Response to a post (About myself being Gender Fluid)

[The Hammer]

Why is it wrong to define a black person as a any person who identifies as black, (regardless of features; like Rachael Dolezal) but perfectly fine to identify a woman as a person who identifies as a woman?

Why is it wrong to define a black person as a any person who identifies as black, (regardless of features; like Rachael Dolezal) but perfectly fine to identify a woman as a person who identifies as a woman?

Because biologically "race" like black, white, Asian, don't actually exist.

Sex and gender do exist though.

 

[crossfire]

Why is it wrong to define a black person as a any person who identifies as black, (regardless of features; like Rachael Dolezal) but perfectly fine to identify a woman as a person who identifies as a woman?

Is it wrong? It's a social construct! It's not unheard of for social groups to adopt an outsider as one of their own. I have no problem with adopting transwomen into my social group called "women." Tribes will adopt outsiders and welcome them as one of their own--it's a social construct. Now if the members of a particular social construct don't want to adopt an outsider into their group, then that outsider won't be socially accepted as part of the group. Again, a social construct, with socially enforced rules.

 

[Kfox]

What is my line of thinking? I don't recall providing one.

You're right; you didn't. I asked someone else a question, then other people got involved; yourself included and I mistake you for someone else. Do you have an opinion on my question though? Do you find it perfectly reasonable to define a woman as a person who identifies as a woman, but absurd to define a black person as one who identifies as a black person? Or do you agree with me and find this inconsistent.

 

[Kfox]

Because biologically "race" like black, white, Asian, don't actually exist.

Sex and gender do exist though.

Biologically speaking; sex exists but gender does not, like race is is only a social construct.

 

[Orbit]

Biologically speaking; sex exists but gender does not, like race is is only a social construct.

I've told you this before: social constructs exist. They are real. They have power. People base their behavior on them; people react to other people's behavior or appearance in a certain way because of them.

 

[Kfox]

Is it wrong? It's a social construct! It's not unheard of for social groups to adopt an outsider as one of their own. I have no problem with adopting transwomen into my social group called "women." Tribes will adopt outsiders and welcome them as one of their own--it's a social construct. Now if the members of a particular social construct don't want to adopt an outsider into their group, then that outsider won't be socially accepted as part of the group. Again, a social construct, with socially enforced rules.

You act as if social groups speak with one voice; they do not. Some black people had no problem with Rachael Dolzale identifying as black, others did. Some women have no problem with males identifying as women; other women do. The person I was respond to said a woman is any person (male of female) who identifies as a woman, but did not agree a black person is any person who identifies as black. I see a problem with this line of thinking; do you?

 

[Kfox]

I've told you this before: social constructs exist. They are real. They have power. People base their behavior on them; people react to other people's behavior or appearance in a certain way because of them.

Social constructs are no more real than your thoughts. Just because something has power and can influence actions of real people, does not mean they have an actual existence.

 

[crossfire]

You act as if social groups speak with one voice; they do not. Some black people had no problem with Rachael Dolzale identifying as black, others did. Some women have no problem with males identifying as women; other women do. The person I was respond to said a woman is any person (male of female) who identifies as a woman, but did not agree a black person is any person who identifies as black. I see a problem with this line of thinking; do you?

You are correct: social groups don't speak with one voice. Some groups will have actual councils where they discuss and then speak for the group. Not everyone in the group will agree with the council. Most will respect the council, however. Others hold no council.

 

[Kfox]

You are correct: social groups don't speak with one voice. Some groups will have actual councils where they discuss and then speak for the group. Not everyone in the group will agree with the council. Most will respect the council, however. Others hold no council.

Black people and women do not have a council to speak on their behalf. So do you see a problem with this line of thinking?

 

[Orbit]

Social constructs are no more real than your thoughts. Just because something has power and can influence actions of real people, does not mean they have an actual existence.

Are you saying peer pressure isn't real?

 

[crossfire]

Black people and women do not have a council to speak on their behalf. So do you see a problem with this line of thinking?

You are correct that there is no council for those groups. I did write in the post you quoted that some groups hold no council. This in no way negates diversity of thought within any given group. You are the one who made the claim that I implied that groups speak with one voice. I am clarifying that is not the case.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Going by that logic, perhaps we should have 7 billion categories; each person having their own gender complete with pronoun for greater accuracy and specificity. (I’m hoping you see the absurdity if this idea)

I really couldn't care less.

Provide the post # I said this; because if you are gonna put words in my mouth, you should at least make sure they are my words rather than something you just made up.

So you DON'T think biology varies, and that people who fit in the category of "biological woman" have variable traits?

If being what they wanted to be didn’t affect others, nobody would care. Unfortunately it doesn’t seem to work out that way; now does it.

Yes it does. It doesn't affect you. If "being made to use specific pronouns" is "affecting you" then perhaps the issue is you.

It was a social construct that was always tied to biology.

No, it wasn't. Gender was always divorced from biology.

How do you know this? Have you counted? I will respond to the rest later

Most people support trans rights.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I didn’t say that. If you disagree, point to the post # I said it.

Once again, you have repeatedly acknowledged that not all women have XX chromosomes, not all women have fallopian tubes, not all women experience a female puberty, not all women have functioning wombs, etc, etc. No human being in their right mind would say biology isn't variable, so using biology as a way of classifying people into rigid categories makes no sense. It's arbitrary.

That’s different. If you are a biological male but your gender is woman; and I refer to your biology in conversation instead of your gender; that is my choice and an accurate description of you. If My biology is male, and my gender is man; you have no legitimate reason to refer to me as a woman or female.

