What's new

She was born that way

Hmmm, that is pretty damn awesome. My only question is:

Does the carpet match the drapes?
 
Not that I necessarily disagree with the basic premise of the initial post, but I think it's a bit of apples-to-oranges situation. Here is a much better comparison.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/...r-African-American-father-never-knew-had.html

Key quote for the tl/dr types:

"'I come from a long line of New York Jews,' Ms Schwartz explained in the film. 'I grew up in a world of synagogue, Hebrew school and bar mitzvahs, so it never occurred to me that I was [different].'

She noted: 'I wasn't pretending to be something I wasn't. I actually grew up believing I was white.'"

Contrasted with:

"Ms Schwartz told Vox that she now identifies as 'black/biracial'."

How is this any different than the Rachel Dolezal story? A woman who grew up white decides to be black, having previously had no contact with black culture, identity, or had any experience of blackness. Isn't it just as arbitrary?
 
IMO the liberal agenda is better served by maintaining a separation between black and white, as in it is easier to pass legislation or gain concessions with this separation intact. Anything that starts to blur the line is therefore "bad", even though blurring that line is really what the nation needs. On the other hand, blurring the line between genders serves the liberal agenda better since it opens the door for stronger influence of a new "protected class", that means it becomes easier to pass legislation and gain concessions. Basically anything that promotes special interest groups, specifically protected classes, is better for the liberal agenda.

Remember, everyone is equal, but some people are more equal than others.
 
Same general topic, different story, different thread. No worries.
 
https://www.theatlantic.com/nationa...hen-we-say-race-is-a-social-construct/275872/

The strongest argument for "race" is that people who trace their ancestry back to Europe, and people who trace most of their ancestry back to sub-Saharan Africa, and people who trace most of their ancestry back to Asia, and people who trace their ancestry back to the early Americas, lived isolated from each other for long periods and have evolved different physical traits (curly hair, lighter skin, etc.)

But this theoretical definition (already fuzzy) wilts under human agency, in a real world where Kevin Garnett, Harold Ford, and Halle Berry all check "black" on the census. (Same deal for "Hispanic.") The reasons for that take us right back to fact of race as a social construct. And an American-centered social construct. Are the Ainu of Japan a race? Should we delineate darker South Asians from lighter South Asians on the basis of race? Did the Japanese who invaded China consider the Chinese the same "race?"

Andrew writes that liberals should stop saying "truly stupid things like race has no biological element." I agree. Race clearly has a biological element -- because we have awarded it one. Race is no more dependent on skin color today than it was on "Frankishness" in Emerson's day. Over history of race has taken geography, language, and vague impressions as its basis.

"Race," writes the great historian Nell Irvin Painter, "is an idea, not a fact." Indeed. Race does not need biology. Race only requires some good guys with big guns looking for a reason.
 
Race and gender, despite both being social constructs, aren't congruent by any means and thus aren't analogous.

Comparisons can't be made between the two.
 
They can't be compared because it ruins the current argument and viewpoint you have.

No, they can't be compared because they're defined completely differently and have no relationship to each other or the way they're applied within culture.
 
No, they can't be compared because they're defined completely differently and have no relationship to each other or the way they're applied within culture.

Other than just saying "nuh-uh" can you actually provide any information or an actual viewpoint to support this assertion?


edit: as I think about it, in a way you are completely correct. Race is FAR more fluid than gender. Gender, whatever the social norm, at least has a basis in actual genes that have been fully identified if not fully understood. Whereas race cannot be traced to anything as solid as a set of genes or chromosomes. No one can say that this set of genes means you are black and this set means you are white. So race is far more likely to be a fluid concept than gender would be.
 
Last edited:
IMO the liberal agenda is better served by maintaining a separation between black and white, as in it is easier to pass legislation or gain concessions with this separation intact. Anything that starts to blur the line is therefore "bad", even though blurring that line is really what the nation needs. On the other hand, blurring the line between genders serves the liberal agenda better since it opens the door for stronger influence of a new "protected class", that means it becomes easier to pass legislation and gain concessions. Basically anything that promotes special interest groups, specifically protected classes, is better for the liberal agenda.

