Why can you be trans-gender but not trans-racial if race is a social construct? - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

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

Mild necroposting has been permitted because it has always been mild but since it is growing into a bane it will no longer be tolerated.

Moderators are therefore advised to initially move necroposts into stand-alone threads and for repeat offenders to hand out official warnings if said posters continue the practice.
All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#14780853
SolarCross wrote: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.


Look at the definition again; we both agree that the value of shiny rocks and slips of paper is a social construct.

But that's where it ends. So far as how we regard this social construct, of course, is up to debate. Even at the level of whether this construct is dependent upon a value given my credit or labour is debatable. The construction, that we regard this thing as having an abstracted social value, is not debatable.

[quote="SolarCross]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. [/quote]

Most of us would agree upon that because we have built that social construct. As mentioned, this wasn't true in an early 20th century boarding school. Or 19th century parliament. Or, apparently, Iran today.

Nor, on the other side, would either of us (being from a similar culture) say that fingering another man's prostate for pleasure while looking intently in his eyes was not gay simply because it wasn't one of the listed activities. It is gay because we understand that it is gay; and we understand this because we have built a social construction for it.

In the same way if we went to Tongo, we wouldn't be able to identify the people from Guam there as our social construct of race doesn't view that as an important distinction. In Tongo, however, it is. And just like they might be able to tell us exactly what rigid rules makes someone from Guam someone from Guam, we have difficulty listing out exactly what legalistic things make you gay. We both just agree that there is this status that we place value upon and place here or there.

[quote]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.[/quote]

And see, with respect, this is the value of something we already agree existed as a society. It was, in effect, socially constructed.
#14780867
The Immortal Goon wrote:Or are you going to argue that there's no such thing as a concept that's been accepted by a society?

It's a lot easier to stain your skin than to change your sex. Black Like Me dates to 1961. Why shouldn't Rachel Dolezal be considered trans-racial? Couldn't Michael Jackson have been considered trans-white?

Image

SolarCross wrote: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.

Yes, and this is where politics and science clash. The health care system is using this as a way to make money while doing horrible experiements on people. They say Joseph Mengele was a bad guy, but some of what they do here is deeply questionable. I know women with small tits who are "dysphoric" about that. Why don't health care plans cover breast enlargement surgery or penis enlargement surgery? Why can't black people who want to become white go through the same process that Michael Jackson did? Why can't white people like Rachel Dolezal darken her skin and become black with the aid of health insurance? What makes trans-genders "special" that they get these benefits while others don't?

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.

Well that's the crux of it. We know that epigenetics is the likely cause of these issues, but they produce life long emotional problems. The effort to try to "normalize" homosexuality and transgenderism has basically put social science at odds with physical science.

Suntzu wrote:The differences between a Great Dane and a Chihuahua are very superficial.

Perhaps at a genome level, but physically the differences are substantial.

The Immortal Goon 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.

Yet, we see real life examples of this sort of thing:
Image

So people really do question this stuff. It's not like you have made "progress."
#14780868
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.


Where does red end and orange begin?

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.


Who is being edgy or emotional? I have been on PoFo for a decade and my attitude on these issues hasn't changed. And I am not known for being overly emotional. So please, spare me.

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.


We're discussing race and transsexualism, not homosexuality.

But your argument seems fairly bizarre anyway. Are you suggesting that sex is a social construct? After all, if we didn't have separate labels for men and women, there's be no male or female identity. Everyone would just be human.

The reality is that our labels are applied based on at least some objective characteristics. Most people can look at a person and say "man" or "black" without having to do a dna test. Yes, there can be a gradient because humans intermix; just like dogs breeds can. But that doesn't change the fact that red and orange exist. They aren't constructs just because it's sometimes hard to tell whether something is red or orange.
#14780874
SolarCross wrote:
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.


I'm all for deconstructing class, in both a literal and analytical sense.

The thing about class, is that it effects everyone across all levels of society at the very basis of survival. It includes having enough food, shelter, education, and health care. The percentages you cite are certainly up for debate, but whatever.

Most people are fine with their gender and race identification, as long as we are not to ham-fisted about hanging negative stereotypes on them or limiting their opportunities. Most people are okay with being working class, as long as they have some minimal degree of economic security.

Lack of economic security is large and growing problem for a large segment of society. This is why I feel confident in assigning it a larger importance than other more marginal issues, however constructed.
#14780875
Thompson_NCL wrote:It's a lot easier to stain your skin than to change your sex. Black Like Me dates to 1961. Why shouldn't Rachel Dolezal be considered trans-racial? Couldn't Michael Jackson have been considered trans-white?


Why would I care?

The fact is that you care, and Dolezal cares, and everything because there is a social construct about race and what it means to be in that race.

