Black or White...

[luckynumbah7]

Actually, wait, that's a great example right there. One generally doesn't become transgender. It isn't like moving across state. Unlike sexuality, which can shift over time for some people and/or have exceptions, gender tends to be a process of understanding, not one of exceptions. You can have a dual identity (two spirit, as an example, or bigender) but you don't really change from cis to trans, as such.

 

[HoodedRat]

No one is really 'black' or 'white', the two poles are more like 'dark brown' and 'pale pink' ... whatever, I'm 'grey'.

 

[luckynumbah7]

It's strange to see how many people say that this is an 'interesting topic' or 'worth exploring'. I'm wondering if they'd think it were an interesting topic worth exploring if she were a black woman insisting she were white.

Lex

The answer to that is "no." If she were black insisting she were white they'd reference the comedy sketch about the blind thinks-he's-white black man and then they'd really be laying into trans people. Because it's never considered a serious thing when it looks like a minority is aiming to consider themselves as-good-as. Oh look, an example of white privilege, fancy that.

 

[luckynumbah7]

No one is really 'black' or 'white', the two poles are more like 'dark brown' and 'pale pink' ... whatever, I'm 'grey'.

Actually, one of those native recent ancestry sisters of mine is that white. I actually thought she might've been albino when she was born, and yes, she's that blond as well. My pasty ass is white, but I've got nothing on her. Turns out her looks came almost solely from her mothers father.

 

[luckynumbah7]

* me again. by not serious I mean they consider it, and you, a joke. They only start to care if you stop smiling and nodding and instead start demanding basic respect. Of course, by then they're not caring in a way that's going to help you, but they will care enough for someone to pop outta that woodwork and kill your ass.

 

[xbuzzerx]

Also, I don't think saying "racial" identity is not fluid (unlike national or cultural identity) is self-evident and a satisfying reply; surely, there are components of racial identity that are adoptable, as in some socio-cultural circumstances, even if biological origins are not.

The components that are adoptable are cultural-- not racial. You haven't explained why this statement is "not satisfactory", but I don't think that opinion really changes whether or not it's true.

If you move to Japan tomorrow and spend 40 years of your life there, you may grow to be very acculturated in Japanese norms and behaviors and language. You geographically reside in Asia. But 40 or 80 years won't make you "an Asian person" on a race form.

 

[xbuzzerx]

It's strange to see how many people say that this is an 'interesting topic' or 'worth exploring'. I'm wondering if they'd think it were an interesting topic worth exploring if she were a black woman insisting she were white.

Lex

Yup. It's the same bias that prompts the nation to have a discussion about "mental health" and not "terrorism" or "thug culture" after a white person goes on a shooting spree. At very simplest, it seems to be something like, "a white person did it? Hmm, there must be a good reason or explanation, then."

 

[luckynumbah7]

Uh, imma gonna point out there are discussions among women in particular about the intersections of racism, mental health intersections and those self righteous pricks who think it's their god given right to both get the girl and be homecoming king, so to speak. You just might not be aware of them because you're, well, men. And they're starting to get bigger, took a damn long time in coming.

Although with every other type of shooting spree you're dead on.

 

[Daximus]

I work in the Spokane Valley and heard a woman who knows this Rachael lady talking about her. Basically said what we all know. She is full shit.

 

[pigface]

 

[zoltanspawn]

If you move to Japan tomorrow and spend 40 years of your life there, you may grow to be very acculturated in Japanese norms and behaviors and language. You geographically reside in Asia. But 40 or 80 years won't make you "an Asian person" on a race form.

I'd be entirely comfortable calling this person Japanese. If someone felt the need to call them a black-skinned, or a Mexican-born Japanese, I would wonder what was important about that. In my experience, many people who immigrate undergo an experience of genuinely becoming a new nationality. I don't see any essential barrier to this kind of hybridity in trans-racial terms either.

 

[xbuzzerx]

I'd be entirely comfortable calling this person Japanese. If someone felt the need to call them a black-skinned, or a Mexican-born Japanese, I would wonder what was important about that. In my experience, many people who immigrate undergo an experience of genuinely becoming a new nationality. I don't see any essential barrier to this kind of hybridity in trans-racial terms either.

You didn't address my post. Would you call that person racially Asian. When people identify as black in the English speaking world, they are not telling you a nationality, and they are not telling you a culture. They are identifying a racial identity.

You seem uncomfortable with acknowledging race as a category. I'm uncomfortable with someone who operates in their social reality in a position where they can choose to simply not acknowledge race, and implies no one else should do so either. It is a reality for many people and not just of their own choosing. Any black American could tell you that.

 

[zoltanspawn]

You didn't address my post. Would you call that person racially Asian.

I wonder why that's important? Am I examining their medical history for possible genetically inherited diseases common to Mexicans?

