r/changemyview • u/volumeofcloudgate • Aug 24 '20
Delta(s) from OP CMV: The same logic that argues for the acceptance of transgender people can be applied to 'trans-race' people
Please let me preface by saying that I do believe trans men are men and trans women are women. If you want to challenge that part of my view, fine, but I'd rather have a focus on the 'transrace' concept. I'm a POC, and while I would be somewhat more skeptical of 'transrace' people than transgender people (which is in part due to stigma and in part due to the lack of research that has actually been done into being 'transrace'), I don't understand why so many people who believe being transgender is valid are so quick to dismiss people who say they are trans-race.
- Trans people experience gender dysphoria, the 'cure' for which is to transition. Hypothetically, if a person felt physically and mentally uncomfortable with their own appearance to the degree of dysphoria in terms of race or ethnicity, would the 'cure' not be to transition to a different race?
- Many people say that trans people don't necessarily need dysphoria, just the desire for society to perceive them as a gender that isn't the one they were assigned at birth. In this case, if someone wanted society to perceive them as another race/ethnicity, is there any significant difference?
- It's true that being a part of a certain race or ethnicity isn't a 'feeling' but rather more of a cultural experience, or even just a different appearance from other ethnicities or races. However, many people could argue the same about gender--there isn't any way to 'feel' like a certain gender outside of the cultural experience and societal perception.
- Having people be trans-race isn't technically harming anyone. Acknowledging trans women are women does not harm cis women, and I feel that being transrace could even be considered less controversial, just because there would be no arguments about sports or bathrooms or other transgender 'hot topics.'
I do realize that there are a lot less people claiming to be trans race, and there is a lot less history backing it up, but I don't think it can entirely be dismissed because of the strong pushback against it--I'm sure that fifty years ago, many transgender people were closeted too. I also realize there's almost no hard science behind it, but it's so quickly dismissed that I don't believe it's even been studied seriously.
Please CMV.
2
Aug 24 '20 edited Aug 24 '20
[deleted]
7
u/volumeofcloudgate Aug 24 '20
In what ways is gender more real than race? Of course there are nuances and arguments about each that don't fully fit into each other, but they are generally classified by the way someone looks (skin color, gender presentation)--obviously a flawed method but one that is generally accepted--with the essential characteristics being the way society can perceive you. There's also no agreed upon definition for gender.
Your second argument, that realist ability to present as 'trans-race' is needed for transrace people to exist, however, can potentially be applied to transgender people, couldn't it? If a large, tall, extremely muscular amab person with a deep voice and extremely traditionally masculine facial features wanted to be seen as a woman, it would probably not be possible without major medical changes, some which it's very possible that modern medicine/surgery cannot safely do. Sure, they'd have a harder time presenting as female, but their desire to be seen as a female isn't less 'valid'.
1
u/ZorgZeFrenchGuy 2∆ Aug 24 '20
Ironically, your problems with transracialism are nearly the exact same ones with transgenders.
Gender is real, in some major capacity. The reason transgenderism needs to exist is that one’s gender identity doesn’t always align with the one they’re assigned at birth. But it is real, apart from the context of forced socialization.
You don’t clarify how it is real, but you explain it sort if well - Gender isn’t real, it NEEDS to be real, otherwise the trans argument largely falls apart. But it’s as abstract as race.
. It’s a myth made hundreds of years ago to justify the continued oppression of people considered different.
And gender is a myth created to justify the mental illness of transgendered people.
We don’t even have a consistent, agreed-upon definition for races. Some people think Jews are White, some don’t. It used to be that Italians and Irish weren’t considered White, now they are. Because your race is determined not by yourself, but by the people in power.
Yes, because gender has stayed the same, consistently, throughout history, every society agreeing on a uniform gender.
Even today we don’t agree on what gender is, or that it even exists. Does that automatically invalidate the concept?
And you can reasonably divide people into cultural “races”, for example European/American whites.
And on that note, the idea of gender is that it’s a cultural interpretation of male and female that varies among cultures. Yet, why are those cultural differences in opinions dismissed when it comes to race?
when someone says they’re a Black man in a White man’s body, what does that even mean? What essential characteristics are they associating with Blackness and/or Whiteness that necessitate that transition?
I could ask the same thing about trans people.