Thompson_NCL wrote:Where does red end and orange begin?


Sure, if you want to think about it that way. Trying to draw that line about how lightwaves reflect off of an object and what the absolutes are about how you interpret them is just as pointless.

As your man Blackjack up there points out, this is something that people attempt to alter all the time. And there's no particular reason they can't aside from there being a social construct about what it means to be in one pattern or how you're sorted into it.

I'll put this out here again since the rightwing crybabies are having a lot of trouble with this concept:

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


I'm sure this super-complicated definition will stick once you've imagine a way that you've been victimized with it though.

Thompson_NCL wrote:Who is being edgy or emotional? I have been on PoFo for a decade and my attitude on these issues hasn't changed. And I am not known for being overly emotional. So please, spare me.


Image

Thompson_NCL wrote:We're discussing race and transsexualism, not homosexuality.


The Thread Title wrote:Why can you be trans-gender but not trans-racial if race is a social construct?


The sentence is dependent upon the last portion.

Perhaps if you put aside your feelings about what a bad ass you want to portray yourself as, you'll have time to read the end of the first sentence before replying.

Thompson_NCL wrote:The reality is that our labels are applied based on at least some objective characteristics. Most people can look at a person and say "man" or "black" without having to do a dna test. Yes, there can be a gradient because humans intermix; just like dogs breeds can. But that doesn't change the fact that red and orange exist. They aren't constructs just because it's sometimes hard to tell whether something is red or orange.


Good start, champ!

Now, if you just think a little bit more...And look at the definition really hard, maybe you'll see that we can the "labels...based on at least some objective characteristics" are also based on something else. And that as we accept these, "labels," we attribute things to them.

Think again about the example of how money is slips of paper, but worth more than slips of paper. Why might that be?

And why the pictures of Michael Jackson that Blackjack added might have a social significance related to labels.

You're very close to unlocking the secret of a dictionary definition written for someone at a ten-year-old's reading level...
#14780985
blackjack21 wrote:Yes, and this is where politics and science clash. The health care system is using this as a way to make money while doing horrible experiements on people. They say Joseph Mengele was a bad guy, but some of what they do here is deeply questionable. I know women with small tits who are "dysphoric" about that. Why don't health care plans cover breast enlargement surgery or penis enlargement surgery? Why can't black people who want to become white go through the same process that Michael Jackson did? Why can't white people like Rachel Dolezal darken her skin and become black with the aid of health insurance? What makes trans-genders "special" that they get these benefits while others don't?

Activism is the answer I guess as to what makes trans-genders special; the squeeky wheel gets the oil as it is said. Trannies and SJWs are periodically screaming for sex change cosmetic surgery to be considered the proper medical treatment for the disease, if that is what it is. The others you mention aren't trying hard enough or don't have enough noisy people jumping on their bandwagon. Maybe one day race change operations, breast and penis enlargements will also be championed by activists as the proper medical treatment for the respective dysphorias.
#14781031
Doctors originally came up with the sex change procedures, and doctors are the ones that perform them. Psychiatrists (doctors with a medical degree) are the ones that recommend them.

So why no trans racial people but yes to transgender people? At the end of the day, it's because race and gender are two different things. If you go certain places, there will be one race. In those places, there is no possibility of transracial people because there is no "other" to identify. But everywhere there will always be at least a concept of gender, and gender roles will differ everywhere. That makes it an arbitrary concept.

Note: not everywhere (especially not if we include different time periods) will have a concept of race. That is a feature of the connected world (post age of exploration) and especially European hegemony. That doesn't mean race doesn't exist! But it doesn't exist BIOLOGICALLY.
#14783067
LV-GUCCI-PRADA-FLEX wrote: But it doesn't exist BIOLOGICALLY.


Subsaharan Africans lack the 1.7-3.5% Neanderthal DNA via admixture that non-African homo sapiens possess. We definitely are differing biologically.

And, if even if you buy into the creationist-tier thinking that no biological differences exist between large groups of homo sapiens that have spent periods of time in geographic isolation from each other and diverged , we exist in an era where we are already seeing gene-editing being undertaken on human embryos.

So we will definitely start differing on the basis of genotype in our lifetime, especially when the neoliberals you shill for so desperately genetically segregate themselves from you useful idiots.
#14783107
We didn't leave Africa till about 60-70000 years ago so significant differentiation didn't happen and geneflow between regions happened quite a lot pretty soon afterwards.

Neanderthal genes effects on humans seem to center mainly around disease protection which makes sense because they left Africa first and we're better adapted to disease conditions in Europe. However we have shown that those gens are not active in brain tissue and the testis so it's hardly an important difference.

