Agnostic.com

24 2

Transgender and transrace - what´s the difference?

In a previous post I wrote about Richard Dawkins and how he was 'excommunicated' from the AHA for inviting his followers on Twitter to discuss a question concerning the ideology of transgender. I'd like to put forward this original question that started the fuss.

Here we go: What is the ethical difference between these two types of "transition"?
We are told that it should be considered normal if someone who was assigned male at birth self-identifies as female later in life (or female-to-male). We should welcome the transition and support the person (for example by using the correct new pronowns)

But obviously the same is not true about "transrace", as the case of Rachel Dolezal has shown: A "white" person is not allowed to self-identify and live as someone who self-identifies as "black". This kind of transition seems to be morally reprehensible. The taboo of 'transrace' is even more strange if one takes into account that biologically 'races' do not even exist (whereas no biologist would claim that sexes do not exist). So, why is a transition between socially constructed races not as easy and morally unproblematic as a transistion between socially constructed genders.

Can anybody give me a logical explanation for this strange asymmetry? What´s the ethical difference between a transgender person like Caitlyn Jenner, and a transrace person like Rachel Dolezal? Why was Jenner celebrated and Dolezal vilified if we start from the assumption that self-identification constitutes the "essence" of a person?

Matias 8 Oct 29
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

24 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

6

They are quite different. Since as race is a purely cultural idea, there can be no biological reason for wanting to change the race you were said, by culture, to be born into, since biology only exists in the real material world and can never be a part of a purely human cultural construct. (You therefore either accept the false concept of race and with it the one you were assigned to, or you reject racism, in which case race does not exist so you can neither be assigned one or adopt one. )

Gender however does exist in the material biological world, as a real thing, so that it is perfectly possible to be assigned to the wrong gender, and have a need to amend the mistake.

Nice response. Very sensible and scientific.

Bingo! That's my scientific reaction to your explanation! 🤗 "Cultural" is a far more important conceptual factor when talking about race.

That does not answer my question: If race is purely cultural (just like national identity), it should be common and unproblematic to change it if you feel uncomfortable in your assigned race, just as you can become a German citizen if you want to and fulfill certain conditions.
That´s the paradox my post is about: that you can switch sides in a category that is rooted in biology (sex / gender), but you are not allowed to self-identify out of your race, even if this category is largely a product of cultural construction.
Your answer does not solve this riddle

@Matias Yes it does solve the riddle. Because cultural constructs are about labels, so that yes you can change your nationality from, say, German to French, if you you born German changing the label of your nationality to French. But that does not change the historical label, if someone asks you your nationality, then you say French. But if someone asks you the nationality you were born into, then you would be telling an untruth if you did not answer German.

But if you thought all your life that you were born in Germany, had lived in Germany as a German person, but you then found out later that you were born in France. Say your parents died and going through their papers you found that your birth certificate was actually issued in France, then you would be telling the truth if someone asked you, what is your place of birth, and you said France. Because place of birth may be labeled with the name of a nation state, but it is still a real thing, where a nation state itself is only a cultural construct, and labels can be wrongly asigned.

@Fernapple Again you miss my point: If mis-labelling can occur in the category "gender/sex", and it is acceptable to change that later in life, why does our culture not accept that the same mis-labelling can occur in the category "race" too ?
The core idea of transgender ideology is that self-ID is everything, the material reality is of no importance. If I strongly feel to be X, then I am X, whatever people may say or the features of my body may indicate.
Let´s forget this example about nationality, because it has nothing, or very little, to do with my inner feelings, and here we do not have any bodily features that distinguish a German from a Frenchman, whereas in the categories race and gender there are physical features that have to be overcome if I want to transition

@Matias But you are missing my point too. The national analogy works well, because it makes the point that there could be times when it is normal to change your race label. (Even if not your race because those do not exist. Which is an issue it was perhaps better not to address since it muddies the water.) So to give an example, which I seem to remember has happened, and is not just hypothetical.

Forget about race as such, and think about skin colour for a second, because that is a real world genetic thing. Supposing a child is born to parents with black skin colouration, but is adopted by parents with white skin, and as it happens the child's skin is a very pale form within the normal black range. So that the child, having not been told about its adoption, grows up thinking that it has the same white skin colour genes as its adoptive parents, but later it finds out the truth, in the same sort of way, finds its birth papers. (This really has happened. ) The child then chooses to identify thereafter as having black colouration ancestry, (falsely know as race ). In this case I do not think that it is plausible that anyone, or any human sub-culture, save a few on the lunatic fringe, would have a problem with the child making the change as a correction. Because real world thing, genetics, has been mislabelled with a human cultural label of the wrong sort.

That is why using race changing as an analogy of that sort, for gender changing, does not work, because it is the wrong sort of race changing. Most sex changing is to correct a error, and so could race changing be to correct an error as in my example, but you are using an example where an error is being created. Which is a false analogy because, changes made to correct errors are not the same thing, as changes made when no error is present.

Sex exists in the real biological world, not gender. Gender is a social construct created by humans the same way race is. Unless you are suggesting that there are only two genders and they are inextricably tied to sex (in other words, man and woman are synonyms for male and female respectively).

@JeffMurray Yes I was using the terms quite loose because their exact meaning did not really affect the argument. But qualification accepted.

@Fernapple I think it does though. But recognizing that qualification, we see that both race and gender are nothing but social constructs, and places the OP question in a different light than you originally answered it. Namely, if they are both purely social constructs that are generally assigned at birth because of other real-world biological reasons, why is it courageous to change one, but deserving of hatred from the entire world to change the other?

@JeffMurray That's my main point, ( please read the one above your first comment.) it is that it is not deserving of hatred to change your race if you are wrongly assigned to a race, I give an example above where I am sure that society would be quite happy for someone to change race. It is just that it is far less likely that you will be wrongly assigned a race, than a sex/gender. People don't have a problem with people changing sex/gender when they are wrongly assigned, though they would if for example if someone were to do it for a phony reason, such as wanting to claim a social security benefit only available to the opposite sex/gender. Though because there are many genuine cases, most who do sex/gender change get the, benefit of the doubt.

Likewise, anyone who was really assigned a wrong race label, as in my example above, would probably be treated with sympathy. My point being that society as a whole is not really againtst changing either, only phoney changes where the change is not because they are wrongly labeled in the first place. It is just that wrong sex/gender labeling is commonplace whereas wrong race labeling, even though it is not real, is rare.

I am sorry if I was not plain but I muddied the waters a lot by trying to make an unneeded point about labeling as well. Should have given my remarks more thought.