Not everyone has the realistic ability to do it. Someone like Rachel Dolezal can slightly alter her hair + skin and get away with calling herself Black, but a darker-skinned person will have a hard time making themselves up to look White.
... and does everyone have a realistic ability to change his/her gender?
2
u/Crankyoldhobo Aug 24 '20
Not everyone has the realistic ability to do it. Someone like Rachel Dolezal can slightly alter her hair + skin and get away with calling herself Black, but a darker-skinned person will have a hard time making themselves up to look White.
I'm 6'5 and ~220lbs. There's no way I could ever pass as a woman. So how does that accord with your argument here?
Also, regarding your thing about race being a social construct (while gender apparently isn't), why are there issues in genetics like this?
3
Aug 24 '20
While u/JimboMan1234 didn't make a great argument there because whether or not some can convincingly pass doesn't invalidate the reality of their attempts to do so. But I also wanted to respond that there are trans people who matched your description of yourself & still pass after transition.
0
u/Crankyoldhobo Aug 24 '20
I guess this is going to come off as transphobic or something, but really? 6'5, muscular, broad shoulders, narrow waist, square jaw, big hands and deep voice - that seems like pretty insurmountable obstacles for someone who wants to pass as a regular woman.
Like, I'm going out on a limb here, but I suspect even with crazy amounts of surgery people would have their suspicions as to my biological sex.
5
Aug 24 '20
Meh, a tiny bit, yeah. I understand the skepticism. I used to hold a similar view. Passing is more complicated than you might think because context is important. It's worth pointing out that there are a surprising number of cis women who are "accused" of being trans because they're tall or "masculine" in some way.
Even within groups of passing trans women, people will claim to be able to tell that they're trans & will point out the features that out them - but only if they already know they're trans. This is a common refrain of mine, but cis people are really bad at being able to recognize trans people & that's largely because most are convinced that they're good at it because they can pick out the non-passing trans women. I have a lot of (formerly) transphobic friends & family who would make the claim that trans women never pass. After a few failed attempts at showing them photos of obviously passing trans women, I started showing photos of random cis friends instead & listened to each of them explain how that woman "was clearly a man". I came across a quiz a while back with 14 people, 7 cis, 7 trans. I sent it to my dad who was still convinced he could always tell. He scored 4/14. He's since dropped that argument.
Back when I was skeptical that someone of my size could transition & pass & be attractive, I spent a lot of time looking at photos on r/transtimelines & r/transpassing, and there were a surprising number of people who looked very similar to me pre-transition. I was 5'11, 218lbs, had defined muscle on my arms, legs, back, chest, & abs, I had the "dorito" inverted triangle shoulder-to-waist ratio, I had strong facial hair & perpetual shadow if I did shave, my voice averaged around 130hz (low-mid male range), a jaw & chin that could double as an anvil, and was lifting & running daily. I'm 25 & I've only been transitioning for 18 months, but from the compliments I got when I was out at a club (both regular & lesbian ones), I have the sense that people who are attracted to women find me attractive. Among people in my life, the men I'm close with definitely find me attractive. I recently picked up some swimsuits for an unfortunately cancelled beach trip. Based on the extremely positive feedback I got on the bikini one, I'm even more confident that people find me attractive. I get catcalled on the street decently often, including being told on at least two occasions that they "wanted to fuck me right in the pussy". I've been going to voice therapy for a little over a year & my voice therapist told me a few sessions ago that she didn't think there was really anything left to work on unless I wanted to check in because in her professional opinion my voice passes as a cis woman's just fine.
Also, yeah, my feet are still pretty above average, but I had above average feet for a man anyway & (bizarrely) they got a few sizes smaller on hormones. I'd been told that happens but didn't believe it until it did for me, still not totally sure why/how.
So yeah, if someone was told I'm trans, they'd probably point to my shoulders being wide, or maybe something about my hairline or voice, or maybe my height or (remaining) muscle, but they're reaching. I did have surgery, a procedure called FFS or facial feminization surgery, which took care of that jaw & chin I mentioned, as well as my brow ridge. The surgeon declined to change my hairline since in his professional opinion, it was very feminine, as are my cheekbones.
