Why can you be trans-gender but not trans-racial if race is a social construct? - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#14780691
If gender and race are both social constructs, why can you be trans one and not trans the other?

Is it because SJWs use a lack of gender to divide and a presence of race to divide, so you can be trans gender but may not be trans race?
#14780707
Racial and tribal identities are pretty fluid in many countries. Americans like to pigeon hole Obama as black even though he is half white but in many other countries people like to play up their heritage. In Cambodia for example a lot of people celebrate Chinese new year if they have even a tenuous connection to the country.
#14780720
The money we use at a daily level is also a social construct. By rightwing logic, that means I can just decide that the dollar bill in my pocket is worth 90 billion dollars and never work again!

If only there were some kind of way for rightwing crybabies to learn what something is instead of just sort it out with their feelings.
#14780721
The Immortal Goon wrote:The money we use at a daily level is also a social construct. By rightwing logic, that means I can just decide that the dollar bill in my pocket is worth 90 billion dollars and never work again!


Uh, no, that would be left-wing logic. You know, the guys who started the whole "social-construct-today-I-identify-as-a-unicorn" bullshit.
#14780726
Frollein wrote:Uh, no, that would be left-wing logic. You know, the guys who started the whole "social-construct-today-I-identify-as-a-unicorn" bullshit.


As predicted in this thread, it was apparently too much to expect a rightwinger to pick up a dictionary, let alone understand what they're whining about.

Merriam Webster wrote:Social Construct: an idea that has been created and accepted by the people in a society


There you go, that's wasn't so hard!

Whenever we try to have a conversation on this forum that doesn't rely on colorful pictures, a rightwinger comes in and responds like this:

MY FEELINGS ARE HURT!!!

Image

IT'S A MARXIST CONSPIRACY !!1111.

---

Is it really too much to ask that a rightwinger know what he's talking about before starting a thread or attacking an explanation? I suppose it always was an ideological orientation for the ignorant.

Or are you going to argue that there's no such thing as a concept that's been accepted by a society?
#14780727
I suspect the difference might originate in part due to a difference within the academia from which gender stuff has leapt from. That if one examined the trends within discussions about gender and race, one could perhaps find some essential difference.
But then it's not clear to me what exactly the literature is like and where it might diverge from the public discussion on such things as some have suggested that there does indeed exist a gap.
Comment by Rebecca Reilly-Cooper
...egardless of how nuanced the concept may be in academic literature, in political discourse it has taken on a particular character, which I believe is essentialist and rigid, and takes “gender identity” to be fixed, unchanging, and beyond question or scrutiny. Something I am currently writing for a monograph to be published next year, is the fact that the current political discourse about gender identity has travelled a long way from its queer theoretical origins, in ways that I think the original proponents of these theories would probably now come to reject.


That without getting into the way might consider the nature of something considered to be a social construct, since many seem to treat them as reducible to superfluous subjectivities. I think the transgender stuff has for some unknown reason made a misstep into idealism and posited gender as an internal essence of each individual as a consequence of their confused sense of 'gender as a spectrum'. And I speculate that part of this assumed essence is derived from the moving beyond merely asserting gender/sexual dysphoria as being some sort of distress to one's sexual characteristics to purely a subjective feeling. After this expansion of what constitutes transgender, thus came great theoretical confusion that I suspect sought an answer in an assume essence. And this expansion comes from the exaggerated and confused sense of tolerance where people keep expanding concepts because they're not comfortable to draw a line somewhere.
Many people complaining against those being excluded and so they attempted to shoehorn a lot of people in and muddled themselves up in conceptual incoherence.
And within all this stuff about transgender has gotten greater prevalence in a lot of middle class discussions and media people consume than that one time a 'white' woman passed as a 'black' woman in the US. I'm not aware of anyone trying to push rhetoric or policies around the rights of transracial people to procedures and such. That there just hasn't been the same prevalence of views emphasizing the right of people to change 'race'.
#14780737
quetzalcoatl wrote:Gender non-binarism and racial fluidity are marginal issues. That they loom so large in the imaginations of social conservatives and social justice activists does neither of them any credit. Their obsession only serves to illuminate the sterility of their respective viewpoints.


They are marginal issues for sure, but they aren't without impact on people's lives though and that is enough to get people talking about it in absence of anything better to do. There was an old gent, a nobel laureate in science (real science not your social "science" which is as worthless as Christian "science") who said something harmless but hopelessly gauche with the current fashions of political correctness and some crybaby SJW got him fired for it. A marginal issue but it cost him his job.

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2 ... s-comments

On another note while gender and race are maybe 1% social construct because there are biological realities underlying the conditions, class is about 99% social construct. Weirdly no one seems to be interested in "deconstructing" class though, not the way they they try it on with biology.

