Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
nodle

The too many genders thread/discussion

Recommended Posts

Calling someone by their biological sex is not the same as using a nickname. The first one is cold logic, the second one is bullying.

 

My general stance is that if someone asks you to use a certain pronoun, you do so out of respect,

Here he clearly says if someone asks to be refered as a certain gender despite being the opposite sex you should out of respect. If someone asks you not to call him a fatass you may do so out of respect, eventhough it is also cold logic to call an obese person a fatass.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The way I understand "Genus" is to be a more scientific term. Has it, in your experience, been used more broadly?

 

The word "Genus" has a variety of different meanings - in English, it primarily refers to a taxonomical group, in Swedish also it means grammatical or social gender (both meanings are correct). The Latin word from which it stems means "sort" or "kind", naturally different languages have borrowed it for different applications, and it is also used as a term in mathematical topology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here he clearly says if someone asks to be refered as a certain gender despite being the opposite sex you should out of respect. If someone asks you not to call him a fatass you may do so out of respect, eventhough it is also cold logic to call an obese person a fatass.

Well yeah, that's a way to look at it, I guess.

But if that same person would ask me "would you call me fat?" I guess I'd simply say "yes". No need to lie for your and his/her own convenience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is Rachel Dolezal:

tdy_lauer_dolezal_150616.today-inline-vid-featured-desktop.jpg

 

Rachel is biologically Caucasian but identified racially as a black woman. This is Rachel when she was a child:

 

kxly_rachel_dolezal_3_kb_150616_4x3_992.jpg

 

Rachel is a Transracer who was discriminated and had to resign as head of the NAACP because she had appropriated another group's ethnicity. There are thousands like her out there who are living the life of their biology in fear who are actually more comfortable taking on a different ethnicity.

 

We can all end Transracophia by just accepting the race that people choose to identify as.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is Rachel Dolezal:

tdy_lauer_dolezal_150616.today-inline-vid-featured-desktop.jpg

 

Rachel is biologically Caucasian but identified racially as a black woman. This is Rachel when she was a child:

 

kxly_rachel_dolezal_3_kb_150616_4x3_992.jpg

 

Rachel is a Transracer who was discriminated and had to resign as head of the NAACP because she had appropriated another group's ethnicity. There are thousands like her out there who are living the life of their biology in fear who are actually more comfortable taking on a different ethnicity.

 

We can all end Transracophia by just accepting the race that people choose to identify as.

 

I am Feanor. I identify as bear. If you disagree, I will maul you with my paws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's a whole different issue, and you are well aware of it sir.

 

But it parallels the Transgender debate and is an example of the left's subjective application of progression stack politics. I'm ready to be proven wrong but I just don't see how anyone can square this circle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But it parallels the Transgender debate and is an example of the left's subjective application of progression stack politics. I'm ready to be proven wrong but I just don't see how anyone can square this circle.

Is it though? There are schools of thought that suggest transwomen are just men appropriating womanhood for their own benefit and aren't actually women, the 'left' isn't monolithic. I would also say that the idea of identifying or believing one is something other than their birth gender/race is different to choosing a one's gender or it being frivolous which is what I thought this thread started off as. Also, the idea that you're not your birth race is very different and obviously constructed while the idea that you're not your birth gender definitely straddles biology, development and socialisation. I don't know if your previous post was supposed to be a "gotcha" about transgenderism but I'm not really seeing it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is it though? There are schools of thought that suggest transwomen are just men appropriating womanhood for their own benefit and aren't actually women, the 'left' isn't monolithic. I would also say that the idea of identifying or believing one is something other than their birth gender/race is different to choosing a one's gender or it being frivolous which is what I thought this thread started off as. Also, the idea that you're not your birth race is very different and obviously constructed while the idea that you're not your birth gender definitely straddles biology, development and socialisation. I don't know if your previous post was supposed to be a "gotcha" about transgenderism but I'm not really seeing it.

 

Its not really a gotcha persay, but it is emblematic of a critical flaw of the progressive stack. I'm aware that feminists aren't fans of transwomen because they view them as people who grew up enjoying the benefits of patriarchy while avoiding the perceived 'hardship' of being a woman.

 

The point I was making is that if we accepted everyone's cultural/ethnic identity choice, we would be entering conservative thought which theorizes that race and ethnicity don't matter, only character does. True American conservatives (mainly Libertarians, non-evangelicals) don't have a problem with transgenderism, just as they don't have a problem with 'transracism' because the individual is judged on their character, not identity. Whereas liberals and leftists have the notion of implicit bias, that identity supercedes all, and transgenders are victims and hence must be defended (until they're weak no longer and can then be thrown under the bus, like the feminists who oppose transwomen), these are things predicated not on principle, but on the collective's attitude towards those groups.