@Fernapple That begs the question, what is race? Is it only lineage? Is it skin color? Is it living conditions and socio-economic strife? Is it upbringing? Community? Family? A combination? If so, how weighted is each of those categories, and who gets to decide those weights? How black is black enough? Surely we can't ask everyone for DNA tests, right? Why is the arbiter of gender only the individual, but the arbiter of race everyone but the individual?
Did you happen to read my post on this topic last year?
"The Dolezal Jenner Paradox

EDIT: As stated in a recent comment, this post has been edited since ..."

@JeffMurray That is a big question, as I said above for the purposes of this debate, you could forget the term race and just go with skin colour. I was actualy just talking about this with someone else above. Biologist do not usually recognize the idea of human races, because, although races exist in some species, the differences between humans are not considered to be great enough, there is not enough significant variation, to constitute races as the term is used in other species.

This may be an example of biologists finding an excuse to be PC. But there is some good evidence for it. Especially the fact, that humans passed through a genetic bottle neck approximately some seventy thousand years ago, which means that we all carry a virtually identical X chromosome, having a single female ancestor, and that the human species as a whole, has less genetic variation than that found in the average family of chimpanzee. Genetic variation exists, is real, but is not considered enough for the biological term race. Morphotype or variety perhaps.

Another question which can be asked is why does society accept the idea of intermediates in race, i.e. not just black or white, but also brown. Yet we have never accepted intermediates in sex/gender, though there are many forms and they are not uncommon. It may well be that that is why we accept sex/gender changes so readily, not because we are tolerant of changes, but because we are intolerant of intermediates, you have to jump one way or the other. Whereas we are quite happy with a person of mixed race parentage calling themselves brown. I think that you could make a good case for legally defining six or eight sex/genders, at least, and even allowing people to have more than one each.

@Fernapple But we can't really just use skin color. Try telling a really light-skinned African American that they're not black and see how that works out for you. And we all agreed that biology doesn't recognize race which is the crux of the OP, why is one completely man-made construct okay to change but another is not?

Your second point begs yet another question, why do we need legally defined genders? And who is in charge of allowing people have one or more of them?

OP and I are still looking for someone to "Name the Trait" that is the fundamental difference why transgender people get applause and transracial people get scorn.

@JeffMurray Yes you can use skin colour, the advange of which is that it is a biological and exact trait, making it quite different from cultural race. And you have not read the rest of the comments yet, have you. LOL

@JeffMurray The basic point is that race, since it is a human cultural construct is probably, most likely, going to reflect human cultural assumptions. Where sex/gender because it has a much larger biological element in it, as well, is not going to comply, SO OFTEN, ( it is about percentages ) with human cultural assumptions. And therefore there will, probably, be more often mismatches with the human cultural labels, and people being aware of that, are more inclined to be tolerant of attempts to adjust sex/gender labels.

I gave however, to make the point with an exception which proves the rule, an example of a case where someone may find that they are assigned the wrong race, and that in fact, that would if genuine, probably be treated with the same tolerance, at least by most reasonable people.

The difference being between genuine attempts to correct the mistakes made by human culture and fake attempts to claim mistakes have happened when they have not, and not any real difference in attitudes to race and sex/gender, although those do exist in other spheres.

@Fernapple All there is is cultural race because there are lighter-skinned black people with skin lighter than darker-skinned white people. If you can go strictly by skin color, please tell me the shade threshold that confers blackness.

Yes, I have read all the comments, here and on my post about this.

@JeffMurray That is the point, there is none, which is why I made the point about people being accepting of intermediates such as brown. See above. I think you may also have missed another since we posted at more or less exactly the same second.

@Fernapple Okay, if we assume there is an issue with perception based on what we're used to, that provides an explanation of why people perceive them to be different, but not a logical reason that they are different.
We weren't used to seeing black people and women vote, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be allowed to vote, or that when blacks were granted the right to vote that we should have waited another 50 years to get acclimated to that before then extending that same right to women.

@JeffMurray I am not really interested in the realities, since in this case they are for the most part plain and banal, Matias asked a question about cultural perceptions, and that is all I am really interested in addressing.

@Fernapple That's unfortunate. I asked this question a year ago and was hoping maybe this go around someone would have an answer for me.

@JeffMurray Ok lets try. To tell the truth I can not see much reason at all why, race and sex/gender are different, both are based in genetic biology and both have social/cultural constructs built onto them. The main difference is just a quantitative thing rather that a mater of quality, in that race is controlled by very few genetic differences. (Hence he reason why skin colour is even better because the genes are smaller in number and quite definable and measurable in the morphotype. ) While sex/gender is a whole chromosome at least.

The main difference therefore is that we can identify race, especially the blending of race, easily. Indeed are forced to do so, since it is plain that a person of intermediate race will have parents belonging to different races, and most of the time an obvious intermediate colour and appearance. Where persons of intermediate sex/gender will have parents of both sexes just like everyone else, plus the most obvious morphological differences are typically hidden due to cultural custom, at least in the west. As also, are the mental differences which are entirely private within the brain, ( there probably being few if any important mental differences between races, because of the tiny genetic changes. )Therefore it was my contention that the difference between race and sex/gender is that; the differences between sex/gender are large and mainly concealed, while the differences between races are small but in plain sight and obvious. (This must be so, since small differences would only become culturally significant if they were obvious, we do not for example, commonly divide people into groups based on the ability to curl tongues , since though it is a genetic difference, it is for the most part invisible.)

It follows that obvious differences will be well accounted for by our culture. While concealed differences will not, leading to both shame, (Which makes it worse, we do not like to address what we don't see or understand.) and to frequent errors and misunderstandings in what is hidden complex and little addressed by culture, and the proof of that, is that we make large artificial differences, such as dressing differently, to exaggerate what is concealed.

Given therefore that our cultures make little attempt to address sex/gender differences realistically, but use a huge smoke and mirrors artificial displays to create false differences, and that we like simple either or results, ( being lazy humans ) it follows that vast numbers of errors will occur in assigning people to sex/gender groupings. My contention is that most ( none religious at least ) people are able to recognize that cultural failing, and that therefore there is tolerance of those which to ask for some readjustments in the labels that society attaches to them. While with race since the differences are small, obvious and mainly a construct of culture it is harder to see/admit that culture will be in error, indeed culture can hardly be in error abut itself. Therefore there is little will to accommodate demands for alterations.

PS. with regard to your other question about the law. I think that the law requires a legal definition of everything of interest to people, because everything of interest to people, will sooner or later be a subject of conflict. In the UK we even have a legal definition of the difference between, cake and biscuit. One gets dryer and harder as it ages, the other gets moister and softer.

