients that seem not to be explained to 100% by the occupations and social status of the patients. Is there something in the DNA that makes people with recent African descent more suceptible? Unknown, AFAIK, but other, better studied examples of race influencing disease outcomes or suitability of certain drugs are available. If so, protective or treatment measures may have to be adjusted by race.

Again, this would have a factual basis in the immune repertoire different populations have been selected for, nothing about self identification as Covid susceptible....

CB

 Tom Valentine 08 Sep 2020
In reply to cb294:

Even though it's on the decline, sickle cell disease in the US is much more prevalent in the black population. I doubt the cells that cause it are aware of the notion of "social constructs".

cb294 08 Sep 2020
In reply to Tom Valentine:

Sure, and it was retained in the genome of West Africans because having one copy of the defective gene protects against malaria, at least to a degree.

CB

 elsewhere 08 Sep 2020
In reply to cb294:

Race is mostly a social contsruct because it is mostly defined by how people are treated and feel different on the basis of skin colour.

The physical appearance, genetic and medical aspects are real but not the everyday significance of race.

Illogical racism in reaction to physical appearance is far more relevant to the everyday significance and meaning of race.

For example, I doubt this thread on UKC would exist if there were no racism to make race significant.

Applying logic to race is applying logic to something significantly defined by illogical racism. 

cb294 08 Sep 2020
In reply to elsewhere:

> Race is mostly a social contsruct because it is mostly defined by how people are treated and feel different on the basis of skin colour.

...

> Applying logic to race is applying logic to something significantly defined by illogical racism. 

I agree, but argue that needs to be changed.

In that respect, declaring that either races do not exist, or that you can change your race because it is only social without a genetic basis is counterproductive.

The former is easily refuted as factually wrong, discrediting any well meaning conclusions based on that claim ("we are all the same, so let's not discriminate each other" "No we are not...."). The latter actually justifies discrimination since treating people differently based on, say, their chosen political affiliation is fair game.

As with sexual orientiation, race should be treated as what it is, a factual, testable property of any given person that they have no control of and that does not justify any value judgement.

CB

Post edited at 11:16
 elsewhere 08 Sep 2020
In reply to cb294:

> In that respect, declaring that either races do not exist, or that you can change your race because it is only social without a genetic basis is counterproductive.

You can change your race, for example when a high caste person moves from India to the UK their race changes from high status to low status in the racist pecking order. For practical purposes their race has changed as determined by a racist pecking order.

If you take the example of Nazi Germany, there was no logical change but in going from subject to antisemitism to subject to antisemitic genocide the race of Jews went from imperfect assimilation but secure to officially subject to visceral hatred. Again for practical purposes the race of Jews changed and it was decided by the racists.

It's far from logical or clearly defined but I don't think that changes that the fact that meaning of race derives more from illogical and ill-defined racism than from morality, logic or science. 

Post edited at 12:19
1
cb294 08 Sep 2020
In reply to elsewhere:

> You can change your race, for example when a high caste person moves from India to the UK their race changes from high status to low status in the racist pecking order. For practical purposes their race has changed as determined by a racist pecking order.

Thanks for illustrating the point I made above: No, their race has NOT changed, that is not even possible. How would you change the identity of your biological ancestors? Their treatment based on race has.

Also, caste is not the same category as race. It is indeed possible to lose or renounce caste status (less so to claim it, and certainly not by self identification), precisely because caste is a social / religious construct, albeit one so long established and shaped by invasions, population displacements, and import of new ruling classes that it has since also left a genetic mark.

CB

 elsewhere 08 Sep 2020
In reply to cb294:

> Thanks for illustrating the point I made above: No, their race has NOT changed, that is not even possible. How would you change the identity of your biological ancestors? Their treatment based on race has.

That assumes that race is a well defined, precise or logical category based only on the identity of your biological ancestors. It's not.

"People with big feet" does not exist as a race despite this being a well defined (measurable shoe size) and possibly a genetic characteristic of their biological ancestors. It's doesn't exist as a race mainly because nobody notices or cares so racism against it doesn't exist. It you could teach people to notice feet as an aspect of physical appearance like skin colour and hate on that basis then it would be just as logical/illogical  as any other racism and for practical purposes it would be a race.