 

Feminists can be thrown under the bus so transgenders can be brought up for instance. Oppression/victimhood politics is very subjective and fluid which is why it doesn't stand up to criticism like the transracism blurb I posted above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree with everything here. 9 year olds should be allowed to drink and drive.

 

And provide legal consent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Its not really a gotcha persay, but it is emblematic of a critical flaw of the progressive stack. I'm aware that feminists aren't fans of transwomen because they view them as people who grew up enjoying the benefits of patriarchy while avoiding the perceived 'hardship' of being a woman.

 

The point I was making is that if we accepted everyone's cultural/ethnic identity choice, we would be entering conservative thought which theorizes that race and ethnicity don't matter, only character does. True American conservatives (mainly Libertarians, non-evangelicals) don't have a problem with transgenderism, just as they don't have a problem with 'transracism' because the individual is judged on their character, not identity. Whereas liberals and leftists have the notion of implicit bias, that identity supercedes all, and transgenders are victims and hence must be defended (until they're weak no longer and can then be thrown under the bus, like the feminists who oppose transwomen), these are things predicated not on principle, but on the collective's attitude towards those groups.

 

Feminists can be thrown under the bus so transgenders can be brought up for instance. Oppression/victimhood politics is very subjective and fluid which is why it doesn't stand up to criticism like the transracism blurb I posted above.

 

I have no idea where you're getting this from. First of all, the two stances regarding trans people within the feminist community is generally either that transsexuals are free to express themselves however they want, or that transsexualism is based on the idea that there are things which are instinctively feminine and masculine, and that this idea is not something you should encourage.

Regarding "transracism", i can't actually find an instance of that word being used in a non-joking situation. It's obviously not the same thing though - like i said, transsexuality has a biological component, one theory is that trans women have a longer androgen receptor which reduces the uptake of male hormones. Generally speaking, trans people were close to being developed into the other gender before they were born, but weren't. There is no similar mechanism which would allow people to be "transracial" other than the psychological experience of belonging to a certain group.

 

Also, "conservative libertarian" is an oxymoron.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First of all, the two stances regarding trans people within the feminist community is generally either that transsexuals are free to express themselves however they want, or that transsexualism is based on the idea that there are things which are instinctively feminine and masculine, and that this idea is not something you should encourage.

 

This simply isn't true. Many in transgender community came out against the women's march and complained about the multitude of vaginal displays and reportedly complained that they didn't feel included because they didn't have vaginas. There are a group of feminists who counter this narrative that transwomen aren't actually women because they were not oppressed by patriarchy.

 

Regarding "transracism", i can't actually find an instance of that word being used in a non-joking situation.

 

Its a word I made up for a problem that hasn't caught the left's attention yet. But this will be the next frontier of progressive politics.

 

It's obviously not the same thing though - like i said, transsexuality has a biological component, one theory is that trans women have a longer androgen receptor which reduces the uptake of male hormones. Generally speaking, trans people were close to being developed into the other gender before they were born, but weren't.

 

There's also another study that showed that only 33% of identical twins were both transgender, and only 2% of non-identical twins. If you're implying that stimuli while in the womb causes transgenderism, then this study shows that your assertion is not significant.

 

There is no similar mechanism which would allow people to be "transracial" other than the psychological experience of belonging to a certain group.

 