Except, as we have established, you have no way to identify a person's biology without physically/sexually assaulting them. So why not just go by what they say and acknowledge it's not biology? That's why my definition is better than yours. It's consistent, practical, and you can actually use it. Yours is virtually impossible to use in any real-world scenario and is wildly inconsistent. You have even had to amend your definition in this very thread to account for a category of person you had no idea exists that proved false your entire conception of what you thought defined biological females.

I believe Biology to be a more reliable metric.

Then you're obviously wrong, as this whole debate has established. For every possible metric by which to understand why someone is a biological woman you have given, you have admitted exceptions. It's obviously not reliable. Why not just go by what someone tells you? Are you going to look up their skirts and check?

Race is a label you can self-identify as also.

But it is always contingent on some form of physical characteristic. It's not the same as gender, which is purely social.

And what makes race more complex than gender; and why does complexity even matter in this situation?

Because the two things can't be compared. I could sit and explain to you, in depth, the precise reasons why deep frying an onion produces a tasty snack but deep-frying a doorknob does not. But it's much easier to just say "they aren't the same thing, so drawing a comparison between the two is absurd".

In the context of this conversation, how are they different? They are both used to self-identify, they are both used in how we refer to each other; how are they different?

Firstly, we do not refer to each other differently based on race. There are no racial pronouns, so that's false. Gender plays a much larger part in how we refer to each other socially than race does.

Secondly, racial self-identification isn't really a thing beyond the specific inclusion of certain nomenclature in how you wish to be referred. For example, Barack Obama is every bit as much white as he is black, but he is referred to as "black" in 99% of conversations, and is known generally as America's first black president. The reasons for this vary, but it is not down to Obama's self-identification. It is partly down to a descriptor of characteristics (he is a dark-skinned man), knowledge of his heritage (his father was black, his mother white), and the complex social concept of "whiteness" v. "blackness" (i.e: a person born to one white parent and one black parent is generally identified as "black" for a myriad of complex, long-standing social and legal reasons).

In any case, I refer you back to the onion and doorknobs analogy above. Your argument is essentially no different to "if we allow gays to adopt kids or marry, then why not paedophiles?" or "if we're going to allow Chinese people into the country, then why not terrorists?" or "if you can fry and eat an onion, why not a doorknob?"

Deal with the subject at hand: gender. If you want to discuss race, and the myriad of ways it's different to gender, we can do that, but it would take up the whole thread.

 

[Kfox]

Are you saying peer pressure isn't real?

Is Santa Clause real? Thoughts can be real to the person who has them, but thoughts only exist inside of your head; thus not real.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Is Santa Clause real? Thoughts can be real to the person who has them, but thoughts only exist inside of your head; thus not real.

Well, since all categorisations occur in thoughts, all categorisations are not real.

 

[Kfox]

You are correct that there is no council for those groups. I did write in the post you quoted that some groups hold no council. This in no way negates diversity of thought within any given group. You are the one who made the claim that I implied that groups speak with one voice. I am clarifying that is not the case.

So do you agree with the me concerning the question I asked on post #203?

 

[Kfox]

I really couldn't care less.

Some people do.

So you DON'T think biology varies, and that people who fit in the category of "biological woman" have variable traits?

What do you mean by variable traits? Like some women have slightly different estrogen levels? Or something else.

Yes it does. It doesn't affect you. If "being made to use specific pronouns" is "affecting you" then perhaps the issue is you.

Made to use specific pronouns? Especially concerning 100 different genders? Perhaps the problem is those imposing controlled speech.

No, it wasn't. Gender was always divorced from biology.

No; a woman has always been an adult female human until recently.

Most people support trans rights.

There is a lot under the umbrella of "trans rights". What evidence do you have that most people support everything under that umbrella?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Some people do.

I agree. Some people do care an awful lot about things that really shouldn't matter to them.

What do you mean by variable traits? Like some women have slightly different estrogen levels? Or something else.

As in "the traits that women have vary". I'm not sure how much more clearly I can state it. Women have lots of features, and those features can vary.

Made to use specific pronouns? Especially concerning 100 different genders? Perhaps the problem is those imposing controlled speech.

It's not controlled speech, no more than enforcing gendered language on people in the first place. How is your solution of anchoring pronouns and gender to biology NOT imposing controlled speech using the exact same logic? Why not just respect how people prefer to be referred to?

No; a woman has always been an adult female human until recently.

Now you're confused. What "woman" means is not the same thing as what "gender" refers to. And the definition of "adult human female" doesn't exclude trans people.

There is a lot under the umbrella of "trans rights". What evidence do you have that most people support everything under that umbrella?

That's a loaded question. I could present you with a thousand studies and polls and you'd still say they're not supporting "everything".

By and large, people support trans rights, including the right to have your identified gender and pronouns.

 

[Orbit]

Is Santa Clause real? Thoughts can be real to the person who has them, but thoughts only exist inside of your head; thus not real.

Answer the question: is peer pressure real?

 

[crossfire]

So do you agree with the me concerning the question I asked on post #203?

Let's look at the post:

You're right; you didn't. I asked someone else a question, then other people got involved; yourself included and I mistake you for someone else. Do you have an opinion on my question though? Do you find it perfectly reasonable to define a woman as a person who identifies as a woman, but absurd to define a black person as one who identifies as a black person? Or do you agree with me and find this inconsistent.

I've heard dark-skinned Jamaicans say, "I'm not black, I'm Jamaican." (Expressing that they don't identify with the "black" community, but rather with the Jamaican community.)

A mixed-race person may identify as "black," but may or may not be accepted as black by some within the "black" community.
Yes, there are inconsistencies here. Sometimes I get confused when it comes to race. I'm ok with my being confused regarding race, however.