> Also, caste is not the same category as race.

That is a subject of debate. I don't think racists make clear logical distinctions between categories and racism is the most significant factor in race.  

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/jugglebandhi/the-indian-caste-sys...

I can't think of a race not shaped by invasions, population displacements, and import of new ruling classes and an associated genetic mark. Religion is often a factor too.

Post edited at 13:53
cb294 08 Sep 2020
In reply to elsewhere:

> That assumes that race is a well defined, precise or logical category based only on the identity of your biological ancestors. It's not.

It absolutely is. People may mix it up with cultural or social classifications. Races, biologically defined as populations of the same species with limited introgression of haplotypes despite regular interbreeding, clearly exist in humans.

To turn that abstract definition into a concrete example, of course there are children with one European and one Chinese parent. Nevertheless, at the population level, characteristic Han Chinese haplotypes are conserved because the introgressing European alleles are diluted out (or at least, have been, historically) in the overall Chinese population. As a consequence, there are haplotypes that are sufficiently unique to spot a potential Chinese ancestor in my genome even several generations removed. Thus, give me your DNA and I can roughly tell you where your ancestors are from.

What this approach does not do reliably is uncover substructure, i.e. giving precise percentages for ancestry from populations that are distinguished only by relative frequency of haplotypes present in several related populations, e.g. various European populations, insufficiently distinct to constitute races (precisely because historically there was marked introgression).

This is particularly pertinent for interpreting the output of personal DNA tests aimed at the American market, where people are happy to read that they "are" 12.3% Swedish, 8.9% Norwegian, and 4.5% English. That is of course nothing more than marketing BS.

CB

 elsewhere 08 Sep 2020
In reply to cb294:

Race can have a precise logical meaning within the usage and context of biology.

That is not the everyday meaning that comes from everyday usage by people in a context that rarely references introgression of halotypes. 

It's just like I would not claim that the physics definition of "black body" is the the correct meaning for "black body" in other contexts.

Post edited at 15:50
 Jon Stewart 08 Sep 2020
In reply to RentonCooke:

Good post, thanks. Although I don't want to hijack the thread, I do want to respond as it's rare to have this discussion without it being extremely annoying.

> Isn't the comparison actually being made more wrt gender self-identity and the demand that any claimed identity may not be challenged? 

Maybe, it's not explicit in Tom's post either way. When I hear people criticise trans self-identification, they tend not to specify whether they're attacking a policy of self-identification, or whether they're just mocking the existence of all trans people. My interpretation of "if a trans person can identify as a woman/man and they're not deluded, why can't I identify as an attack helicopter, black, etc" - is that it's unbelief that gender identity is a real, biological function. As such, it's an argument that's founded on a misunderstanding of the real world as known through science. Some people's brains develop with gender identity opposed to birth sex, but no one's brain develops with an in-built sense of being an attack helicopter, or black, etc. Gender identity is like sexual orientation, it's part of nature.

> Maybe I'm reading your text incorrectly but you appear to be saying that a psychological state (I feel like X) carries the same validity as a biological state (dissected brain looks like X) when it comes to self-identification. I don't necessarily disagree with that.

No. That's a form a mind/body dualism which is scientifically incorrect. A psychological state *is* a biological state (see philosophy, but that's OK for here). It's useful to think a bit about how the brain works to see this more clearly.

My psychological state right now is a combination of two things in my brain: 1. my connectome, the stable, physical pattern of the connections of neurons. 2. the pattern of neural firing that's going on now. So when we talk about thoughts and feelings, we're talking about something which is physical (the pattern of neural firing, which is dependent on the connectome), but it's transient. When we talk about personality and patterns of behaviour, we're talking about 1., the connectome. Personality and patterns of behaviour are encoded in the connectome (neurons that fire together wire together), but some aspects are quite plastic and respond to training. For example the ability to drive or play music are parts of the connectome, they're more stable than thoughts and feelings, but they respond to training (lots of it).