@Fernapple So this does a really good job of explaining what is in regards to this debate, and per our last exchange, I was saying it was unfortunate we were not able to discuss what ought to be. I suppose it's beneficial to have this potential reasoning in our back pockets to help understand why people may react the way they do. But does it solve our ought to? Why is it that society should have no say whatsoever when it comes to gender, but almost exclusive rights are held by everyone but the individual to conclude on race? I mean, I agree with you that it feels like that's the right thing, but is it really? I mean I know I can be wrong about something feeling correct. It feels like I have free will. Even knowing I don't doesn't change how much it feels like I do. Most people feel like Michael Vick deserved everything he got, and probably much, much more, but did he? Or at the very least, are all other punishments too lenient? Should someone who drinks and drives and kills a human being really get a lighter punishment? Should people that contribute to the horrible treatment and inhumane slaughter of animals literally every single day of their lives be unencumbered by even reminder they're doing so, but Vick's transgressions against a few dogs should lose him his career and land him in federal prison for almost 2 years? (Don't bother mentioning it was technically for gambling, because we both know that's not why he was punished so harshly.) So in pursuit of what ought to be, we should do our best to exclude our feelings from the deliberations.

As for the legal definition portion, I know we do need them (currently) but should we need them? For instance, should someone's gender be of interest to others? Should we eventually get to a point where those designations are irrelevant?

@JeffMurray Will have to give your several points some thought, and get back to you. But with regard to the suffering of animals, I think that you have first to ask if suffering in general is not a natural and normal part of life, and if it is not just a human religious delusion that it can be avoided. For all creatures including humans have to die and be consumed by others in the end. In the Western world we may, ( it is debatable, ) have found the resources and technical means to reduce human suffering to a degree. It is debatable, since our attempts to prolong life indefinitely, may really only be adding to and prolonging suffering. It is probably also a delusion, that we can extend suffering free life to all of humanity, or even find the resources to maintain the levels of health and material comfort we now enjoy in the West in the long term.

What is certain, is that we will never be able to do that for all of animal life, and even if we were to do so, nature would in time simply find ways of readjusting the balance, such as evolving creatures with lower pain thresholds. ( Which will happen to us too given time.)

Therefore morally and practically, it is almost certainly needful to distinguish between two different types of pain and distress, the types which are natural, even healthy and inevitable, and those which are unnatural and needless. Which is where I think many animal rights groups go wrong, especially in their criticism of meat eating and hunting etc. because they forget that every animal has to die, almost all die long before old age sets in to any depth, if one animal does not die another must do so to prevent over use of resources, and nature does not care at all how much pain and discomfort death entails. The only agent of death which does care, is the human hunter and farmer, most of whom take care to kill with as little pain and distress as possible. ( I am speaking of Western Europe here, it may be different in the USA. ) So that human hunting and possibly even farming, at the point of killing, is almost certainly a net reducer of suffering. ( To a buffalo a well aimed bullet is certainly less hurtful than being pulled down, lamed and disemboweled while still alive, by the wolf pack. )

For that reason I think that killing and eating, which are perfectly natural anyway, are a distraction from the main issues, which really should be the suffering caused by animal keeping, especially things like factory farming where animals endure lives of almost permanent distress. And even pet keeping where often loving owners,who are nonetheless quite ignorant of their animals real needs, put animals though whole lifetimes of suffering. Despite often being animal rights activists, even vegans, who would rightly be horrified by dog fighting, yet, for example, are happy to leave their own dog alone at home, in fear, boredom and loneliness, while they go on the march to protest animal cruelty.

@Fernapple So I don't disagree with anything you've said here. Were you expounding on the idea I presented, or was there a point of contention I'm not seeing?

@JeffMurray No just expounding on your idea.

5

I never did understand all the hate directed at Dolezal. To me she seemed a sympathetic character who cared deeply for the community she served, a community she wanted to immerse herself in.

As to why Jenner's change was largely accepted while Dolezal's change was largely condemned...I don't have a logical answer for you. Maybe the difference was simply how the information came to the public. Jenner made a big announcement; Dolezal was found out. Announcements are proud; secrets are shameful.

4

In the coming years (like 10-100 years), I expect all aspects of human categorization to be up for argument, including race, like you mention. It's just not race's turn yet (like "Lola" wasn't yet the time for trans).

If deconstruction of pre-existing categories continues, I can imagine a time when some people cease to identify as human (e.g. identifying as alien or AI, both of which are fairly easy to fathom). Another possibility is to cease to identify as an individual (e.g hive mind, actually quite a likely future option with computer/brain interfaces). I name these because they are the other major categories that my current brain can fathom, that I believe are likely to be challenged in coming years.

Absolutely. There is no reason to continue to promote categorizations that were built at a time before science, before biology, before genetics.

To me, this is like the jump from astrology to astronomy: we still categorized stars into "constellations"... but that category becomes meaningless when compared to a HR diagram for example.

Similarly, we are making a jump from putting the importance on the sex of the speaker... "he" or "she"... to making the sex an unimportant part of the sentence... "they" or "them". Those gendered "he or she" categories still exist... but they become more and more meaningless when compared to the variety of gendered expression in the modern world.

4

Sounds to mr like an american problem. It's not uncommon to "transrace" in Aussie where for the most part, race is defined by your acceptance into that culture. I have known several people accepted as aboriginal because they lived with and became part of their culture..

That´s how it should be if you take self-identification seriously

4

There is a big difference between transgender and "transracial". Race is only physical differences- color of skin, shape of eyes, etc. Otherwise we are all the same. Gender exists of course; however, it isn't just genitalia. The brains of men and women are structured differently. Research has found that someone who is born I man but identifies as a woman has a brain structured like a woman's brain. So while the body presents as a male, the brain is female. There are other issues with the Rachel Dolezal case. She grew up with all the privilege that comes with being white and none of the struggle that comes with being black. And, she can plug into that privilege any time the wants. A black person cannot just choose to stop being discriminated against or stereotyped- they are born black and will die black. If she identifies with black folks, likes being around them, etc, cool, do that. But you don't get to call yourself black.