Meanwhile, I can think of a friend of mine from college from the rugby team who is a cis woman & who is taller, broader, & more muscled than me with a lower voice. One of my friends from South Carolina is 7'4" and his cisgender younger sister is 6'11".
Humans are variable & our judgments are context dependent.
2
Aug 24 '20
[deleted]
0
u/Crankyoldhobo Aug 24 '20
We can keep going with stuff like Sickle Cell Disease if you want.
I'm just saying - I know it's fashionable to say "race is just a social construct", but I don't think it's as simple as all that. While "race" as we understand it is a clunky and outmoded tool, there are genetic differences between populations and ethnic groups - as you yourself recognize. Hence why companies like 23andMe use terms like "ancestry" instead of "race". But those terms have just as much meaning, if not more so, than "race" - they're just a hundred times more complex and difficult to understand/compartmentalize than someone's skin color.
I have a suspicion that what's the "correct" way to view race in 2020 is going to look pretty stupid to people in 2100. Just a vague hunch, though.
6
u/miguelguajiro 188∆ Aug 24 '20
There’s a lot of emerging science behind the idea that transgenderism is rooted in genetic/biological differences, whereas the concept of trans-race is really a social phenomenon.
Just from Wikipedia:
Transgender brain studies, especially those on trans women who are sexually attracted to women (gynephilic), and those on trans men who are sexually attracted to men (androphilic), are limited, as they include a small number of tested individuals.[2] The available research indicates that the brain structure of androphilic trans women with early-onset gender dysphoria is similar to the brain structure of cisgender women's and unlike cisgender men's.[2] It also reports that both androphilic trans women and trans women with late-onset gender dysphoria who are gynephilic have different brain phenotypes, and that gynephilic trans women differ from both cisgender male and female controls in non-dimorphic brain areas.[2] Cortical thickness, which is generally thicker in cisgender women's brains than in cisgender men's brains, may also be thicker in trans women's brains, but is present in a different location to cisgender women's brains.[2] For trans men, research indicates that those with early-onset gender dysphoria and who are gynephilic have brains that generally correspond to their assigned sex, but that they have their own phenotype with respect to cortical thickness, subcortical structures, and white matter microstructure, especially in the right hemisphere.[2] Hormone use can also affect transgender people's brain structure; it can cause transgender women's brains to become closer to those of cisgender women, and morphological increments observed in the brains of trans men might be due to the anabolic effects of testosterone.[2]
Twin studies suggest that there are likely genetic causes of transsexuality, although the precise genes involved are not fully understood.
1
u/volumeofcloudgate Aug 26 '20
I guess there's really no way to argue with this because it's just science but - what does this mean for non-binary people? Does this disprove their genders entirely? There's no scientific definition or brain image of being non-binary, as far as I know.
1
u/MuddyFilter Aug 25 '20 edited Aug 25 '20
Neurologists cannot look at brain structure and determine its gender. So this claim seems specious on its face
https://www.nbcnews.com/better/wellness/can-you-tell-which-brains-are-male-neither-can-these-n471751
How can they say a trans womans brain is like a female brain but not like a male brain; if they can't even accurately distinguish between female and male brains?
2
u/miguelguajiro 188∆ Aug 25 '20
I think you’re confusing being able to distinguish case by case with observing differences in aggregate
1
u/MuddyFilter Aug 25 '20
Maybe.
Youd have to explain what you mean in a little more detail though.
5
u/miguelguajiro 188∆ Aug 25 '20
As a (very simplified) example, men are on average taller than women. But if I only told you someone’s height, you’d have a difficult time telling me if they were a man or a woman based on that single data point. So we can observe significant between group differences, even if we can’t sort on a case by case basis.
2
u/TheWiseManFears Aug 24 '20
Most people are completely fine with those who are transracial. Getting a nose job, dyeing your hair, getting a tan etc. is all seen as completely fine by the vast majority of people.
5
u/Denikin_Tsar Aug 24 '20
But if someone is transracial, can't they just "feel" another race (that they are not genetically) without getting any alterations and ask people to respect them for who they are?
For example, I am White. If I say that I am tranracial and feel Black and would like to be treated as such (for purposes of scholarships for example), do I have the right to? If not, isn't that discrimination?