Being autistic, or gay, or trans, or any other life-long mental abnormality is even more deeply embedded in the connectome, because these aren't just a few thousand (or million) synapses that have formed due to life experience that could be repurposed with training. They are the way the brain was built in childhood. They don't respond to training. They're how the brain works at a foundational level, so much so you can cut a brain open and see gross anatomical difference in many cases. It's these types of fundamental characteristics that as a society, we must treat just like skin colour - you didn't choose it, it doesn't do any harm, so should you have equal standing in our society. 

> But if both are the same then claims to malleable gender-identity (and accordant demands on others to accept those claimed identities, even as they change) is a problem for those who say a white cannot identify as a black because they don't carry that requisite melanin. It's possible a white living in the Bronx or adopted by black parents could arguably be 'more black' than someone like Candice Owens, and (to invert an oft-used argument used against racism) more variability may well exist between blacks than exists between whites and blacks. So surely 'I [white] am black' is just as valid a claim as saying 'I [male/trans female] am female'?

I can see how you think it would be a problem. However, if someone's questioning their gender identity, then we shouldn't have to accept them as "man" "woman" or "non-binary". We should just accept them as questioning their gender identity. It might just be a phase, a confusion, or they might have abnormal gender identity - we don't know. That's all we've got to accept, and I don't see the problem. If we understand that abnormal gender identity is a real phenomenon just like homosexuality or male pattern baldness, then we can be accepting that people might be questioning whether they are in that group or not.

Because abnormal gender identity is a real phenomenon grounded in brain structure, but abnormal racial identity is not, there are no reasons to view them similarly.

> I can't shake the feeling that a fair number of people who currently (and newly) claim to be gender non-binary (usually in their teens and early 20s), and demand others accept their identity, are just repeating what kids in the 70s were doing

Maybe, but so what. I know someone who is transitioning at the age of 70, and "always knew he was a woman" - so it works both ways, there'll be loads of trans people out there who never transitioned and have had terrible lives as a consequence.

> To put it bluntly, for many, gender identity, may very well be a choice.

I can't choose my gender identity. Can you choose yours? I think it's just like sexual orientation. Some people are straight, some are gay, and some are a mixture. Some people experiment with their sexual orientation and go back to normal. Some people do that with gender identity. 

> That's fine. People may fake/choose all manner of identities they view as socially expedient (rich, single, black, unique-gendered), just as this woman appears to have done.

The parallel is invalid. Experimenting with your gender identity as a teenager because it makes you look cool for a few months, and then realising it wasn't you, is not the same as lying about black. Lying is not experimenting to explore who you are.

> The problem is that in the fight to obtain recognition for some identities...

Let's not get dragged down that way. I infer that you think some trans/non-binary people are making it up for attention ("trans-trenders") and that pollutes the otherwise-valid demand for trans rights. I think it's more complex.

> Also, hasn't the 'trans' issue moved on? I get the impression that everyone accepts that 'trans men/women' exist

They really, really don't. Much of the current anti-trans backlash is from people who think that gender identity is a choice. It's exactly like the homophobia of the last century when sexuality was regarded as a choice, and something you could correct with training. Now we understand that, and we have equal rights for gays under the law. Unfortunately the trans issues are far more complex than just "give us equality" (kids transitioning, sports, etc.).

> Instead, the bone of contention seems to be that a trans person (or even third parties) can demand you drop the adjunct 'trans' label when referring to or identifying them...

For another time. But I definitely don't agree that you've got a "right" to slap any label you like on another person, regardless of what effect that has on them. That's not at all reasonable!

Post edited at 16:16
2
 Tom Valentine 08 Sep 2020
In reply to cb294:

Maybe some bullshit involved but my Romany friend was satisfied when his genetic profile revealed a percentage link with the Indian sub-continent.

 Jon Stewart 08 Sep 2020
In reply to cb294:

> I disagree, though, about racial identity. Race, in humans as in all other animals, clearly is defined genetically.

Can be defined, but in practice isn't. What we call 'race' in everyday speech is a vague social construct twisted into any shape to suit the user's purpose.

> So, identifying as "black" (which I argued above is actually rather useless due to the large genetic divergence within Africans) IMO should be equal to making the claim of having a relatively recent African ancestor. This is testable, and either true or false.