Ethnicity is biology bro. People can be mixed-race. Even white people can have some black in them and still appear fully white. Its still in their DNA. Race is a social construct. If your ethnicity doesn't match the race you identify as, then you are transracial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
These two things are literally referring to the same thing phrased in different way. [LIST] [*]"transsexualism is based on the idea that there are things which are instinctively feminine and masculine and that this idea is not something you should encourage" [*]"There are a group of feminists who counter this narrative that transwomen aren't actually women because they were not oppressed by patriarchy." [/LIST] It seems that the majority of feminists are in the former group, in that transsexuals should be free to be express themselves freely. Also @ABDeL the 33% chance is not insignificant (and this is only one study). It definitely suggests that it has more to do with genetics than enviornment. For comparison, the chance an identical twin will get schizophrenia if the other has it is 48%. Pretty much every doctor agrees that schizophrenia is mostly genetic and that it is "triggered" by environmental factors. Since external factors like the mother's hormone output on the twins has nothing to do with their internal genetics, it's silly to say only the genes matter in the womb. [quote name='ABDeL']Its a word I made up for a problem that hasn't caught the left's attention yet. But this will be the next frontier of progressive politics. [/quote] I doubt that this will happen because it does not even have a thin veneer of science backing up why people should be "transracial", hence people aren't likely to get "skin color dysphoria". Also I don't even see one other person but this Rachel lady say that she's transracial.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Talinn']These two things are literally referring to the same thing phrased in different way. [LIST] [*]"transsexualism is based on the idea that there are things which are instinctively feminine and masculine and that this idea is not something you should encourage" [*]"There are a group of feminists who counter this narrative that transwomen aren't actually women because they were not oppressed by patriarchy." [/LIST] It seems that the majority of feminists are in the former group, in that transsexuals should be free to be express themselves freely. Also @ABDeL the 33% chance is not insignificant (and this is only one study). It definitely suggests that it has more to do with genetics than enviornment. For comparison, the chance an identical twin will get schizophrenia if the other has it is 48%. Pretty much every doctor agrees that schizophrenia is mostly genetic and that it is "triggered" by environmental factors. Since external factors like the mother's hormone output on the twins has nothing to do with their internal genetics, it's silly to say only the genes matter in the womb. I doubt that this will happen because it does not even have a thin veneer of science backing up why people should be "transracial", hence people aren't likely to get "skin color dysphoria". Also I don't even see one other person but this Rachel lady say that she's transracial.[/QUOTE] People see me as white but I'm actually covered in brown fur.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
These two things are literally referring to the same thing phrased in different way.

"transsexualism is based on the idea that there are things which are instinctively feminine and masculine and that this idea is not something you should encourage"

"There are a group of feminists who counter this narrative that transwomen aren't actually women because they were not oppressed by patriarchy."

 

Not really. What i mean about the first statement is that feminists generally feel that gender roles are a product of society, and that the fact that certain things are considered feminine (the color pink, dolls, having long hair, etc) doesn't mean that women are biologically determined to like those things. Of course though, the reason trans women adhere to them is probably rather due to the fact that you feel a social belonging to this group and all it is associated with. The second sentence states that women are defined by their oppression. I doubt that anyone actually said this though, i rather imagine that some women felt it was unfitting for someone who was born a man to claim that (s)he was oppressed by society. It's ironic, of course, since trans people are probably having much greater issues with aversive attitudes against them than women.

 

This simply isn't true. Many in transgender community came out against the women's march and complained about the multitude of vaginal displays and reportedly complained that they didn't feel included because they didn't have vaginas. There are a group of feminists who counter this narrative that transwomen aren't actually women because they were not oppressed by patriarchy.

 

This sounds more like an isolated incident than anything else. I've never heard of a feminist in Sweden excluding trans women at least, it's certainly not something you can generalize onto the entire feminist movement. On the contrary, many are making a point about being trans inclusive. That being said, there are reactionaries in all camps.

 

There's also another study that showed that only 33% of identical twins were both transgender, and only 2% of non-identical twins. If you're implying that stimuli while in the womb causes transgenderism, then this study shows that your assertion is not significant.

 

Like Talinn said: 33% is a HUGE correlation, this figure is in fact often cited as proof that transsexuality is biological in nature.

 

Ethnicity is biology bro. People can be mixed-race. Even white people can have some black in them and still appear fully white. Its still in their DNA. Race is a social construct. If your ethnicity doesn't match the race you identify as, then you are transracial.

 

I'm not sure if this is meant to be serious or not, but surely you aren't suggesting that black people are influenced by other hormones than white people.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What pronoun do you use for the creature in the front row, two to the right of the guy holding the selfie stick.

 

0_202d96_903cfef6_orig.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rachel is biologically Caucasian but identified racially as a black woman. This is Rachel when she was a child:

 

Take into consideration that "African American" or "Black" in America is a culture/nationality/ethnicity much the same as English, Scottish, German, French, Polish, etc. If a German wanted to become an Englishman all they would have to do is learn English and adopt the culture of England and no one would think anything of it. I'd say that Rachel isn't "transracial" but is the White equivalent of African/Asian/Whatever immigrants in Europe who identify themselves as belonging to the culture/nationality/ethnicity/whatever of the country they inhabit and everyone gets rustled because they don't look the part.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Take into consideration that "African American" or "Black" in America is a culture/nationality/ethnicity much the same as English, Scottish, German, French, Polish, etc. If a German wanted to become an Englishman all they would have to do is learn English and adopt the culture of England and no one would think anything of it. I'd say that Rachel isn't "transracial" but is the White equivalent of African/Asian/Whatever immigrants in Europe who identify themselves as belonging to the culture/nationality/ethnicity/whatever of the country they inhabit and everyone gets rustled because they don't look the part.