"Research on the Transgender Brain: What You Should Know – Cleveland Clinic" [health.clevelandclinic.org]

@JonnaBononna
Your response is the most plausible including the link you posted 👍

Your answer makes sense (if you accept the basic ideas of Critical Race Theory. I don´t).
A white person has to stay white, because he / she has to fight against racism while staying white. You cannot get rid of White Privilege (and the original sin of being white !) just by self-identifying as "black".
But if this logic is sound, male-to-female transitions should be reprehensible too, because if there is one big dichotomy of "oppressor vs. oppressed" in human history, it is male vs. female.
If white people have the moral obligation to remain in their own race to fight against white racism from within, so to speak, males should stay males to fight against patriarchy from within.
So I invite you read your own answer again, only this time you replace "white" with "male" and "black" with "female". If you still think that your answer makes sense, trans-women should be viewed with suspicion, just as "white-to-black" persons are viewd with suspicion

@Matias trans women are viewed with suspicion by some, but not by me. Trans men and trans women are moving to identify with the biology of their brain, which makes gender much more than genitalia does. People can be born with both male AND female genitalia, and removing one or the other won't decide their gender. Their BRAIN will decide their gender. If you leave both sets of genitalia, they won't be both man and woman; the brain will indicate to them which they should be. All humans start out as female, chromosomally, then changes through development. Development can go haywire and create all kinds of issues. Some develop male genitalia and female brains and vice versa. It makes sense to let them correct that if they so desire. Also, being trans comes with its very own set of oppression, so they will still fight patriarchy from "within".

3

Did Dolezal claim to be Africa-American for personal gain? I don’t know enough about the situation to state one way or the other. We had one guy in the Army who was white, but swore he was African-American. As long as he did his job we didn’t care to much. This was in the early 80s.
Jenner is NOT universally celebrated by the the transgender community. I’m a transman and she does NOT have the experience nor knowledge of the community to speak for us. She maybe a media darling, but given her money and celebrity status prior to transition, her experiences are vastly different then most.

CS60 Level 7 Oct 31, 2021
3

The article linked below claims that the issue is based on which action more severely undermines the effort to correct intergenerational injustices. If, for example, reparations for Blacks were being considered, should one qualify for reparations simply by “feeling” Black, when neither they nor their ancestors suffered what generations of Black families have suffered to deserve the reparations.

It’s an interesting argument but I’m not sure how strong it is. Many women might feel they deserve reparations too, though I haven’t heard that proposed yet.

Personally, I suspect it has more to do with timing and conditioning. We’ve been exposed to the concept of gender dysphoria now for decades and the DSM has recognized it and given it a name. It has had time to be assimilated into the culture.

Rachel Dolezal, as far as I know, was the first to receive broad public recognition for claiming racial dysphoria, which is, as yet, not acknowledged in the DSM.

I’m pretty sure the first person to claim a gender identity other than the one assigned at birth was treated much like Dolezal was by the general public. Collectively, we don’t assess these changes as they come up by reason alone. We tend to respond according to our conditioning.

Give it time.

[bostonreview.net]

.

skado Level 9 Oct 29, 2021

So basically, there isn't an actual difference, people just feel like they are different.

As for the reparations correlation, how did females feel when Caitlin Jenner won Woman of the Year over a "real" woman? There was infinitely less outage over that than there was that Dolezal had taken the job of president of the NAACP over a "real" black person.

@JeffMurray
This is another piece to the puzzle, to me at least: The medical and scientific distinction between gender and biology [1] [2] are much better defined than the distinction between race and biology (EDIT: maybe... see below).

Jenner is a real woman (gender, culture).
She is not a real female (sex, biology).

This to me, according to modern medical terminology, is

But is Dolenzal a "real" member of the African American race?

Thinking of AA as biological, then no.
Thinking of AA as culture, then yes.

[1] [apastyle.apa.org]
[2] [amwa-doc.org].

@JeffMurray
FOLLOWUP

Interestingly, in researching this reply, I came across the following APA definition:

Race refers to physical differences that groups and cultures consider socially significant. For example, people might identify their race as Aboriginal, African American or Black, Asian, European American or White, Native American, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, Māori, or some other race. Ethnicity refers to shared cultural characteristics such as language, ancestry, practices, and beliefs.
[3]

Under this view, Dolenzal is NOT of the AA race but she is of it's Ethinicity: she doesn't share the physical characteristics endemic to that race (increased melanin production, sickle cell anemia, etc) but she does embrace their cultural characteristics.

So if we follow the accepted medical definitions of these terms we get a nice tidy categorization:

Jenner is a real woman (gender, culture).
She is not a real female (sex, biology).

Dolenzal is a ethnic AA (ethnicity, culture).
Dolenzal is not a racial AA. (race, biology)

Under this view, Dolenzal got into trouble by projecting the assumption that she is racially AA (at one point claiming her parents were both AA) when in fact she can't be; she can only at most be culturally AA. Similarly, Caitlyn never claimed (AFAIK) to be biologically female but only every claimed to be culturally woman.

[3] [apastyle.apa.org]

@TheMiddleWay So you've made a similar claim before, that the lie is what makes the difference. I asked you to imagine someone being up front and honest at the start of living the truth of their trans-racial life and trying to imagine how that would go. I think I know that the person would still face horrible backlash, but would be willing to bet every last dollar I own that they wouldn't be applauded, draped across magazine covers, and named black person of the year. But I suppose that imagining these things isn't really even a necessary exercise. I think the shear fact that society even probes these people and performs accusatory "investigative journalism" type actions into their lives prompting the lies in the first place does all the leg work to prove my point for me.

And I think your definition muddies the water a bit. It says race refers to physical characteristics of which she had, so convincingly, that practically no one thought she wasn't black until she was outed, while your quoted definition of ethnicity includes ancestry which everyone has assumes she has none. So even the distinction you're trying to draw as a reason to point to, to claim the ire is deserved doesn't really hold up under scrutiny. Furthermore, simply looking at backlash for cultural appropriation (not even being trans-racial) strongly points to the fact that there would be no "correct" way to live trans-racially. If the lie, or the race/ethnicity difference really was the only difference between Diallo/Jenner, there would be a way to live trans-racially and be applauded for it. I can't put the burden of proof on you for that, but I think we all know deep down that that is so self-evident that we don't need any proof.

@TheMiddleWay Yep I think that is a good, and accurate summing.

@JeffMurray
The Race vs. Ethnicity dichotomy is new to me. It seems a nice compliment to the Gender vs. Sex dichotomy. But as it's new, I've not drilled deep enough into it to see how much sense it makes.

And I don't think trans-gender individuals live such an idyllic life as Jenner: She was famous before the transformation so naturally she is famous after. I think most transgenders are treated as poorly as Dolenzal was treated because at the end of the day, most people like things just the way they are thank you very much and if you were born white you are always white and if you are born male you are always male and any change to my normal routine is abhorrent and immoral to them.