You can see it that way if you like, but that's not what's meant by "black" in the real, social world. It's not really relevant though. My point is that gender identity is a real biological brain function which can be anomalous; regardless of whether or not a rigorous scientific definition of "race" can be constructed, "racial identity" most definitely is a social construct.

> Arguing that race is a social construct, or that you can pick your race by self identification,

They're two radically positions! Race, as used in social contexts, *is* a social construct (that doesn't mean it doesn't have biological underpinnings), but you can't pick your race by self identification unless your race is sufficiently ambiguous to allow that, in which case then surely you can? I'm obviously white so I can't pick my race by self-ID, but if I was mixed race and it wasn't going to seem socially weird, then why shouldn't I call myself "black" if that's how I viewed myself in my social context, regardless of whether I met some rigorous scientifically constructed definition of "black"?

cb294 08 Sep 2020
In reply to elsewhere:

But your "everyday" definition of race implicity assumes that there are true biological differences between people that "look different" that go beyond the looks, and therefore justify treating people differently. 

That the racists get the existing genetic differences wrong (I argued above that dark skin pigmentation is a particularly useless marker) is to be expected, and the lesser problem. Assuming that ancestry (an undeniable biological property of every individual) allows value judgements is the much bigger one.

My problem with your position (which I would summarize as race/ancestry is a social construct rather than a biological fact) is that I think that it actually undermines the fight against racism: If you can self-identify as "black" despite having no African or Melanesian/Papua/Aborigine DNA, then "race" becomes a choice and therefore fair game for criticism or differential treatment. It would be no different than criticizing someone for embracing Catholicism even though it is based on a fairy tale, discriminates against women, and facilitated the organized sexual abuse of children.

Racism, but not race, is of course a social construct.

CB

 Jon Stewart 08 Sep 2020
In reply to cb294:

You seem to be relying on a false dichotomy between social construct = choice on one side and scientific fact on the other. The equality on the first side is false too! Other people, not you, tend to get to decide which group you fall into.

Race is social construct that has grown from an underlying structure of scientific fact. The social construct is totally unclear about whether it refers to skin colour, ancestry or something else, because what it really refers to "member of my tribe" vs. "not members of my tribe". And our tribes have no scientifically defined boundaries.

1
 elsewhere 08 Sep 2020
In reply to cb294:

What differences exist between races justify no difference in treatment. It's insulting if you think I think otherwise! Or perhaps I express myself badly.

I think ancestry or genetics are biological facts. I also think biological facts are the least important part of race - as you say colour pigmentation is least important to biology but it is often the most important for race.

Post edited at 17:43
 Jon Stewart 08 Sep 2020
In reply to marsbar:

> My position

> I support (trans) women and (trans) men and their right to be themselves.  

> I don't believe Karen White is a genuine trans woman. Karen White is a rapist who lied about being a trans woman.  

> I believe that children who want to transition should have counselling.  Hormones aren’t surgery BTW.  

> I believe that the 2 women mentioned above are white, and that they lied.

> I believe the man you mentioned is black.  

> I believe that being South American or Indian would both count as BAME, I have no idea why you wouldn’t.  Neither are an ethnic majority in this country and ME stands for minority ethnic.  

Can you imagine living in a parallel universe where this degree of clarity and common sense was the norm? The idea of it blows my mind, unfortunately.

1
cb294 08 Sep 2020
In reply to elsewhere:

I obviously do not believe that you are racist, quite the opposite, apologies if that was not sufficiently clear!

My issue is with the two statements that are often voiced by well meaning people whose aims I otherwise agree with, but which I think are counterproductive: The first claim is that biologically there are no races within the human species. This is factually wrong, and maintaining that claim is dangerous because it is usually followed by the argument that "because we are all the same we should be nice to each other". That is actually quite dangerous and nasty, because it follows that if we were to accept the fact that there are genuine, identifiable genetic differences it would be fine to discriminate based on race. The old "Bell curve" discussion about IQ test result distributions went in that direction.