Remember, everyone is equal, but some people are more equal than others.

Among the most off-base, butt-hurt, categorically false, and hilarious posts I have seen on the JFC. Not even gonna waste my time bothering with this one.
 
Among the most off-base, butt-hurt, categorically false, and hilarious posts I have seen on the JFC. Not even gonna waste my time bothering with this one.

Well, how about this one? Because I'm actually really interested in what you have to say, man. Seriously, keep reading-- no sarcasm here.

What if I was born white, but growing up felt a deep connection to the cultural experience and identity of black Americans-- so much so, in fact, that I came to feel that I am, indeed, black, despite the color of my skin and my genetic heritage? What if I in fact felt like I should have been born black? And then what if I began to identify myself as such, and eventually even found acceptance as such? Where does that fall apart, in comparison to using the exact same rationale for re-identification of gender?

I mentioned in another thread a condition experienced by some people in which they feel deeply that they should have been born with only one leg, arm, etc., and want nothing more than to have an amputation in order-- ironically-- to feel "whole". The condition is currently classified as a psych disorder. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but these individuals otherwise have perfect mental/emotional/physical health. Is this more similar to the gender issue or the race issue? How are they all really that different from one another?

I'm going to risk sounding really ignorant and say that all of these situations seem very comparable on the surface. Tell me why they're not. My reaction is that contrasting them represents a cultural double standard. We've started down the path of not merely tolerance, but acceptance of an individual's right to self-identify in whatever manner he/she sees fit. From whom or what or whence, then, do we gain the authority to set limits? Gender re-identification is okay, but race re-identification is not... according to whom, exactly? And why?

Looking forward to your comments.
 
edit: as I think about it, in a way you are completely correct. Race is FAR more fluid than gender. Gender, whatever the social norm, at least has a basis in actual genes that have been fully identified if not fully understood. Whereas race cannot be traced to anything as solid as a set of genes or chromosomes. No one can say that this set of genes means you are black and this set means you are white. So race is far more likely to be a fluid concept than gender would be.

and yet people have suffered for centuries in your country (and mine) for the ability to maintain cultural pride, identity, freedom, and live without persecution. The construction of the black community in America is what enabled the minority to find motivation to live despite the abhorring conditions that they lived in relative to their white counterparts. The symbols, identities, and culture of the black community is sacred to them-- yet it continues to be appropriated from their white fellow Americans to this day. This persistent appropriation has the ability to collapse and dilute the very sacredness of their culture and community-- something that could easily be construed as covert cultural genocide. The very existence of 'black culture' immediately conjuring images of Hip Hop, violence, and inner-cities is representative of how white people have skewed the perceptions of what the multifaceted black community really is.

This long-standing history of cultural disrespect, cultural appropriation, and ignorance from White Americans is what makes so many people worldwide very discomforted by a white woman claiming that she is 'black'. While race is a social construct, and culture is a social construct, these constructs are incredibly significant to these cultural groups, and we both live in countries that enable cultural groups the right to maintaining their beliefs and identities free of persecution. She has a right to claim that she's black-- but she is vey deserving of the harsh backlash coming her way, as it's an incredibly sensitive issue when considering the backdrop of rampant cultural appropriation that happens in the black community. Many white people who idealize themselves with the black community are doing it in a skewed way, and undertake ideals often in conflict with the community at large-- therefore appropriating it.


---



now find me an analogous circumstance in gender, with an issue like this.

I'll give you a hint-- there isn't. Thus, the comparisons between gender and race simply need to stop. There is no history of tragedies in America surrounding 'gender-cide', or the disallowance of women being able to practice their identities of women. Unfortunately, this is the case with certain cultural groups, and the appropriation of said groups is still ongoing.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, how about this one? Because I'm actually really interested in what you have to say, man. Seriously, keep reading-- no sarcasm here.