As for physical characteristics, I dare say you are looking for a definition that is 100% air tight and such a definition doesn't exist: there are elements of society in our definition of sex; there are elements of biology in our definition of gender. As such, one should not be surprised to see elements of biology in our definition of ethnicity or elements of culture in our definition of race. This goes back to my broken record of Set Theory vs. Category Theory: embracing a set theory view, you are looking for a definition that is defined by "equal" sign... race and sex equal biology while ethinicity and gender equal culture... and finding there are things that aren't equal, you find the definition wanting or improper. Instead, I view it by a definition that is defined by the "isomorphic" sign... race and sex are isomorphic to biology while ethinicity and gender are isomorphic to culture. This means they aren't exactly equal but share more similarities than differences.

Viewed this way, this dichotomoy is the best categorization I've been exposed to...
... though I'm always looking for new ways that might better frame the conversation!

@TheMiddleWay The terms being isomorphic as you described still doesn't account for the probing accusatory questions/investigations that lead to the lies in the first place. This suggests that in all likelihood, there isn't a way to "correctly" live trans-racially. And I don't think the majority of transgendered individuals are treated as poorly as Diallo if for no other reason than companies are getting on board with including them as protected individuals even before the [I believe inevitable] inclusion as a legally protected class.

@JeffMurray

This suggests that in all likelihood, there isn't a way to "correctly" live trans-racially.

Totally. As long as you aren't hurting anyone, there are as many ways to correctly live as there are different ways to be trans or cis or queer or andro.

And I don't think the majority of transgendered individuals are treated as poorly as Diallo if for no other reason than companies are getting on board with including them as protected individuals even before the [I believe inevitable] inclusion as a legally protected class.

Every trans that I know... and I know many from dancing burlesque and at gay clubs 😉 ... has been treated poorly in the past and experiences prejudice in the present. Admittedly anecdotal. But when you here the same story from Trans on the west coast, on the east coast, in the midwest, on a cruise ship, everywhere... then I personally tend to think it's more than anecdotal and it's endemic to the present trans experience.

@TheMiddleWay
We'll have to agree to disagree because we have no evidence either way (yet) but like I said, I'd happily bet money that a white person couldn't publicly state they were going to start living as a black person because that's how they identify.

I never said transgendered individuals don't experience prejudice, but Diallo was vehemently hated by almost everyone. There are piles of shit that will always treat different people poorly, but if you look at "normal" rational people, you won't see hatred of transgendered individuals. They may not understand, may not be supportive, but not hatred. For Diallo, there was fierce, searing hatred from everywhere. Suppose we have to agree to disagree on this, too?

@TheMiddleWay I feel like I need to stress that I am actually looking for a reason to allow my thoughts to match my feelings. A lot of people assume that I love Diallo or want to defend her. Some may think that I hate transgendered people or that I'm just a racist who cares not for the historical struggles and plight of African-Americans. None could be further from the truth. I just have an uncontrollable need to eliminate all tensions from my beliefs. I'm looking for a reason that will allow my brain to justify seeing Diallo and Jenner differently, but so far haven't found it.

@JeffMurray
I completely understand the tension of what you speak. And I think we've also conversed at length about my "feelings" on feelings (pun intended).

Applied to this case, I personally think that feelings can be a good starting point, but they should never, be the goal in organizing our thoughts.

If there's a tension between thoughts and feelings, me, personally,I lean towards thoughts over feelings. Even if that gets me labeled as prejudice or racist or whatever; that's a problem with the labeler not the labelee.

@TheMiddleWay Agreed, I'm team thoughts ALL THE WAY. But my desire to not have to explain myself or have people dislike me for bad reasons [when there are probably plenty of of good reasons to dislike me 😝 ] makes me want to sort out my feelings/thoughts as much as possible.

3

I can offer two possible explanations:

  1. The notion that race is intimately tied into biology is still unfortunately strong.
    As such, gender is seen as purely cultural and thus changing doesn't "offend" any science.
    While race, under this incorrect view, is seen as purely biological and thus changing offends.

  2. Dolezal used her change of race for opportunistic endevours. She used it to get things and attention and positions she would not have gotten anyway. Jenner did it because she needed to do it, because her whole life hinges on this change. The intent behind the change is, to me, the main reason for the vilification of one and the acceptance of that other.

You know very well that race is more culturally constructed than sex. All known cultures distinguish between males and females (whatever their social roles, i.e. genders, might be). But many cultures do not distinguish between races (for instance in the Roman Empire there was no such distinction, at least not in the way we do it today).--
Whether Dolezal used her racial transistion for opportunistic endevours is irrelevant (as far as I know about her case, she was quite serious about this, having suffered a lot of discrimination in her life, she really identified as a Black woman, deeply sympathizing with the fate of Black people).
Maybe a lot of trans people use their transition for the same reasons? I do not claim they do, but it might be, but that#s beside the point. That does not answer my question why one sort of transition is welcomed (whatever may be the personal reasons) whereas the other is a taboo.

@Matias
You see intent as irrelevant.
I see it as the most important thing.
Sorry I couldn't answer the question in a way that was palatable.

@TheMiddleWay I never said that intent is irrelevant. The intentions of Rachel D. or Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner are irrelevant to the question I asked in my post: If self-identification is what constitutes the essence of a person, why is self-ID in one category normal (gender) but in another category taboo (race)?

@Matias

I never said that intent is irrelevant.

You literally said that Dolezal's intent was irrelevant:

Whether Dolezal used her racial transistion for opportunistic endevours is irrelevant

And you asked why one was accepted and the other taboo.
I answered intent was one possibility.
I also answered imprecise societal views on race as another.
You don't like those answer, that's great. We are here to discuss not automatically agree.

But for the sake of our future interactions, please don't be dismissive of my answer as "not addressing your question" just because you are not happy with the answers I've given.

I think your number 2 is assuming a lot. Would it be fair to assume Caitlin changed her gender for opportunistic endevours and used it to get things and attention (like magazine covers) and positions (like Woman of the Year) she would not have gotten anyway? Why is outsiders' assumptions of your motivations okay for transracial people, but not okay for transgendered people? Maybe Rachel started living according to her racial identity, and the rest of the stuff was incidental. Again, why is the arbiter of gender and everything related to it only the individual, but the arbiter of race everyone but the individual?

@JeffMurray

As long as it said motivations don't affect anybody, then it's nobody's business. Jenner's transformation, even if assumed purely motivated by wanting attention and publicity, doesn't affect anybody negatively. Dolezal on the other hand, took positions and resources under fraudulent means. She lied about her parents and those lies caused familial and professional discord.