The second statement, often coupled with the first, is that races may have had a biological basis in the dim and distant past, but that today race is in fact a social construct, and BECAUSE OF THIS we should not discriminate.

Again, the corollary would be that if either race were reflecting genuine differences, or alternatively, if you could choose your socially defined race by "identifying as black", same as chosing to be Labour or Tory, discrimination could be OK.

In both cases, my counterargument is that racial substructure is a genuine aspect of our species, but has nothing to say about any value judgements. We should not act racist because it is ethically the right thing to do, not because of some dodgy misunderstandings about human biology!

Anyway, to return to the case started this thread, this involved a white person identifying as black in the absence of African genetic heritage. That is as about as idiotic as me "identifying" as slim, sexy, and young. In fact, there was a guy who went to court in the Netherlands arguing that he should be allowed to change his date of birth because he "felt younger" and being tied to his true age was discriminating against him by reducing his hit rate on Tinder. Words fail me.

I have no issue with a mixed race person choosing to identify as "black" based on their personal experience of discrimnation. Racism, unlike race, quite obviously is a social phenomenon. I find e.g. the question of whether Kamala Harris is "black enough" to count as a African American candidate rather offensive.

CB

Post edited at 19:21
 off-duty 08 Sep 2020
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> Can you imagine living in a parallel universe where this degree of clarity and common sense was the norm? The idea of it blows my mind, unfortunately.

The only issue is why is Karen White not "truly" transgender? 

 Jon Stewart 08 Sep 2020
In reply to off-duty:

> The only issue is why is Karen White not "truly" transgender? 

I haven't read up on her, just read the headlines. As I understand it, there are two possibilities:

1. This person is transgender, she has a genuine internal sense of being female that is stable. She is also a sex offender, and that's unrelated to her being trans.

2. This person doesn't have a genuine, internal sense of being female (could be either male or non-binary gender identity) and is motivated in her gender presentation by the desire to commit sexual assaults.

Without mind reading, we will never know which is the case. Marsbar draws the conclusion from what she knows that 2. is most likely. I don't know any details and can't take a view.

1
 marsbar 08 Sep 2020
In reply to off-duty:

Karen White chose to dress as a woman solely to access and attack vulnerable women in a women’s prison.  I could be wrong of course, but based on everything I’ve read about the case I don’t believe it was a genuine transition.  Neither do the authorities who have now placed “her” back in a male prison.

>Prosecutor Chris Dunn described White as an “alleged transgender female” who has used her “transgender persona to put herself in contact with vulnerable persons” whom she could then abuse.

>“The prosecution say that because there is smattering of evidence in this case that the defendants approach to transition has been less than committed,” he added.

Post edited at 21:11
 marsbar 08 Sep 2020
In reply to Jon Stewart:

Shoving ones erect penis against someone who doesn’t consent isn’t the behaviour of someone who considers themselves a woman, sex offender or not.  

 Jon Stewart 08 Sep 2020
In reply to marsbar:

> Shoving ones erect penis against someone who doesn’t consent isn’t the behaviour of someone who considers themselves a woman, sex offender or not.  

That's a rather convincing point! 

Edit: Although, if you do happen to be rubbing your erect penis against someone who doesn't consent, then the space available for 'not being a sex offender' has just radically shrunk!

Post edited at 21:56
 Sir Chasm 08 Sep 2020
In reply to marsbar:

> Shoving ones erect penis against someone who doesn’t consent isn’t the behaviour of someone who considers themselves a woman, sex offender or not.  

Is that because women don't have penises? Or because women with penises can't be sex offenders?

 Jon Stewart 08 Sep 2020
In reply to Sir Chasm:

> Is that because women don't have penises? Or because women with penises can't be sex offenders?

Neither. Someone who had female gender identity would be extraordinarily unlikely to engage in that behaviour. (I'm trying my hardest to be polite and straightforward).

 off-duty 08 Sep 2020
In reply to marsbar:

> Shoving ones erect penis against someone who doesn’t consent isn’t the behaviour of someone who considers themselves a woman, sex offender or not.  

Can't women be sexually aggressive?

 It's a pretty widely held view that rape is a crime of power rather than sex.