If I needed to recognize that for some such^ reason, I might say as above, they are Japanese of black or Mexican ancestry.

 

[xbuzzerx]

I wonder why that's important? Am I examining their medical history for possible genetically inherited diseases common to Mexicans?

If I needed to recognize that for some such^ reason, I might say as above, they are Japanese of black or Mexican ancestry.

Read my edit.

If it's not important for you personally, that doesn't rewrite reality that it doesn't actually matter for anyone.

 

[zoltanspawn]

No, Buzzer. We're talking about an immigrant who has lived in another country for 40 years now and how their process of transformation might serve as a possible analogy for trans-racialism.

Why is it important to call that immigrant individual a Mexican rather than a Japanese merely because of their race?

What is the essential component of race at play there that is important to recognize?

 

[LuckysRevenge]

No, Buzzer. We're talking about an immigrant who has lived in another country for 40 years now and how their process of transformation might serve as a possible analogy for trans-racialism.

Why is it important to call that immigrant individual a Mexican rather than a Japanese merely because of their race?

What is the essential component of race at play there that is important to recognize?

Nationality is different than race. You treat them like they are interchangeable.

A persons race doesn't change on a whim or due to cultural influences.

 

[zoltanspawn]

Nationality is different than race. You treat them like they are interchangeable.

A persons race doesn't change on a whim or due to cultural influences.

No, not interchangeable, but a useful analogy, and the 40 years in the example isn't a whim.

I think there are probably some components of race that are pretty fixed, but I don't think the barriers are as sturdy as many think.

What do you think is the fixed part of race that is totally inflexible?

 

[LuckysRevenge]

No, not interchangeable, but a useful analogy, and the 40 years in the example isn't a whim.

I think there are probably some components of race that are pretty fixed, but I don't think the barriers are as sturdy as many think.

What do you think is the fixed part of race that is totally inflexible?

I am black. I cannot change that. I may take on a different nationality.. a different culture, but my race is black. My two parents are black. That is completely fixed.

I can choose to identify however I want to, but that does not change my racial background.

Your culture is not part of your DNA. Your nationality is not part of your DNA. The analogy does not fit. A braindead black man without a nation.. without a thought in his mind is still black. The same cannot be said of nationality, culture, gender identification, etc.

 

[xbuzzerx]

No, Buzzer. We're talking about an immigrant who has lived in another country for 40 years now and how their process of transformation might serve as a possible analogy for trans-racialism.

First off, transracialism is being completely misused under a completely incorrect definition in this entire discussion. There is no such thing as transracialism as a close analog to transexuality. The term completely predates Bruce Jenner shining a public spotlight on transexuality, and does not have the meaning you are giving it here.

One is not black because they feel black, act black or wish to live in a way emulating an image of black. They are not black by gaining citizenship to Black Nation. There are not assigned social and behavioral and cultural norms inherent to blackness that, once adopted, makes one black. There is no relationship between transracialism and transexuality.

What is the essential component of race at play there that is important to recognize?

In many cases, thousands of years of heritage or experiences which uniquely or differentially affected the experiences of one group of people against the broader pool of the human population. This can take the form of specific physical and health considerations. This can take the form of diet. This can take the form of generationally imprinted experiences which affected the group-- slavery, genocide.

There is no mathematical constant to race because race is a social construct. That is the point at which many white people have their easy out and throw up their hands and go, "Well, see? Race isn't even real. So why is anyone making any kind of fuss about it at all? It's only a problem if they IMAGINE it's a problem, and it's only real if they TREAT it like it is." That's total bullshit. Race may be socially constructed. But the resulting groupings, experiences and heritage that results from people being cordoned off and viewed as a separate race are real.

In 100 years down the line, one could no doubt just as easily adopt your position on sexuality, and imply there is not, and never was, any reason to ever view or acknowledge any difference at all... and criticize and belittle the notion that anyone ever "identified" around a sexual orientation. But there is a common set of concerns, and in most cases, a common set of experiences and histories which presented themselves to individuals who are gay because they were gay. Now let's say being gay is something no one was ever capable of hiding. Then extend the period over which society categorized and treated gay people differently back for centuries, or millenia, and you start to get some kind of glimpse of what, in many cases, race is, and why its existence as a facet of identity is real, even if debunked presumptions in the past of biological and innate differences between humans by race never was.

 

[xbuzzerx]

No, not interchangeable, but a useful analogy, and the 40 years in the example isn't a whim.

It isn't a useful analogy at all. One can change their nationality at any time, subject to whatever rules or restrictions or requirements a given nation has for citizenship. One cannot change their race.

This discussion is an attempt to educate you on why the analogy is useless-- it is not the discussion of a "useful analogy" between citizenship and race.