So to me, motivations matter. But if I'm going to condemn somebody, it's because those motivations affected somebody else, a wider sphere of influence, not just

The major problems in this discussion for me is the scarcity of data points re: trans race. By this I mean that we have ample examples of transgenders both in the public and private sphere.. but trans race individuals, honestly, I don't hear about them I don't know about them I don't know if they're a movement I don't know if they're minority I don't know if they're a majority. Maybe they are all like I'm portraying dolenzal as opportunistic. Maybe they are all as I portray Jenner as motivated by identity

Seems to me, as this discussion develops, that using Dolenzal as a singular data point representing trans race and using Jenner as a singular data point to represent transgender will lead to fallacious thinking on all of our parts.

@TheMiddleWay
"Jenner's transformation, even if assumed purely motivated by wanting attention and publicity, doesn't affect anybody negatively."
Are you suggesting that the accolades, publicity, and monetary gain that could have gone to female women didn't negatively affect those female women?!

"The major problems in this discussion for me is the scarcity of data points re: trans race."
Should your lack of knowledge of data points prevent you from assessing the situations congruently and logically?

"Maybe they are all like I'm portraying dolenzal as opportunistic. Maybe they are all as I portray Jenner as motivated by identity"
Again, why are you assuming the best case scenario for those that want to change the social construct assigned to them at birth regarding gender, but the worst case scenario for those that want to change the social construct assigned to them at birth regarding race? If there was a roit at a Target, would you find it disturbing if the cops assumed all the white people inside were there to try to protect the store while assuming all the black people were there to loot it? Why are you making assumptions at all? Just deal with the facts and form logically-consistent opinions.

I don't see where I'm making any fallacious arguments. I do see where you are making logically inconsistent ones, though. As a matter of fact, I don't know that you can even characterize what I've said about this as an assertive argument one way or the other. I'm simply asking why the two cases are being treated differently, and while I do have a personal opinion on where I stand, I haven't been advocating one way or the other in this debate. I have simply been asking, for well over a year now, what the fundamental difference is between these cases and haven't found one that holds up under scrutiny.

Are you suggesting that the accolades, publicity, and monetary gain that could have gone to female women didn't negatively affect those female women?!

Yes; otherwise you would have countered with an example of said negative action instead of following up with a question.

Should your lack of knowledge of data points prevent you from assessing the situations congruently and logically?

Yes; without data there is no functional logic.

Again, why are you assuming the best case scenario for those that want to change the social construct assigned to them at birth regarding gender, but the worst case scenario for those that want to change the social construct assigned to them at birth regarding race?

That assumption was setup as part of the OP question; I'm merely playing within those parameters and then questioning if those parameters are justified.

I don't see where I'm making any fallacious arguments

Didn't say you did. Said it will lead.

I do see where you are making logically inconsistent ones, though.

Good for you.

I have simply been asking, for well over a year now, what the fundamental difference is between these cases and haven't found one that holds up under scrutiny.

Maybe the problem lay with the question, not the answers.

2

I was reading one of Darwin's books and became aware that in his time at least race was defined as a significant variation within a species. Look race up in the dictionary. Race not only applied to humans but to all other animals and plants. A poodle or a pit bull for instance would be examples of two different races of dogs. Today we use the terms like breed or variety to discuss racial classifications in nonhuman species. Transrace would require being able to completely change you physical makeup. Like changing a poodle into a pitbull, transrace in humans would be impossible. You could still adopt the language and ways of other societies, people do that all the time around the world but that is culture not biology. A man can choose to act like a woman and even have superficial surgery but his basic biology would not change. I think at leasts some of the gender identity issues have more to do with social choices than biological makeup. The rest could be the result in random mutations that may or may not be viable.

Yes I agree. Though there is the small point, that biologist do not usually recognize the idea of human races, because, although races exist in some species, the differences between humans are not considered to be great enough, or to use term you quote, there is not enough significant variation, to constitute races as the term is used in other species.

This may be an example of biologists finding an excuse to be PC. But there is some good evidence for it. Especially the fact, that humans passed through a genetic bottle neck approximately some seventy thousand years ago, which means that we all carry a virtually identical X chromosome, having a single female ancestor, and that the human species as a whole has less genetic variation than that found in the average family of chimpanzee. Genetic variation exists, is real, but is not considered enough for the biological term race. Morphotype or variety perhaps.

2

None. Pretending that you are another gender is no different than pretending to be of another race. I would even argue the drag queens are part of the modern-day minstrel show. They often have exaggerated feminine accents, names, make-up, boobs, etc. to satirize women just like minstrels would exaggerate the characteristics of blacks. If you are really trans then you are suffering from body dysphoria. Otherwise, just because a man wants to pretend to be a woman so he can peep naked women like in that spa in LA, then pretending to be black like Shaun King does is no different

I suppose that what you wanted to say in your last sentence was "... because a man wants to pretend to be a woman so he can..."

@Matias sorry. Fixed it

2

It sure seems like we as a society are obsessed by what others do which really has no affect on anyone but themselves. Ye olde “doesn’t look like us so must be bad” mentality reigns supreme.

1

I asked the exact same question and also could not find anyone who could provide the answer.

"The Dolezal Jenner Paradox

EDIT: As stated in a recent comment, this post has been edited since ..."

You and Matthias both claiming that you haven't found THE answer makes it sound like there is a singular resolution to this question. If truly a paradox of behavior, it may have no answer or it may have many.

@TheMiddleWay If there is more than one logical reason why these cases are different, that's great, but we only need one; that's why we used the word 'the'. But if there are several, why hasn't even one been presented and held up under scrutiny?

@JeffMurray - One member below mentioned that in Australia it is possible that "white" people are accepted as members of the Aborigenes community, so it seems that this row about Rachel Dolezal and the moral ban on "transrace" is largely due to America´s obsession with race in general.
150 years ago, whites were horrified at the idea of miscegenation, today it is a kind of moral miscegenation that has to be avoided at all costs. Different races have different moral status, one is the oppressor, all others are the oppressed, and this distinction must be conserved as it is constitutive for politics in America. Dolezals sin was that she posed as one of the oppressed whereas she is one of the oppressors (whatever her personal situation and character might be. The individual qualities of people are irrelevant, it is only their racial category that counts for their moral status. )

@JeffMurray

why hasn't even one been presented and held up under scrutiny?

I suspect there are as many reason for this as there are for the original transrace v transgender question.


The answers presented so far may have been presented dishonestly or uneducatedly
It may be a problem with an imprecise question leading to imprecise answers.
It may be that nobody is taking it seriously and the answers are glib.

OR

It may also be a problem with your proficiency at scrutiny.
It may be a problem with your bias, insofar as you want answer A but everyone is giving you answer B.
It may be a problem with your ability to parse though different answers and accept an answer you don't like but is likely true

OR

None of the above.

OR

All of the above.

1

Some people get their knickers in a twist about it, some don't. You appear to be one of the former.