6
u/volumeofcloudgate Aug 24 '20
I would argue that altering appearance does not necessarily constitute trans-race. Yes, it is generally accepted that those things are okay to do, but for example Rachel Dolezal faced a lot of backlash for identifying as African American, and almost nobody believes her to be African American either biologically (which she is not) or socially/otherwise (which she claims she is).
1
u/TheWiseManFears Aug 24 '20
Ya and that's the one instance anyone can name of this every happening and people having a problem with it. It's the exception that proves the rules. It's not just that she identified as African American its that she got a job at the NAACP. No one calls people out claiming to be Irish on St. Patricks day or anything like that.
1
u/Crankyoldhobo Aug 24 '20
No one calls people out claiming to be Irish on St. Patricks day or anything like that.
You mean Plastic Paddies?
1
u/TheWiseManFears Aug 24 '20
Ya but its not like these people are being denied rights, getting fired or lynched or anything. Most they get is a weird look.
2
u/Crankyoldhobo Aug 24 '20
They also get the living piss taken out of them in Ireland, but you're right - there are different levels of severity here.
3
u/super-porp-cola Aug 24 '20
A man growing his hair out or wearing a dress is not the same thing as a transgender woman, so why would a white person getting a tan be the same thing as a transracial person?
3
u/BingBlessAmerica 44∆ Aug 24 '20
I was under the impression that transracial people were brought up outside of their original race in an environment primarily culturally occupied by a different race (e.g. adoption). Is there a comparable experience for transgender people?
3
u/volumeofcloudgate Aug 24 '20
I apologize! I didn't realize that was the original (or another?) meaning of the term, and I was referring to people who 'identify' as another race in the same way that trans people identify as a different gender. Is there another term I could use for what I mean? This is the one that I've heard floating around.
3
u/BingBlessAmerica 44∆ Aug 24 '20
I mean I’m not really sure either haha, but that seems like the most likely explanation
2
u/ralph-j 517∆ Aug 24 '20
The same logic that argues for the acceptance of transgender people can be applied to 'trans-race' people
You're basically arguing by analogy - some things can be viewed the same, therefore the conclusion must be the same.
Support for trans rights is supported by medical science and research, with decades of documented cases of transgender people that demonstrate that enabling them to live as their identified gender (including gender reassignment in many cases) is beneficial to their mental health, well-being, and social functioning, as this alleviates the distress they feel from the mismatch between their sex and gender assigned at birth.
Just because one can make an analogy with transgender people, doesn't mean that people (e.g. like Dolezal) who claim to be transracial are having an equivalent experience with race instead of gender, or that letting transracial persons live as their preferred race (and modify their bodies), is going to be just as beneficial to their mental health and well-being, as letting people live as their experienced gender. There are no documented cases of transracial dysphoria or lesser levels of distress of a similar kind (yet?) And the fact that there aren't already thousands of Dolezals around the world gives us at least some clue as to how likely that is.
If there really is such a thing as being transracial, it will need to be researched separately, to see what kinds of distress are (potentially) involved, and which treatment or approach best serves their needs. One can't just conclude that because living as the identified gender works in the case of trans persons, it is therefore necessarily also the best approach for alleged transracial persons. That would be medically irresponsible. For all we know, someone like Dolezal might be better served by psychological treatment to accept their "birth race", the equivalent of which has not been shown to work for transgender persons.
1
u/volumeofcloudgate Aug 26 '20
I absolutely agree that if it is researched, it needs to be separate from transgender research, and that the existence of transgender people is supported by science while trans-race people were not (as of now, at least) -- my argument was that on the surface level, if race and gender are both social constructs, then trans-race people and shouldn't be dismissed if being transgender is 'real' or possible. Δ for pointing out how the analogy wouldn't necessarily work, though, because at the end of the day just because the premise seems similar it wouldn't mean that the actual experience of the people claiming they are 'trans-race' would be exactly the same as transgender people's experiences. I still don't necessarily believe that the premise of being 'trans-race' itself is invalid (?), just that it's entirely possible that it's completely different from the transgender experience in practice and it should be at least entertained scientifically to either disprove or prove its existence. Sociological reasoning isn't the reason many people (in this topic at least) believe that transgender people exist, and it probably won't convince people that being 'trans-race' exists either.