It is certainly a lot easier to be trans-class than it is to be trans-gender or trans-race; for a start you don't need extensive radical cosmetic surgery to be trans-class.
#14780742
In a scientific definition, transgenderism is the process of transionning between genders. before the process began, the person has gender dyphoria and not yet considered trans gender. Gender dysphoria is when the biological structure of the person does not match the nurulogical structure.
After the transition is over, the person becomes the new gender and no longer is a transgender.

There are only 2 genders and this is the only right definition being based scientifically, anything else is not transgender.

A food for thought is to consider this statement; Gender is not a social construct but rather society is a gender construct.
#14780745
anasawad wrote:In a scientific definition, transgenderism is the process of transionning between genders. before the process began, the person has gender dyphoria and not yet considered trans gender. Gender dysphoria is when the biological structure of the person does not match the nurulogical structure.
After the transition is over, the person becomes the new gender and no longer is a transgender.

There are only 2 genders and this is the only right definition being based scientifically, anything else is not transgender.

Except the surgery can't alter the body 100%, they can give a bloke massive doses of female hormones, remove his penis and stitch a crude facimile of a vagina in its place but he still lacks a womb, ovaries etc. He is still XY in his chomosomes. He really is trans-gender and can never be really female as there is no way yet to ever complete the process.

anasawad wrote:A food for thought is to consider this statement; Gender is not a social construct but rather society is a gender construct.

Aye it is that. :)
#14780746
Technically it can actually be done in full transition where the person is biologically the other gender with all the organs being that of the other gender and even the harmones produced naturally are also produced. Medical science does permit that nowadays, however it is very expensive thus most can not do it.
Thats why we call them transgenders. :p
Genetically speaking, although the person whether male or female will remain to have XY or XX, other genetic structures are actually not full set on a certain gender which is why the person gets gender dysphoria, so genetically speaking they're actually in between.
Thats why its refered to as a genetic defect. Simply one that can not change thus it is accepted through out many societies.
#14780750
The Immortal Goon wrote:As predicted in this thread, it was apparently too much to expect a rightwinger to pick up a dictionary, let alone understand what they're whining about.

There you go, that's wasn't so hard!

Whenever we try to have a conversation on this forum that doesn't rely on colorful pictures, a rightwinger comes in and responds like this:

MY FEELINGS ARE HURT!!!

IT'S A MARXIST CONSPIRACY !!1111.

---

Is it really too much to ask that a rightwinger know what he's talking about before starting a thread or attacking an explanation? I suppose it always was an ideological orientation for the ignorant.

Or are you going to argue that there's no such thing as a concept that's been accepted by a society?


What does any of this have to do with what Frollein wrote? If anyone is coming off as infantile here, it is of course you. :hmm:

Anyway, as to the topic at hand: neither race nor gender are social constructs. Trannies are mentally ill. People who think they are of a different race are mentally ill.
#14780761
There are variations other than XX and XY and these people deserve to be acknowledged, but there natural aberration is being usurped by mentally disturbed individuals to promote "I can be as crazy as I want and you should respect me for it." The numbers of physically doubtful genders are extremely small and these people have always found a way to lead their lives without national attention that actually minimizes their problems.
#14780809
Thompson_NCL wrote:What does any of this have to do with what Frollein wrote?


Yes, when I used the every day use of money as an example of another social construct to demonstrate what a social construct was, she returned with accusing the left of inventing a completely different idea of what a social concept was so that we could be unicorns. Naturally, I should have followed her emotional and completely illogical post that in no way even tried to define a social construct as something other than an emotional outburst. :roll:

Thompson_NCL wrote:Anyway, as to the topic at hand: neither race nor gender are social constructs. Trannies are mentally ill. People who think they are of a different race are mentally ill.


Suntzu wrote:Race, subspecies, breed, call it what you want. There are no breeds of dogs. Breed is just a social construct. The differences between a Great Dane and a Chihuahua are very superficial. Same goes for a Kenyan and a Irishman or a Honduran and a Japanese.


Image

But, again, I'm expecting too much by thinking that a rightwinger might react in some way other than emotionally. Let's break this down.

Race is a social construct in the sense that there is no river you cross where everybody is suddenlly black or white or Asian or whatever. If one were to walk from France to Japan, one would see a gradual progression of characteristics within people. There is no distinct category that isn't related to another, and the human genome project confirms this rather obvious fact. In this way, unlike dog breeds, when we created the idea of distinct races, it wasn't so much because there was a scientific distinction as much as one we all agreed upon as a society.

Because this rather basic and boring concept seems to be out of the reach of edgy and emotional rightwingers, the same concept applies to queer theory in a way that isn't particularly flattering to liberals slightly more to the left.

As an example, one can legitimately say that homosexuality is a social construct as well. Throughout the modern era it was very common for boys that went to upper class prep schools to have gay sex and gay relationships. For instance, Robert Graves writes very frankly about pining away with the love he had for a boy and the jealousy he had when another boy and the first boy had that relationship. But none of these people were gay or even bisexual.