1

Race is a word used that relates to physical features. As such there are races. The difference may not be a biological fact but they are a physical difference fact.

Cultural characteristics, too, like history, language, etc.; a group sharing the same culture. e.g., an ethnic group (I'm not making up!; this is according to the Oxford Dictionary 🙂).

@Ryo1 No, race by simple refers only to RACE. Finding unique definitions prove nothing. Looking at the root word says it all. The below is from Google, and is more specific. If you want to play definition war, you should know the more specific definition applies.

spe·cies| ˈspēsēz, ˈspēSHēz | noun (plural same) 1 (abbreviation sp., spp.) Biology a group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding. The species is the principal natural taxonomic unit, ranking below a genus and denoted by a Latin binomial, e.g. Homo sapiens.

race2
Biology a population within a species that is distinct in some way, especially a subspecies: people have killed so many tigers that two races are probably extinct.

1

There is no "race" other than "human race" or blood transfusions & organ donation, not to mention progeny, wouldn't be possible.
There are huge permutations in gender depending on birth genetialia, nurture, culture, or yes overwhelming internal urges/"knowing" and it is none of anybody else's business, unless you belive in in creating misery for other humans for no reason whatsoever!

"Human" is a species, not a race.

@Alienbeing so you think the term "human race" is meaningless? Or what.......

@Alienbeing, @AnneWimsey
'Human race' is a generic term meaning 'human being in general'. Meanwhile, 'species' is a biological term meaning 'a group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding'. Neither seems relevant to 'race'.

@Ryo1 No, you are making up definitions. Species is a well defined word.

@AnneWimsey I think the term "human race" is simply incorrect. The definition of species is specific. The Human species has many races. The term race is currently up for grabs depending of what biologist one wants to push. As far as I am concerned the word "race" merely notes physical differences, usually referring to skin color.

@Alienbeing Defined by the Oxford Dictionary.

@Ryo1 As posted elsewhere:

@Ryo1 No, race by simple refers only to RACE. Finding unique definitions prove nothing. Looking at the root word says it all. The below is from Google, and is more specific. If you want to play definition war, you should know the more specific definition applies.

spe·cies| ˈspēsēz, ˈspēSHēz | noun (plural same) 1 (abbreviation sp., spp.) Biology a group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding. The species is the principal natural taxonomic unit, ranking below a genus and denoted by a Latin binomial, e.g. Homo sapiens.

race2
Biology a population within a species that is distinct in some way, especially a subspecies: people have killed so many tigers that two races are probably extinct.

@Ryo1 As posted elsewhere:

@Ryo1 No, race by simple refers only to RACE. Finding unique definitions prove nothing. Looking at the root word says it all. The below is from Google, and is more specific. If you want to play definition war, you should know the more specific definition applies.

spe·cies| ˈspēsēz, ˈspēSHēz | noun (plural same) 1 (abbreviation sp., spp.) Biology a group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding. The species is the principal natural taxonomic unit, ranking below a genus and denoted by a Latin binomial, e.g. Homo sapiens.

race2
Biology a population within a species that is distinct in some way, especially a subspecies: people have killed so many tigers that two races are probably extinct.

@Alienbeing
Not as well as you'd think. Given that it's use predates genetics and modern biology, it stands to reason that there are a multitude of definitions of "species" currently in use in science.

In effect, "species" are just as artificial as "race" as both are purely human categorization constructs.

Biologists have struggled with these questions (the "species problem" ) since before Darwin's time. Over the years, they've come up with a cornucopia of different answers, or species concepts. It's important for students of the natural world to appreciate and consider the different ways that "species" is used, since its meaning can change in different contexts.

[nature.com]

@TheMiddleWay I refer to standard usage. I am sure I can find many definitions.

@Alienbeing
Which standard though?
You may be using the biological standard while I may be using the morphological standard while yet another person may be using a lineage standard.

As with any science concept that is qualitative instead of quantitative, its usage is entirely subject to our human whims.

The definition of "species" is a tricky one. Depending on a person's focus and need for the definition, the idea of the species concept can be different. Most basic scientists agree that the common definition of the word "species" is a group of similar individuals that live together in an area and can interbreed to produce fertile offspring. However, this definition is not truly complete. It cannot be applied to a species that undergoes asexual reproduction since "interbreeding" does not happen in these types of species. Therefore, it is important we examine all of the species concepts to see which are usable and which have limitations.

[thoughtco.com]

@Alienbeing

>There are lots of other places where the boundary of a species is blurred. It's not so surprising that these blurry places exist — after all, the idea of a species is something that we humans invented for our own convenience!

[evolution.berkeley.edu]

@TheMiddleWay humans invented language. Wow, what an idea!

@TheMiddleWay You tendency to bicker is boring. Standard is self explanatory.

1

Some of it sounds like children playing in the sand pit and squabbling over toys.

Exactly and they've been doing it decades as well, time someone with brains gave them a good wholesome clip around the ears imo.

1

There is a deeper historical aspect of blackface and passing which adds a dimension not well appreciated when so called transraciality comes up. White people would wear blackface to feign blackness in derogatory ways. Some black people were able to pass as white and took advantage of such perceptions because…well…the way society has worked under racism, segregation, and hierarchy. So a white person trying to pass as black, especially if advantage is sought, doesn’t quite sit well.

Now that said I can understand cultural crossover points and non-appropriative appreciation of different ways of doing things. Music, food, art, literature… And enculturation can work both ways.

Yet:
[en.m.wikipedia.org]

[en.m.wikipedia.org]

A certain sensitivity for such things may make one realize “passing” shouldn’t readily go both ways per racial identity.

I fail to see how this context can map over to issues of genders.

I'd say that there is a huge difference - from an ethical point of view - between blackface, which is done in order to ridicule Black people, and a serious identification as a Black person (as it was the case with Rachel Dolezal).
By the way: a lot of men have cross-dressed as women in order to ridicule women (for example during carnival), but nobody has ever argued that this practice should barr male-to-female transistions

1

For one, Jenner is a celebrity. Jenner claims to have transitioned and also had surgery to do so. Dolenzal was and is a white person who was in the NAACP. Her claims of being "racially black" can not be proven or substantiated in any way. This is because she is biologically white, or caucasian. My guess is that each of them had something to gain in transition. Niether of them wants to be known as a liar.

1.- Jenner may have had surgery, but that' s not, according to transgender ideology, what makes you a man or a women. You can socially transition, without taking hormones or undergoing surgery. Just look at pictures of trans-woman Alex Drummond from Stonewall.
2.- Nobody is "biologically white", given that there are no races in biology. The difference between 'white' and 'colored' is not rooted in biology; the difference between 'male' and 'female' is

@Matias "Nobody is "biologically white", given that there are no races in biology. The difference between 'white' and 'colored' is not rooted in biology; the difference between 'male' and 'female' is"

Kind of answers your question if you simply assume gender to be a biological aspect of a person doesn't it?