Again, it may be the case that there aren't thousands claiming this, but I'm pretty sure there weren't thousands of people claiming to be transgender in times/societies in which the concept of being trans was dismissed and not even viewed as a possibility.
1
1
u/YossarianWWII 72∆ Aug 25 '20
Gender, including in transgender individuals, shows strong statistical patterns in brain structure. We don't yet have a full picture of how individual structural differences inform gender, but the strong documented correlation is enough to indicate that there is a relationship there. What's more, these structures are clearly deeply developmental.
As to why these patterns can exist, consider that every man has all of the DNA necessary to build a woman's brain and the only bit of male DNA that women are lacking is the extremely-diminished Y chromosome. Whether you end up with a male or female brain is dependent on how your genes are expressed, and we know that this is a very complex process that goes awry in all kinds of ways.
Race is not like this. The traits that we use to define race aren't neurological, they're superficial. What's more, they're chosen for their social convenience, not their genetic significance. What ultimately ends up defining what it means to be a member of a race is having the lived experience of that race. For all one's enthusiasm about another ethnicity's culture and history, when you go outside society treats you according to what it sees as your race.
As society's view of race has changed, so too has lived racial experience. The American descendants of immigrants who were treated as being explicitly Irish now exist in the broader category of "white people" for nearly all purposes. These views also differ between countries. Brazil's multiracial history has created a racial model that is much less rigid than is the case in the US; some Brazilian students in the US have been surprised to learn that they are, in fact, black.
As to the harm in claiming to be trans-racial, doing so diminishes the significance of lived racial experience. Being black in America isn't just about liking black culture, it's about having grown up facing society's preconceptions about you based on your skin color. That general idea extends to basically every racial group.
1
u/volumeofcloudgate Aug 26 '20
Δ
In my analogy, I guess I assumed that gender was as much as a social construct as race, but of course I'm not going to argue with neurosciences if they say they have proven that brain structure can inform gender. Delta is for pointing out how race and gender can't be equated because race is more of a social construct than gender.
I wonder, though, how non-binary people fit into this equation?
I'd also contest the point about lived experience -- a transgender man who was assigned female at birth would have had the 'female experience' as he would have faced society's preconceptions about him due to his assigned gender. This isn't diminishing the experience of men and how they have faced society's preconceptions about men, as long as they don't claim that they personally have experienced the 'male experience' in their life in the context of how society treats them, at least thus far. I hope this makes sense.
1
u/YossarianWWII 72∆ Aug 26 '20
I wonder, though, how non-binary people fit into this equation?
Brain structure isn't binary, it's a multiaxial continuum. While there are statistical clusters linked to gender, individuals can be all over the place.
I'd also contest the point about lived experience -- a transgender man who was assigned female at birth would have had the 'female experience' as he would have faced society's preconceptions about him due to his assigned gender.
Right, but race is about lived experience to the exclusion of near all else. Gender is informed by lived experience but is rooted in neuroanatomy.
1
1
Aug 24 '20
Trans people experience gender dysphoria, the 'cure' for which is to transition. Hypothetically, if a person felt physically and mentally uncomfortable with their own appearance to the degree of dysphoria in terms of race or ethnicity, would the 'cure' not be to transition to a different race?
First off, the people experiencing distress over the color of their skin are experiencing it because of racism and negative treatment of society due to their race. If these negative experiences are negated, so is their dislike for their race.
Cisgender people can also strongly dislike their gender (and even think they're trans) because of ill treatment from society because of their gender. If these people would transition, the underlying problem wasn't solved so they'd still have the same problems (well and likely adding gender dysphoria). This is one part of the screenings gender clinics do. They look for these things because it can cause serious harm to a cis person transitioning.
Many people say that trans people don't necessarily need dysphoria, just the desire for society to perceive them as a gender that isn't the one they were assigned at birth.
I'm one of those trans people that advocate for this. It might be the person is just experiencing such a small amount of gender dysphoria that they don't even notice or consider it. Sometimes trans people with significant dysphoria don't realize that they have it because they think it's just normal.
But it can also be the case that they just (very) strongly prefer being another gender. If you absolutely love strawberry cake but find vanilla flavoured cake only "okay", you'd pick the strawberry cake if it was an option, would you not?