When getting out of the prep school, they married women and, even if they continued to have sex with male prostitutes or whatever on the side, did not regard themselves as gay nor having gay sex, nor bisexual in any way. This was simply how a gentleman of a certain class was expected to behave.

Having lots of gay sex and falling in love with people of your same gender was not at all gay because there was no gay identity to which people were to identify. There was, in effect, no socially constructed gay identity for the actions being taken.

By means of comparison, Parnell went down in an infamous sex scandal because a woman had not seen her husband in years was attracted to him and that husband patititioned for divorce. Men who we know damn well were having lots of illicit affairs with married men, women, and prostituts were shocked.

Parnell had crossed a social line in transgressing the institution of the marriage, even if what he had done was nothing in our modern eyes compared to the actual actions of most members of parliament.

But the social construction around the imaginary lines of marriage that we all agree are there was more important than if he had been caught getting a train of transsexual hookers.

In such a society, homosexuality virtually doesn't exist, as there is no socially constructed box to place it in. This is why the mocked Mahmoud Ahmadinejad can say that in Iran there are no homosexuals, even if there is gay sex and gay love. There is no constructed identity for it.

So there, why race is a social construct (something for Republicans and Tories to rage tear over) and homosexuality is a social construct (something for Democrats and Labour to rage tear over).

As the dictionary said, and as I pointed out with money before the predictable rightwing temper-tantrum started, a social construct is simply something we agree upon.
#14780811
I wonder why so many forms are concerned about my race, but they never give me the choice of 'human'? We sure make it important in trying to convince people it is not. :?: I wonder if they actually intend the opposite?
#14780815
The Immortal Goon wrote:As the dictionary said, and as I pointed out with money before the predictable rightwing temper-tantrum started, a social construct is simply something we agree upon.

The trouble with that definition is that there really isn't that much agreement about the nature of race, sex, money, class etc People all have their own ideas about that stuff.

Talk to a monetarist (or most any normal person) and money is just the most practical way to reward a complete stranger for helping you out and thus is the veritable mortar of a healthy civilisation.

Talk to certain kinds of kooky Christian and money is the root of all evil (whilst passing the collection plate).

Talk to other kooky people and money is a jew conspiracy against the gentiles.

I think there is more agreement on basic facts but when it comes to social constructs there are more likely to be things which people don't agree on, things in which there is good deal of room for controversy.
#14780817
SolarCross wrote:The trouble with that definition is that there really isn't that much agreement about the nature of race, sex, money, class etc People all have their own ideas about that stuff.

Talk to a monetarist (or most any normal person) and money is just the most practical way to reward a complete stranger for helping you out and thus is the veritable mortar of a healthy civilisation.

Talk to certain kinds of kooky Christian and money is the root of all evil (whilst passing the collection plate).

Talk to other kooky people and money is a jew conspiracy against the gentiles.


But I specifically said, "every day interaction," or some similar qualifier.

Whatever moral spin they put on it, it's still shiny rocks, slips of paper, or a series of 1's and 0's stored in a bank computer that all the people you mentioned agree has a particular value. If one does not agree that the shiny rock is valuable, than even your most militant Christian won't say that it's the root of all evil; or that a slip of green paper is a Jewish conspiracy.

It's the social construction of value that's important in each of these cases.
#14780829
The Immortal Goon wrote:But I specifically said, "every day interaction," or some similar qualifier.

Whatever moral spin they put on it, it's still shiny rocks, slips of paper, or a series of 1's and 0's stored in a bank computer that all the people you mentioned agree has a particular value. If one does not agree that the shiny rock is valuable, than even your most militant Christian won't say that it's the root of all evil; or that a slip of green paper is a Jewish conspiracy.

It's the social construction of value that's important in each of these cases.


Right but the thing everyone (or mostly everyone) agrees with is the underlying basic facts: gold is shiny, paper bills tear easily, digital information can pass fly around the world at the speed of light. The social construct part is, just as you say, the value of money... But value is always and forever subjective and consequently the stuff of controversy.

Take your example of male homosexuality as a social construct, the basic facts of the matter everyone agrees on: it involves men sticking their erect penises up each other's excretory organs and also probably kissing and fellatio too. The disagreements, the controversies, start happening on how people value those activities. For some it is the work of some evil god called the devil and it will send you to hell, hence it is valued poorly. Some others may think its just a bit of harmless fun or something. For others still it is the best thing ever, so valued highly, and whole host of other valuations are possible too.

Everyone can agree on the basic facts of homosexuality but the social construct part, its value and meaning, is wildly controversial.
No Repeal of Obamacare

You do realize that while making this monumentall[…]

Meanwhile back at the adult day care center: Pres[…]

How does that work avoiding the subscription wall[…]

@Victoribus Spolia Oh of course, my bad. Howev[…]