@Matias

The difference between 'white' and 'colored' is not rooted in biology;

Melanin, and evolution, STRONGLY disagrees that the difference is not rooted in biology. It would be a categorical mistake to ignore the biological influence behind race and gender.

@TheMiddleWay Maybe I used a wrong choice of words here. Let's say that Dolenzal strongly identified with black people so much so that she claimed to be one. This was all for her own benefit.

@DenoPenno
Total agreement with you. My comment was aimed at Matias who claimed that "white" and "black" are not rooted in biology when clearly skin color, melanin, and the evolutionary drivers for differences therein are most assuredly biological.

1

One of the issues is how society will recognize your identity, don't forget if you want to be part of society then you have to accept their rules/basis.
transgender is a more emotional term, while transracial is about the obvious and recognizable facts. transracial is more like a fake identity!
How you as a german can claim to be Chinese or Black African ?! how you can change your Ethnicity ?! or your skin color?
again, transracial is more like a fake identity!

Diaco Level 7 Oct 29, 2021
0

When "trans" is added to a noun, ya know it ain't that thing.

"" Trans race ""Just more shit that relies on woke idiots believing in MAGIC....

A man clicks his little heels, and says the magic words, "I am a woman." And all kinds of shit heads genuflect. That's religion for ya.

Nothing real about that...... Gotta stop tolerating that.

Wow. Thanks for the heavy dose of ignorance and bigotry.

@JacarC. And what somebody wants to be, whether nuclear physicist or man/woman/koala bear, is Your business becuz....?

@AnneWimsey You bring up a good point. Should any of it be anyone's business, ever? Probably not. Maybe if people wouldn't have tried to "gotcha" Diallo, she wouldn't have felt the need to lie to protect herself? I suspect one of two things will happen, either humans will mostly/completely die off from one of more various disasters, or they will eventually get so "racially mixed" that these sorts of questions and designations will be nonsensical.

@JeffMurray "tan" as a "color" couldn't happen soon enough!!!!!

0

My own personal observation:
A white person remains white regardless of what he or she thinks.
In another category, transvestites, a gray area. Some men can put on a wig and, presto, he's a girl! If he has a girlish or womanly voice, the transformation is complete.
I went out casually with a transvestite for about two months when I lived in Alaska in the 70s; I only found out because another transvestite told me, 'she' was that convincing. It's amazing how fine the line is between the two sexes, and who's to say whether or not at least some of those 'trannies' are NOT women, except for the inconvenient fact they have a penis...and maybe a few other details? 99% of the people they come across would tell you, "That's a girl!"
And I'm not talking about something society constructs, it seems to be in very nature of the individual.
Then there are, of course, the delusional/mentally ill. That's pathetically different.
And finally, there are just men, and there's nothing they can do to disguise the fact.
Transsexuals are a whole other category, of which I have no knowledge or personal experience.

0

As the answers below show, an intelligent person like you could have found the answer if you wanted to. But once again, you are just trying to make another reactionary political point. And again failed….

None of the answers below give any good answer why one sort of transition is welcomed, but the other is a taboo. Do you have the answer?
BTW: I just asked a question. I did not make a point.
Your knee-jerk reaction certainly is not very intelligent.

@Matias I have found that people who object to this question routinely accuse me of loving Dolezal and defending her because I love her. They have a hard time comprehending that someone would defend someone they hate that much for any rational/logical reason. I try to point out that I defend Michael Vick as well, even though I couldn't give less of a shit about him personally or football generally, but that falls on deaf ears as well.
But you hit the nail on the head. We simply asked a question they are uncomfortable with (for whatever reason, I don't know) and they had a knee-jerk reaction to it.

0

Why call it transrace, would transculure be more of what a person is doing? I can understand there is connection between what is considered different races and the cultures associated or that has developed along with those of close ancestry.

For many years, (25 +) in my observations, there has been many people cross the cultural divide both ways. I have seen perhaps more "white" people act and mix into aspects of things in the "black" community. However, I have seen black cowboys riding horses, branding cattle, dipping snuff, listening to country music and mixing in with others of a dominantly white culture. I don't think they are either way trying to change any genetic features that are more common to their original genetics, but much of or all their lifestyles, clothing, manners of communication etc. are in lines with the translation into the culture that by "race" they are the minority.

I recall very little about details of motives or reasons, but could Michael Jackson perhaps be considered as one that has gone thru physical changes as to appear transrace, not necessarily transcultured?

Word Level 8 Oct 29, 2021

Black cowboys you say?
[smithsonianmag.com]

Not a very recent phenomenon.

@Scott321 I know it's not specifically modetn, but here's a little cowboy history.

Though popularly considered American, the traditional cowboy began with the Spanish tradition, which evolved further in what today is Mexico and the Southwestern United States into the vaquero of northern Mexico and the charro of the Jalisco and Michoacán regions. While most hacendados (ranch owners) were ethnically Spanish criollos,[23] many early vaqueros were Native Americans trained to work for the Spanish missions in caring for the mission herds.[24] Vaqueros went north with livestock. In 1598, Don Juan de Oñate sent an expedition across the Rio Grande into New Mexico, bringing along 7000 head of cattle. From this beginning, vaqueros drove cattle from New Mexico and later Texas to Mexico City.[25] Mexican traditions spread both South and North, influencing equestrian traditions from Argentina to Canada.

[en.m.wikipedia.org].

Transracial or transcultural is just semantics. Call it what you like, but what makes it worthy of scorn while the other garners global applause, countless magazine covers, and a woman of the year award?

0

Yet another transparent attempt to denigrate people because they are different than you are. Your exclusionary tactics are unconscionable.

All I have done is posing a question. This question in itself is neither ludicrous nor denigrating.
Are you unable or unwilling to answer it?
I do not exclude anybody. By contrast, Rachel Dolezal was excluded.

@Matias If you were honestly seeking information, you would research the relevant issues. Instead, you are attempting to desensitize the membership to exclusionary tactics like linking transgenderism to concepts like "ethics", "normal", "moral" and "taboo". You pretend that Rachel Dolezal was disenfranchised in order to camouflage your wish to disenfranchise transgenderism.

Your post is intellectually dishonest and your series of posts of the same vein prove that you are intellectually dishonest. Yet you will get away with it for awhile because of the popularity of fencesitting on this website but it must be very uncomfortable to feel so threatened by diversity.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:630886
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.