Don't be so ready for gattaca to come next weekend. In our lifetimes I'd be shocked if we saw anything more spectacular than removing a receive disorder and eye color changes. Just by virtue of the complexity of the genome and our lack of understanding about how it codes for really complex traits that we'd be interested in.
#14783156
There's also the fact that Africa isn't magical.

There were all kinds of migrations throughout Africa, perhaps most significantly the Bantu Migrations. Then there were huge empires, like the Mali and Ghana; and crusades and slave raids, and wars, and everything else that everyone else in the world was having; both in and out of Africa for thousands upon thousands of years.

Africa had people in it, and people like to go to new places and fuck new people. Sorry, Africa isn't magic. It had a lot of genes moving around too.
#14783206
Bridgeburner wrote:Subsaharan Africans lack the 1.7-3.5% Neanderthal DNA via admixture that non-African homo sapiens possess. We definitely are differing biologically.

But no one is arguing that there are two races (African and non-African). You usually find people arguing for at least 3 if not more (in some cases much more). No one claims there aren't some minor genetic differences, but we are not genetically isolated and we produce viable offspring. We meet all the definition of being the same species, especially when you consider our capacity for abstract knowledge.

Also a big question remains as to what your end game is with racialism.

And, if even if you buy into the creationist-tier thinking that no biological differences exist between large groups of homo sapiens that have spent periods of time in geographic isolation from each other and diverged , we exist in an era where we are already seeing gene-editing being undertaken on human embryos.

So we will definitely start differing on the basis of genotype in our lifetime, especially when the neoliberals you shill for so desperately genetically segregate themselves from you useful idiots.

It hasn't happened and has nothing to do with your race realist arguments. Nice non-sequitor though.
#14783348
Hong Wu wrote: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?


What about the black and white minstrels ?
#14783417
LV-GUCCI-PRADA-FLEX wrote:Doctors originally came up with the sex change procedures, and doctors are the ones that perform them. Psychiatrists (doctors with a medical degree) are the ones that recommend them.

So why no trans racial people but yes to transgender people? ...because race and gender are two different things....

society constructs "gender roles" but not gender.

Race is a social construct, but gender is perfectly natural. This is a very important difference.

While it takes a surgeon to create "trans-gender", and even then, the gender hasn't really been changed - just destroyed, trans-race only takes two adults to have sex.

Trans-race is perfectly natural. This is because "race" isn't. Humans only segregated into genetic basins because of practical environmental conditions. This is a "social" construct that is currently being undone.

People have their dicks hacked off because many socieites forces us to live a certain way if we're male or female. This is because society constructs "gender roles" but not gender.
#14783429
Hong Wu wrote: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?


Because they haven't made a drug that can change race, after all trans-gender is just 1 gender chemically induce to be another.
#14783469
QatzelOk wrote:society constructs "gender roles" but not gender.

I would agree with the caveat that I think gender here should be replaced with the word sex. Society constructs the gender roles and the gender expressions, but not the birth sex of the individual. I think there should be such a distinction because gender encapsulates all the ways in which society constructs gender roles and gender expressions PLUS it takes into account the birth sex. So most people will be cis (accepting of their birth gender and identifying with that gender), but (many) will disagree somewhere about the gender expressions and the gender roles.

Race is a social construct, but gender is perfectly natural. This is a very important difference.

Sex (the biological feature) is perfectly natural, but not the roles that we construct with it. Consider the way that agriculture changed the gender roles: originally it was considered the role of the woman to carry out the intellectual labor of harvest, but then they transitioned to the intellectual labor of domesticity and the physical labor of harvesting. Their role in society changed as a consequence, from having choices and independence in their society (hunter-gatherers) to having almost no choices or independence. Their gender expressions would have also changed, from more androgynous to more contrasted (both genders would have seen this role). And even still, more genders and roles were created from agriculture (eunuchs, priests, nuns, castrati, various roles in other societies I'm not as familiar with).

So it's fair to say that while the aspect of being male or female always has existed (ie natural), the social construct has not always existed in the same way. So in so far as you might say it's natural to construct gender identity and expression, you may have a point, but most would see it as a self-contradicting point.

While it takes a surgeon to create "trans-gender", and even then, the gender hasn't really been changed - just destroyed, trans-race only takes two adults to have sex.

The surgery is just a method of assimilation. Even without the surgery, the person is still a transgender person
.
Trans-race is perfectly natural. This is because "race" isn't. Humans only segregated into genetic basins because of practical environmental conditions. This is a "social" construct that is currently being undone.

I agree, and would go further as to say that the practical environmental conditions are not as impermeable as many would like to believe or portray as being. There has been plenty of gene flow between all parts of the world. Even the most genetically isolated ("New World"/Modern Americas) were not as isolated as we would believe, as the complex societies engaged in migration and trade just like any others.