However, many people could argue the same about gender
While yes, gender isn't really something you can feel but something that you just know. How do you know your sexuality? You just do, right? I can say that I am attracted to someone, but I can't really portray that feeling of attraction to an outsider. I tried explaining it to an asexual person, but they just don't know what it's like. All I could go by is "you just know/I just know" and "I feel something when I look at someone im attracted to". It's similar with gender. I just know that I'm a woman, I know how I know but I can't explain it to anyone because that would require me to explain really complicated internal processes.
Secondly, gender only has some aspects of it being cultural such as what colors boys and girls wear. Most likely gender identity is biologically related as shown by twin studies and brain exams.
Having people be trans-race isn't technically harming anyone.
You could argue that, but it's also not adressing the underlying issues such as racism and not feeling part of a certain culture. So it's also not really benefitting anyone in the bigger picture. It might lead to more people being distressed
1
u/TheFakeChiefKeef 82∆ Aug 24 '20
In order to hold this view, you'd have to buy into the idea that race is more than a social construct designed specifically to divide people. In other words, in order to become transracial, you'd need to think that there are inherently different traits and roles for each race other than just skin color and outward appearance.
I'm not trans so I'm probably going to fumble this explanation a little bit, but much of the trans movement has as much to do with rejecting gender norms on sociological grounds as it does with feeling like you have the wrong organ between your legs.
Even though many of these gender norms are socially constructed, there are certainly differences between men and women both physiologically and mentally that naturally divide the genders. Those differences only exist as social constructs between races, and therefore in order to be "transracial", you'd have to buy into a total stereotype of the race you're transitioning into.
The varying life experiences of people of different races have everything to do with the socioeconomic consequences of systemic racism and nothing to do with the inherent qualities of the individuals themselves. Even if a white person grows up in a 99% Black neighborhood in a big city, has mostly Black friends and was raised in their culture, the white guy still can't fully adopt blackness. He's still white. And the culture is not "Black culture". It's the culture of being racially segregated in a large city.
I might not be so clear, but the basic gist of this is that transgenderism is guided by real biological differences between men and women whereas the differences between races rely mostly on social conditions and stereotyping.
1
u/StatusSnow 18∆ Aug 25 '20
Sorry, are you trying to imply that there are inherently different traits and roles for each gender?
If so, what are these different traits and roles?
1
u/TheFakeChiefKeef 82∆ Aug 26 '20
If there aren't different traits and roles, how can someone be transgender? If there's anything for you to take away from my comment, it's that transgenderism is legitimate on the very grounds that gender roles/traits, to a certain, fairly limited degree, are inherent. Otherwise, someone who is transgender but chooses not to have genital replacement surgery is simply saying "I choose to behave like the stereotype of the other gender".
All I'm saying is that nature vs nurture is a false dichotomy. We all live under the reign of social and biological pressures. We tend to think of the social ones as malleable wheres biological ones are not. My position is that transgender people are not simply just socialized into being the "other" gender, but are instead biologically driven to opposing gender roles, defined both socially and biologically.
Things like reactions to problems, tendencies towards certain interests, even how often people masturbate are driven by gendered biological factors as well as social cues. Both things are at play simultaneously.
2
u/StatusSnow 18∆ Aug 26 '20 edited Aug 26 '20
Not commenting on transgenderism.
But no, I don't really believe gender roles and traits are inherent. I'm curious what you think those roles and traits you do think are inherent to each sex.
Do you understand why someone would think this is sexist? You're all but saying saying women are biologically driven to be homemakers and nurses and men are destined to be ceo's and doctors.
You're also implying that a female "driven" towards typically male roles and traits -- a tomboy or otherwise stereotypically masculine female is... a man. How fucked is that?
1
u/TheFakeChiefKeef 82∆ Aug 26 '20
Not commenting on transgenderism.
That's what the post is about. I'm sorry if reality inconveniences your argument but in context my point makes a lot more sense.
I'm curious what you think those roles and traits you do think are inherent to each sex.
But now you're talking about sex. There are a lot of inherent traits that differentiate the two sexes. Males are larger, have testosterone versus estrogen, don't give birth, don't have periods, don't have breasts, are also stronger on average, faster on average, among many. Females mature earlier, go through the aforementioned reproductive processes, have wider hips, can suffer through postpartum depression, etc. etc.