 Jon Stewart 08 Sep 2020
In reply to off-duty:

Someone who had female gender identity would be extraordinarily unlikely to engage in that behaviour.

Do we need to explain more?

 off-duty 08 Sep 2020
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> Someone who had female gender identity would be extraordinarily unlikely to engage in that behaviour.

> Do we need to explain more?

Yes. Violence is not an exclusively male trait.

 Jon Stewart 08 Sep 2020
In reply to off-duty:

> Yes. Violence is not an exclusively male trait.

No one suggested that, as it's patently untrue. As for the "rape isn't about sex" line, it's got to be something to do with sex, otherwise rapists would choose to use something other than their penis with which to commit assault.

OK. Imagine you're a trans woman. Now imagine that you've got an erection in a social context with strangers. (Temptation to insert joke resisted). Do you:

a) Feel disgust, shame and dysphoria; or 

b) Rub it against a woman?

I'm not saying that b) is logically impossible, just that it's extraordinarily unlikely. 

 off-duty 08 Sep 2020
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> No one suggested that, as it's patently untrue. As for the "rape isn't about sex" line, it's got to be something to do with sex, otherwise rapists would choose to use something other than their penis with which to commit assault.

Often they do. And it's a fairly well accepted point that rape is about power dominance and control rather than sex.

> OK. Imagine you're a trans woman. Now imagine that you've got an erection in a social context with strangers. (Temptation to insert joke resisted). Do you:

> a) Feel disgust, shame and dysphoria; or 

> b) Rub it against a woman?

> I'm not saying that b) is logically impossible, just that it's extraordinarily unlikely. 

Getting an erection is not rape.  A significant number of transgender women still have penises and are sexually active.

I'm aware that, generally speaking, men commit more violent crime than women.

It's reasonable argue that a transgender rapist isn't transgender because there is evidence that they aren't "genuinely" transgender, but it isn't reasonable to say that because their behaviour isn't "stereotypically" (for want of a better word) female - they aren't transgender.

 Jon Stewart 08 Sep 2020
In reply to off-duty:

> Often they do. And it's a fairly well accepted point that rape is about power dominance and control rather than sex.

It's clearly about power dominance and control, that's not disputed. However, the use of the penis is irrefutable evidence that it is also at least something to do with sex as well. There's no getting around that I'm afraid.

> Getting an erection is not rape.  A significant number of transgender women still have penises and are sexually active.

> I'm aware that, generally speaking, men commit more violent crime than women.

Que?

> It's reasonable argue that a transgender rapist isn't transgender because there is evidence that they aren't "genuinely" transgender

Which is precisely what has been said. But could you explain your use of speech marks? They seem superfluous to me, and their implication is a bit unsavoury IMO. 

> but it isn't reasonable to say that because their behaviour isn't "stereotypically" (for want of a better word) female - they aren't transgender.

Which has not been said.

Post edited at 23:10
 off-duty 08 Sep 2020
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> It's clearly about power dominance and control, that's not disputed. However, the use of the penis is irrefutable evidence that it is also at least something to do with sex as well. There's no getting around that I'm afraid.

What's undisputable is that it's about having a penis. 

>Qué

Not sure what you are referring to here. You suggested that a transgender person who got an erection in company was likely to behave in a certain manner. 

I suggested that a)sexual arousal is not rape and b)it's a bit stereotypical (to say the least) to suggest that a sexually active transgender female with a penis is only going to behave in certain manner 

> Which is precisely what has been said. But could you explain your use of speech marks? They seem superfluous to me, and their implication is a bit unsavoury IMO. 

The use of quote marks may be superfluous, you're right. 

Yes. I'm agreeing that evidence that someone isn't genuinely transgender supports the contention that they are lying about it as marsbar stated.

> Which has not been said.

My comment: but it isn't reasonable to say that because their behaviour isn't "stereotypically" (for want of a better word) female - they aren't transgender.

Was in response to these comments which appear to set acceptable parameters for behaviour of those who are able to consider themselves women/female.

Marsbar> Shoving ones erect penis against someone who doesn’t consent isn’t the behaviour of someone who considers themselves a woman, sex offender or not.  