 

So if she were to move to Oakland for a decade, she would be black.

 

Just kidding. She would be dead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So if she were to move to Oakland for a decade, she would be black.

 

Try as she might she without a doubt would never be accepted as a Black woman which I reckon is what she wants.

 

Personally I'd rather just do away with nationalism and other forms of petty tribalism so I don't understand the need to feel like you're part of some special club.

 

Just kidding. She would be dead.

 

I know nothing of life in California, but the census data I saw showed that Oakland is roughly 24% White so I reckon there are some parts of it that aren't gangland?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Try as she might she without a doubt would never be accepted as a Black woman which I reckon is what she wants.

 

Personally I'd rather just do away with nationalism and other forms of petty tribalism so I don't understand the need to feel like you're part of some special club.

 

It's less of a club and more of a culture/community thing. People from the same country tend to think and act in similar ways. They're certainly not all the same but it's quite noticeable. Mentality in different countries and communities can vary quite wildly. And it can be awkward or off-putting for someone coming from one sort of setting to enter another. Prime example, I still don't understand how any man (except pirates and homosexuals) can wear earrings. It just looks wrong to me. Also people coming to a restaurant (not a fast food place but a real reastaurant) wearing a t-shirt, jeans, and a baseball cap. 1) What the fuck, what are you 12? 2) Who dresses like that for a formal occasion?

 

I know nothing of life in California, but the census data I saw showed that Oakland is roughly 24% White so I reckon there are some parts of it that aren't gangland?

 

It was a lame joke. Though there are parts of Oakland where, if you're white being out after dark is not a good idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also ABDeL the 33% chance is not insignificant (and this is only one study). It definitely suggests that it has more to do with genetics than enviornment. For comparison, the chance an identical twin will get schizophrenia if the other has it is 48%. Pretty much every doctor agrees that schizophrenia is mostly genetic and that it is "triggered" by environmental factors. Since external factors like the mother's hormone output on the twins has nothing to do with their internal genetics, it's silly to say only the genes matter in the womb.

 

The example you referenced is 50-50. A transgender identical twin is 67% less likely to have their twin be transgender as well. Isn't the 67% chance more significant? And these are the odds if the egg splits. If two different eggs, the chances are 2%. I might change my mind with more evidence but one study and a 33% chance is hardly conclusive proof.

 

I doubt that this will happen because it does not even have a thin veneer of science backing up why people should be "transracial", hence people aren't likely to get "skin color dysphoria". Also I don't even see one other person but this Rachel lady say that she's transracial.

 

.5% of US population identifies as Transgender. By your argument, just because they're not seen everyday, transgenderism is bullshit. It doesn't have a thin veneer of science backing because it hasn't been researched or studied yet. Is it possible that this phenomena can creep up in the future? Of course. A lot of the arguments against Transracialism mirror radical feminist arguments against accepting Transgenderism, that the 'mask' can be taken off and living a life as a privileged male can continue at any time.

 

I'm not sure if this is meant to be serious or not, but surely you aren't suggesting that black people are influenced by other hormones than white people.

  1. People of African descent had far greater variations in their genetics than their European counterparts.
     
  2. Black Babies Advance Earlier and Faster Than European Babies
     
  3. The very pigment that gives Black people their skin complexion is the source of many miraculous health benefits.
     
  4. Studies revealed that the muscle composition of West Africans genetically allows them to be “the most anaerobically efficient athletes” due to the way their bodies process energy.
     
  5. Cornell University study revealed that the genetics of Europeans have far more harmful mutations than people of African descent. These harmful mutations have continued to build up and continue to plague European bloodlines.

There are plenty of genetic differences between white and black. There is also overlap, which would mean that you could be white with some black features (like Shaun King) and as such, find it more comfortable to identify as a black person.

 

Take into consideration that "African American" or "Black" in America is a culture/nationality/ethnicity much the same as English, Scottish, German, French, Polish, etc. If a German wanted to become an Englishman all they would have to do is learn English and adopt the culture of England and no one would think anything of it. I'd say that Rachel isn't "transracial" but is the White equivalent of African/Asian/Whatever immigrants in Europe who identify themselves as belonging to the culture/nationality/ethnicity/whatever of the country they inhabit and everyone gets rustled because they don't look the part.

 

But now you're taking the anti-transgender argument of "They're not transgender transracial because I can tell they're not a woman/man white". Also keep in mind that Europeans discriminated against each other for decades, with disdain given to the Irish, Italians and Germans to a lesser extent. It may be an argument for transgender acceptance and against the categorization of 70+ genders, that the existence of different ethnicities stopped mattering when we started identifying various European ethnicities as "White".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...