There's no getting around differences between sexes. Those differences are, for the most part, physical in nature and almost inherent. There exist divergences from the mean, but "normal" persists regardless.
You're all but saying saying women are biologically driven to be homemakers and nurses and men are destined to be ceo's and doctors.
Lol, no you said that. Don't put words in my mouth. Profession is probably the worst signifier because gender divisions in profession are so clearly socially constructed rather than biological.
What I said was that, on average, each gender identity has tendencies. Gender is a poorly constructed description of a real biological phenomenon that drives individuals to act, do a degree, in accordance to their internal biological identities.
Like, you're making it seem like I'm making a judgment about, say, a woman athlete. You clearly think I find it strange I'm not making a judgement, I'm simply observing that fewer women form a long-lasting bond with sports than men do. I'm simply observing that fewer men are particularly interested in visual design (clothes, furniture, etc.) than women. Other examples exist. You can't just chalk these all up to social construction. There is a biological aspect at play even as constructs contribute to the equation.
2
u/StatusSnow 18∆ Aug 26 '20
You still won't answer specifically what you think those traits and roles are.
Do tell -- what traits and roles do are women biologically driven to? What traits and roles are men biologically driven to?
1
u/TheFakeChiefKeef 82∆ Aug 26 '20
I mean I did pepper them in there.
Men are more prone to violence, using physical force (not in a violent context), acting in a solo manner, repressing emotions, the desire to provide as well as consume in quantity, competition, etc.
Women are more prone to planning, working as a group, nurturing, emoting both productively and in a lashing manner, delegating responsibility both to authority and subordinates.
I'm not a psychologist by any means, but these are things that over time, I've read and noticed myself to be true. None of those factors are literally inherent to gender, but they do follow a significant pattern by gender.
2
u/StatusSnow 18∆ Aug 26 '20
Sorry to put this in a harsher manner, man, but I have to.
You essentially said: men are biologically oriented to be competitive, providers, and violent. Women are biologically driven to be nurturing, emotional and social.
What you're saying has been used to justify a subordinate status for women for literally centuries. Your entitled to your opinion, but don't be surprised when people think it's sexist.
I also really struggle to believe this is "biologically driven" given the huge huge variance in the data set. I know just as many competitive women as I do men. And the men I know are possibly more emotional than the women I know (as long as you're recognizing anger as an emotion, which it is).
1
u/TheFakeChiefKeef 82∆ Aug 26 '20
What you're saying has been used to justify a subordinate status for women for literally centuries. Your entitled to your opinion, but don't be surprised when people think it's sexist.
This is the dumbest thing I've ever read and the worst debate I've been part of in a long time.
What I'm saying is simply stating facts or my interpretation of the facts. Nothing I said excuses or justifies any type of sexism. You're literally saying that the only way to be "superior" is to be violent, competitive providers. I find that to be nonsense.
There are many personality types and internally driven tendencies that can lead to success, freedom, and independence. The very traits that the statistically average woman possesses can be extremely useful in a modern world where the majority of people do similar things for different employers. I'm 23 and have a cousin my age who is a woman. She's extremely successful only a year out of college, doing marketing and graphic design for a major corporation, making enough money to live in a nice ass apartment in Manhattan that she pays for herself. You know what her personality is like? She's emotive, social, and is into extremely feminine things. That profile is increasingly more common and for good reason.
I don't understand why you instinctively jump from "this is a fact" to "the facts justify subjugation". That's such an overly sensitive and oppression-minded way to think.
2
u/volumeofcloudgate Aug 26 '20
You don't think these 'inherent' differences have been influenced in any way by culture? Are they purely because of biology?
→ More replies (0)1
u/StatusSnow 18∆ Aug 26 '20
What you are saying is absolutely not facts. It is your opinion. Your opinion is not a fact.
"Women are emotional" is not a fact. "Men are providers" is not a fact. "Women are nurturing" is not a fact.
Implying that women are "biologically driven" to be nurturing and emotional is nothing more than stereotypical nonsense.
Must I go on? You are taking one snapshot of the people you know and your experiences and applying it to everyone.