Jon Stewart:That's a rather convincing point! 

Jon Stewart Neither. Someone who had female gender identity would be extraordinarily unlikely to engage in that behaviour. 

 Jon Stewart 09 Sep 2020
In reply to off-duty:

> What's undisputable is that it's about having a penis. 

This is a funny debate, because what you're saying is that if I insert my penis into someone else's body then if it's assault rather than just a shag I can legitimately claim that "it's nothing to do with sex, you know". The argument fails.

> >Qué

> Not sure what you are referring to here. 

I could see no relevance of what you were saying, and that remains the case.

> My comment: but it isn't reasonable to say that because their behaviour isn't "stereotypically" (for want of a better word) female - they aren't transgender.

> Was in response to these comments which appear to set acceptable parameters for behaviour of those who are able to consider themselves women/female.

I'm not talking about anything to do with being stereotypically female. You've misunderstood, and I thought I was being clear in what I meant by saying:

> OK. Imagine you're a trans woman. Now imagine that you've got an erection in a social context with strangers. (Temptation to insert joke resisted). Do you:

> a) Feel disgust, shame and dysphoria; or 

> b) Rub it against a woman?

This is not about ladylike behaviour. The concept of "ladylike behaviour" when one has an erection in the company of strangers is somewhat incoherent, don't you think? This is about the overwhelmingly likely behaviour of a trans woman who's got a penis, given the known facts. Just as it's extremely unlikely for me to rub my erect penis against a random man because I'm not a sex offender, it's even more likely for me rub to my erect penis against a random woman, because I'm not a sex offender, and I'm not into women (despite what you say about "nothing to do with sex"). In the case of a trans woman, the likelihood of that kind of sexual assault is, as I've said, extraordinarily unlikely, because they are a trans woman not because rubbing your stiffy against a woman without consent is "unladylike". And to be as clear as I can, I'm not on about the unlikeliness of trans lesbians (this is complicated!), I'm on about the way trans women most likely feel about their penis. Think about it: you're trans, you feel like you're in the wrong body. What's your behaviour going to look like? What's likely, and what's extraordinarily unlikely? Come one, visualise what the world is like from a totally different perspective - it'll be a satisfying adventure in imagination!

If you're sufficiently interested in this subject to publicly opine on it, I think you would benefit from listening to what trans women say about how they feel about their bodies; and once you've got a feel for what it means to be transgender, you might understand my comment a little bit better. I can't claim to understand the subject well, but I've listened to enough of how trans people describe their experiences to get a bit of feel for what's going on, at least with those I've listened to. 

Post edited at 00:55
2
 off-duty 09 Sep 2020
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> This is a funny debate, because what you're saying is that if I insert my penis into someone else's body then if it's assault rather than just a shag I can legitimately claim that "it's nothing to do with sex, you know". The argument fails.

Rape is an offence that can only be committed with a penis. It's pretty well established that in a large number of cases ( definitely by no means all) it's about power, dominance and control. Not about sex per se.

> I could see no relevance of what you were saying, and that remains the case.

To be honest I was also struggling to see where you were coming from here. Discussing rape is different from discussing sexual arousal.

> I'm not talking about anything to do with being stereotypically female. You've misunderstood, and I thought I was being clear in what I meant by saying:

> This is not about ladylike behaviour. The concept of "ladylike behaviour" when one has an erection in the company of strangers is somewhat incoherent, don't you think? This is about the overwhelmingly likely behaviour of a trans woman who's got a penis, given the known facts. Just as it's extremely unlikely for me to rub my erect penis against a random man because I'm not a sex offender, it's even more likely for me rub to my erect penis against a random woman, because I'm not a sex offender, and I'm not into women (despite what you say about "nothing to do with sex"). In the case of a trans woman, the likelihood of that kind of sexual assault is, as I've said, extraordinarily unlikely, because they are a trans woman not because rubbing your stiffy against a woman without consent is "unladylike". And to be as clear as I can, I'm not on about the unlikeliness of trans lesbians (this is complicated!), I'm on about the way trans women most likely feel about their penis. Think about it: you're trans, you feel like you're in the wrong body. What's your behaviour going to look like? What's likely, and what's extraordinarily unlikely? Come one, visualise what the world is like from a totally different perspective - it'll be a satisfying adventure in imagination!