People have their dicks hacked off because many socieites forces us to live a certain way if we're male or female. This is because society constructs "gender roles" but not gender.

True in the sense that people seek out normal, and having a dick while identifying as a woman is not normal. The pressure to be normal is one of society, and not going to be improved by encouraging transphobia.
#14783925
LV-GUCCI-PRADA-FLEX wrote:I would agree with the caveat that I think gender here should be replaced with the word sex.

But the word "sex" is used to mean something very different now than it was a century ago. In any case, this is a semantic sideline of absolutely no importance to the argument at hand, which is about gender roles.

People hack off parts of their anatomy because they feel trapped by their society's gender roles - not because they were born male or female.

In Sioux culture, the Berdache(s) played the gender roles of women, and often played a major role in spirituality as a kind of social priest. Many gay Catholic priests back in the day (before the Sioux were destroyed by America) used to go to "save" the Sioux, in order to live out full gay lives. Even then, the gender roles (and social roles) of European Abrahamic socities were too constraining for full human development.

Another interesting tidbit about the gay Sioux was that, even if you were gay, you didn't have to become a Bernache. You could become a warrior and have great sex with very masculine guys.
#14783938
LV-GUCCI-PRADA-FLEX wrote:I would agree with the caveat that I think gender here should be replaced with the word sex. Society constructs the gender roles and the gender expressions, but not the birth sex of the individual. I think there should be such a distinction because gender encapsulates all the ways in which society constructs gender roles and gender expressions PLUS it takes into account the birth sex. So most people will be cis (accepting of their birth gender and identifying with that gender), but (many) will disagree somewhere about the gender expressions and the gender roles.


Sex (the biological feature) is perfectly natural, but not the roles that we construct with it. Consider the way that agriculture changed the gender roles: originally it was considered the role of the woman to carry out the intellectual labor of harvest, but then they transitioned to the intellectual labor of domesticity and the physical labor of harvesting. Their role in society changed as a consequence, from having choices and independence in their society (hunter-gatherers) to having almost no choices or independence. Their gender expressions would have also changed, from more androgynous to more contrasted (both genders would have seen this role). And even still, more genders and roles were created from agriculture (eunuchs, priests, nuns, castrati, various roles in other societies I'm not as familiar with).

So it's fair to say that while the aspect of being male or female always has existed (ie natural), the social construct has not always existed in the same way. So in so far as you might say it's natural to construct gender identity and expression, you may have a point, but most would see it as a self-contradicting point.


The surgery is just a method of assimilation. Even without the surgery, the person is still a transgender person
.

I agree, and would go further as to say that the practical environmental conditions are not as impermeable as many would like to believe or portray as being. There has been plenty of gene flow between all parts of the world. Even the most genetically isolated ("New World"/Modern Americas) were not as isolated as we would believe, as the complex societies engaged in migration and trade just like any others.


True in the sense that people seek out normal, and having a dick while identifying as a woman is not normal. The pressure to be normal is one of society, and not going to be improved by encouraging transphobia.

Back when I would try harder I would point out the physical phenomenon of how it takes more energy to bear children than it does to produce sperm. A gifted person can extrapolate from this why "gender roles" and gender differences exist in society. They are only arbitrary if you have lived a very easy life physically and aren't interested in reproduction, the latter obviously not being a sustainable perspective for any people. I'm also a firm believer that the courage to extrapolate an understanding from simple truths is more important than technical intelligence, this can be a dangerous trait to posses however and so the sheep always outnumber the shepherds.
#14783950
Arguing about trans issues on PoFo is physically painful.

Hong wu your argument would only make sense in societies that lack over abundant food and where having huge numbers of kids is necessary. Neither of which is true of modern western societies. The calories required for either task is trivial compared to what is available for a few bucks a day. Likewise child survival rates are so high that 2.5 kids per couple is more than societally sustainable.

Worries about raw reproduction is simply unnecessary. Short of literally everyone becoming trans population growth rates will be fine.

Your simple truths, as you put it, are presuppositions based in a different context than todays society. It's not so clear as that seeing as another simple truth is that we have a carrying capacity for our society beyond which our standards of living will decrease overall and so we should endeavor to keep the population growth rate low. Which would mean we should not create social structures that maximized birth rates in pre industrial societies.
Bombings in Manchester

Thank God our Prez is not so ignorant and careles[…]

The Constitution of the United States guarantees t[…]

Kaiser, you want to talk about intellectually l[…]

WHY IS TURKEY ALLOWED TO EXIST!?

The West Fucked with that whole area. It's hard to[…]