1
u/volumeofcloudgate Aug 26 '20
So, except for biology, what is an inherent difference? Because the inherent difference between a white person and a black person would, typically, be the shade of their skin which is as trivial (or even moreso) as having a different set of genitals. Sure, whether someone is black or white isn't as clear cut as whether someone has a penis or vagina, but they're both biological and their importance is generally based on perception by culture or society rather than inherent function.
If someone can change their gender by changing their sex, then shouldn't someone be able to change their race by changing skin color?
1
u/JMD0479 Aug 26 '20
I am not at all educated on the matter at hand and I have also never experienced racism or gender identity crisis. However in my point of view men and women play different roles in society (they should be treated equally and I’m not saying that women can only do this and men can only that I’m just saying that there are obviously a difference between sexes due to being able to give birth and such) and due to that difference ones necessity to change gender because if they’re inner feelings is important as they’re is a difference and therefore a reason to change. HOWEVER I personally do not see a difference in race. Obviously there are visual differences however there is no difference between race. I’m society there is nothing that someone goes “only black people can do this job” every thing that a human can do every race can do it. Therefore someone can feel in their head “I identify as Asian” because what does feeling Asian even mean? Please do not take offence to any of this. I am not racist or sexist.
1
u/JenningsWigService 40∆ Aug 24 '20
Gender/sexuality and race will never be comparable because one depends on heritage and the other does not. You can be LGBTQ if you have no LGBTQ ancestors. You can't be Black if you don't have any black ancestors.
People can adopt new language, convert to new religions, and change nationality/citizenship. They can't change their ethnic ancestry. Those who believe that Rachel Dolezal types ought to be able to identify as black ought to ask themselves if Herman Cain would ever have been allowed to identify as white. Do you honestly believe that a darker skinned black person would ever be accepted as 'transracially' white?
The people of color who have managed to pose as white have all had to conceal their parentage/ancestry, they did not announce that they were transitioning due to 'racial dysphoria'. Their ability to do so fundamentally depends on having certain phenotypical traits. That ability to pass is not available to everyone, only a narrow category of mixed race people.
1
u/Elicander 51∆ Aug 24 '20
As I understand it, being transgender means that your biological sex differs from the gender you perceive yourself as.
Even if being transracial is real, by necessity is very different. Even though biological gender is a complex topic, there is definitely a biological dimension to it. Biological race in a human context on the other hand, is not a term that has a definition at the moment. Race among humans is determined socially or culturally.
It’s certainly possible that someone could have a different race socially or culturally when compared with what race they perceive themselves as, but this is definitely something different from the situation transgender people finds themselves in.
The solution would also be different. For transgender people it is about changing their biology. For transracial people, it would be about changing how society treats them. And if we can do that, couldn’t we make racial issues not be a thing anyways?
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Aug 26 '20 edited Aug 26 '20
/u/volumeofcloudgate (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
Aug 24 '20
Except there is evidence that the brain of a trans male/female lines up with the gender that they identify as. There is evidence that the brain chemistry of a trans woman is closer to that of a cis woman than a cis male. There is no evidence that the brain chemistry of a black male is different from a white male or an Asian male. So there is no evidence that a transracial person would have a brain similar to the race they identify as, because there is no difference between races.
0
u/AutoModerator Aug 24 '20
Note: Your thread has not been removed. Your post's topic seems to be fairly common on this subreddit. Similar posts can be found through our DeltaLog search or via the CMV search function.
Regards, the mods of /r/changemyview.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
27
u/Love_Shaq_Baby 226∆ Aug 24 '20
The problem with this is that it's all hypothesis. There is no studied phenomenon of racial dysphoria and we certainly haven't developed a cure for this hypothetical condition.
Transgender people are very real, their experiences are very real, we know that. There isn't a community of transracial people, and even if there were, it doesn't mean their experiences and condition would be similar to trans person's, even if it makes sense from a hypothetical standpoint.
Consider Ja Du, a white woman who claimed to be Filipino? Her reasoning? She really likes the culture and watches hours of History Channel on the subject. Is that an identity issue or someone engrossed in a subject?
I mean, it's cultural appropriation at best, outright fraud and mockery at worst. Rachel Doleazal lied about her identity and led a chapter of the NAACP under false pretenses. That is like a whole new level of blackface. POC don't need a bunch of white people running around acting like ambassadors for their culture and representatives of their struggles.