What if I was born white, but growing up felt a deep connection to the cultural experience and identity of black Americans-- so much so, in fact, that I came to feel that I am, indeed, black, despite the color of my skin and my genetic heritage? What if I in fact felt like I should have been born black? And then what if I began to identify myself as such, and eventually even found acceptance as such?

There are hundreds of examples, throughout history, of people becoming a part of a new culturo-racial group that they weren't born into. This isn't a new phenomenon. Stories that come into mind include the assimilation of the odd European-American into some sort of Indigenous tribe (which are abundant if you look for them).

Where does that fall apart, in comparison to using the exact same rationale for re-identification of gender?

Again, see my post above. There is simply an incredibly long history of whites trying to rob black people of their pride, dignity, culture, language, and pride. Despite all odds, black people have continued to maintain their multifaceted community, which gave them strength to still contribute to American society. Now that black people have won the freedom to overtly maintain their culture, mass media has had the negate impact of skewing public perceptions of black culture, often for the worse. The act of non-black people adopting black identities has very often resulted in stereotyping, and a resulting negative view of black culture and individuality. Think Iggy Azalea, a commonly-cited culprit of what appropriation does for the public perception of black culture.

This is how the comparison falls apart with respect to gender. There simply isn't this level of nuanced conflict with the history of the female or male gender, to the extent where one tried to exterminate the other either overtly or covertly.

I mentioned in another thread a condition experienced by some people in which they feel deeply that they should have been born with only one leg, arm, etc., and want nothing more than to have an amputation in order-- ironically-- to feel "whole". The condition is currently classified as a psych disorder. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but these individuals otherwise have perfect mental/emotional/physical health. Is this more similar to the gender issue or the race issue? How are they all really that different from one another?

I'm unfamiliar with this particular example, so I'd need more context surrounding it.

I'm going to risk sounding really ignorant and say that all of these situations seem very comparable on the surface. Tell me why they're not. My reaction is that contrasting them represents a cultural double standard. We've started down the path of not merely tolerance, but acceptance of an individual's right to self-identify in whatever manner he/she sees fit. From whom or what or whence, then, do we gain the authority to set limits? Gender re-identification is okay, but race re-identification is not... according to whom, exactly? And why?

Looking forward to your comments.

They all do sound similar on the surface-- but that's why it's important to actually listen to the people who feel affected by the issues that we're discussing. And I mean all the people. I've listened, and sympathized with Rachel's views and desires. She is human. However, I've also listened to why so many black people shudder at the thought of this entire controversy. Their views are incredibly legitimate, and have formed the basis of why I hold the opinion that I do.


Many American citizens are too lazy to dig deeper into the complaints of their fellow citizens. Poor people that can't attain class mobility are cast off as lazy. Homeless people are immediately labelled no-good deadbeats. Black people who complain about feeling like they're treated as second-class citizens are simply ignored, told to 'stop viewing issues in black and white'. and asked to try and ignore race when their skin colour literally impacts every facet of their life.
 
Other than just saying "nuh-uh" can you actually provide any information or an actual viewpoint to support this assertion?


edit: as I think about it, in a way you are completely correct. Race is FAR more fluid than gender. Gender, whatever the social norm, at least has a basis in actual genes that have been fully identified if not fully understood. Whereas race cannot be traced to anything as solid as a set of genes or chromosomes. No one can say that this set of genes means you are black and this set means you are white. So race is far more likely to be a fluid concept than gender would be.

Gender is a functional role. It delineates jobs and expectations of individuals within a society. Jobs meaning societal functions (can get more into it if you really want to). Gender in society exists as a mechanic to the success of the society as a whole.

Race is a differentiating concept, a categorical role. Meant to separate. Race is more used as an ancestral idea. More of a diachronic thing while gender is synchronic.



They're just way too different of concepts to broadly say because of one instance regarding one of the concepts that it can brought over to the other. Just way too different.
 
Back
Top