Strangely having had to deal with the depravities of humanity in various formats, as well as having to deal face to face in the gray area between victims and offenders in a variety of pretty horrible exploitative crime types, as well as safeguard people of a wide variety of degrees of innocence, guilt and criminality, I have to view the world from different perspectives daily.  I'm sure I'm almost as experienced at it as you. Unfortunately, my experience is in real life, rather than imagination, but I guess that'll have to do.

> If you're sufficiently interested in this subject to publicly opine on it, I think you would benefit from listening to what trans women say about how they feel about their bodies; and once you've got a feel for what it means to be transgender, you might understand my comment a little bit better. I can't claim to understand the subject well, but I've listened to enough of how trans people describe their experiences to get a bit of feel for what's going on, at least with those I've listened to. 

I would never claim to be an expert on trans behaviour. I am aware of the wide variety of people who identify as trans and the wide variety of sexual behaviour as well as sexual interests they might have.

This spectrum, as you mention, includes transwomen who are lesbians, as well as transwomen who are sexually interested in men. And everything in between. Some undoubtedly are extremely dysphoric about their genitalia, some have full surgery, some have very little surgery.  Some are more sexually active, some are not.

I wouldn't suggest that certain behaviour is a defining characteristic to determine if someone is trans person, any more than I would of gay or straight.

Whilst sexual offending might be rare, across all those groups, I wouldn't use the fact that a person had committed an offence as a means of categorising them as gay, straight or trans.

This was what you and marsbar appeared to be doing in the posts I quoted. Obviously if I've interpreted them wrong that's fine, but the impression was pretty clear - hence why I quoted them.

 Jon Stewart 09 Sep 2020
In reply to off-duty:

> To be honest I was also struggling to see where you were coming from here. Discussing rape is different from discussing sexual arousal.

Now I'm confused because it was you who brought in rape at 22.09.

> Strangely having had to deal with the depravities of humanity in various formats... I'm sure I'm almost as experienced at it as you. Unfortunately, my experience is in real life, rather than imagination, but I guess that'll have to do.

Jolly good. My view is that equating racial identity with gender identity demonstrates a lack of understanding of what gender identity is: it's a brain function similar to, but independent from sexual orientation, and which only becomes obvious where it is anomolous.

> I wouldn't suggest that certain behaviour is a defining characteristic to determine if someone is trans person, any more than I would of gay or straight.

Well, if I spend my time sucking dicks, don't you think that determines that I'm gay? Unless there's a convincing story other than homosexuality to explain my behaviour, then my behaviour indicates my sexual orientation rather well, don't you think?

Ultimately both gender identity and sexual orientation are psychological characteristics, but they are expressed as behaviour that can be observed by others. And just as I am extraordinarily unlikely to ever rub my erect penis against any woman, ever, in any circumstances, it's a good bet to assume that a trans woman is in a fairly similar category, risk-wise. Which rather goes against the commonly expressed "trans women are a threat to other women" narrative that has gained a lot of traction lately, thanks in part to some of our lovely celebs making their ever-so-valid-and-interesting views heard on twitter. 

> Whilst sexual offending might be rare, across all those groups, I wouldn't use the fact that a person had committed an offence as a means of categorising them as gay, straight or trans.

> This was what you and marsbar appeared to be doing in the posts I quoted.

What we're saying is: trans woman with a genuine internal sense of being female, or male sex offender posing as trans to commit offences? Which is more likely? We think the latter. No, it's not certain, it's just good old abductive reasoning: inference to the best explanation.

I guess it's a nice - but ultimately naive - way to look at people, to assume nothing based on sexual orientation and gender identity. That's not how the world works though. Straight men are a lot more likely to commit creepy sexually abusive acts against women than gay men, right? And gay men are much more likely to commit similar offences towards hot young lads than straight men, aren't they? This does seem to be stating the bleeding obvious...

Post edited at 19:45
2

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...