[skinster]

Well, anorexia can actually kill you so I don't think that's a fair comparison.

I was referring to the affirmative model in gender clinics. Both issues deal with dysphoria yet one is validated and the other is considered a problem.

[wat0n]

I was referring to the affirmative model in gender clinics. Both issues deal with dysphoria yet one is validated and the other is considered a problem.

I know, but the consequences of affirming them are different.

Perhaps a better comparison would be comparing gender with race dysphoria. If a person identifies as another gender, you affirm it. If a person identifies as being of a different race then he's either insane (e.g. Black identifying as White) or appropriating (e.g. White identifying as Black).

And the magic here is that both gender and race are seen as social constructs, with no essence. But why would you treat these differently?

[Pants-of-dog]

....
But why would you treat these differently?

Because of their inherent differences.

Racial appropriation is qualitatively different from being trans.

[wat0n]

Because of their inherent differences.

Racial appropriation is qualitatively different from being trans.

In what way?

I ignore up to what extent you subscribe to postmodern notions of these, but if you do for both then you cannot claim they have different essential qualities. After all, if you do then you are not deconstructing them.

Also, I'm guessing TERF would claim trans identity is a way to appropriate femininity.

Personally, I actually would let the transgender person identify as desired, and the transracial person do just the same. Whatever gets makes it impossible to establish clientelistic networks based on these identity classes works just fine for me. I would not have the government enforcing this self-recognition on private individuals, however, as civil society should be able to handle it just fine.

[Pants-of-dog]

In what way?

Basic biology.

Race is a social construct, while sex is not.

There are other major differences.

I ignore up to what extent you subscribe to postmodern notions of these, but if you do for both then you cannot claim they have different essential qualities. After all, if you do then you are not deconstructing them.

I think your ideas about postmodernism and deconstruction among progressives is a bit of a strawman. I suggest verification of your claims in this regard before you use them as premises in arguments.

Also, I'm guessing TERF would claim trans identity is a way to appropriate femininity.

Personally, I actually would let the transgender person identify as desired, and the transracial person do just the same. Whatever gets makes it impossible to establish clientelistic networks based on these identity classes works just fine for me. I would not have the government enforcing this self-recognition on private individuals, however, as civil society should be able to handle it just fine.

Yes, you often disapprove of any identity politics other than those championed by the status quo, so that would be a logical position for you to take.

[wat0n]

Basic biology.

Race is a social construct, while sex is not.

There are other major differences.

So?

I think your ideas about postmodernism and deconstruction among progressives is a bit of a strawman. I suggest verification of your claims in this regard before you use them as premises in arguments.

Are you sure? We can see what the likes of Judith Butler think about whether gender and even sex are socially constructed or not. I think @Wellsy cited a fragment before, but it's useful to keep in mind how this goes when it comes to gender:

JUDITH BUTLER questions the belief that certain gendered behaviors are natural, illustrating the ways that one's learned performance of gendered behavior (what we commonly associate with femininity and masculinity) is an act of sorts, a performance, one that is imposed upon us by normative heterosexuality. Butler thus offers what she herself calls "a more radical use of the doctrine of constitution that takes the social agent as an object rather than the subject of constitutive acts" ("Performative" 270). In other words, Butler questions the extent to which we can assume that a given individual can be said to constitute him- or herself; she wonders to what extent our acts are determined for us, rather, by our place within language and convention. She follows postmodernist and poststructuralist practice in using the term "subject" (rather than "individual" or "person") in order to underline the linguistic nature of our position within what Jacques Lacan terms the symbolic order, the system of signs and conventions that determines our perception of what we see as reality. Unlike theatrical acting, Butler argues that we cannot even assume a stable subjectivity that goes about performing various gender roles; rather, it is the very act of performing gender that constitutes who we are (see the next module on performativity). Identity itself, for Butler, is an illusion retroactively created by our performances: "In opposition to theatrical or phenomenological models which take the gendered self to be prior to its acts, I will understand constituting acts not only as constituting the identity of the actor, but as constituting that identity as a compelling illusion, an object of belief" ("Performative" 271). That belief (in stable identities and gender differences) is, in fact, compelled "by social sanction and taboo" ("Performative" 271), so that our belief in "natural" behavior is really the result of both subtle and blatant coercions. One effect of such coercions is also the creation of that which cannot be articulated, "a domain of unthinkable, abject, unlivable bodies" (Bodies xi) that, through abjection by the "normal" subject helps that subject to constitute itself: "This zone of uninhabitability will constitute the defining limit of the subject's domain; it will constitute that site of dreaded identification against, which—and by virtue of which—the domain of the subject will circumscribe its own claim to autonomy and to life" (Bodies 3). This repudiation is necessary for the subject to establish "an identification with the normative phantasm of 'sex'" (Bodies 3), but, because the act is not "natural" or "biological" in any way, Butler uses that abjected domain to question and "rearticulate the very terms of symbolic legitimacy and intelligibility" (Bodies 3). By underlining the artificial, proscribed, and performative nature of gender identity, Butler seeks to trouble the definition of gender, challenging the status quo in order to fight for the rights of marginalized identities (especially gay and lesbian identity).

Indeed, Butler goes far as to argue that gender, as an objective natural thing, does not exist: "Gender reality is performative which means, quite simply, that it is real only to the extent that it is performed" ("Performative" 278). Gender, according to Butler, is by no means tied to material bodily facts but is solely and completely a social construction, a fiction, one that, therefore, is open to change and contestation: "Because there is neither an 'essence' that gender expresses or externalizes nor an objective ideal to which gender aspires; because gender is not a fact, the various acts of gender creates the idea of gender, and without those acts, there would be no gender at all. Gender is, thus, a construction that regularly conceals its genesis" ("Performative" 273). That genesis is not corporeal but performative (see next module), so that the body becomes its gender only "through a series of acts which are renewed, revised, and consolidated through time" ("Performative" 274). By illustrating the artificial, conventional, and historical nature of gender construction, Butler attempts to critique the assumptions of normative heterosexuality: those punitive rules (social, familial, and legal) that force us to conform to hegemonic, heterosexual standards for identity.

Butler takes her formulations even further by questioning the very distinction between gender and sex. In the past, feminists regularly made a distinction between bodily sex (the corporeal facts of our existence) and gender (the social conventions that determine the differences between masculinity and femininity). Such feminists accepted the fact that certain anatomical differences do exist between men and women but they pointed out how most of the conventions that determine the behaviors of men and women are, in fact, social gender constructions that have little or nothing to do with our corporeal sexes. According to traditional feminists, sex is a biological category; gender is a historical category. Butler questions that distinction by arguing that our "gender acts" affect us in such material, corporeal ways that even our perception of corporeal sexual differences are affected by social conventions. For Butler, sex is not "a bodily given on which the construct of gender is artificially imposed, but... a cultural norm which governs the materialization of bodies" (Bodies 2-3; my italics). Sex, for Butler, "is an ideal construct which is forcibly materialized through time. It is not a simple fact or static condition of a body, but a process whereby regulatory norms materialize 'sex' and achieve this materialization through a forcible reiteration of those norms" (Bodies 2). Butler here is influenced by the postmodern tendency to see our very conception of reality as determined by language, so that it is ultimately impossible even to think or articulate sex without imposing linguistic norms: "there is no reference to a pure body which is not at the same time a further formation of that body" (Bodies 10). (See the Introduction to Gender and Sex for Thomas Laqueur's exploration of the different ways that science has determined our understanding of bodily sexuality since the ancient Greeks.) The very act of saying something about sex ends up imposing cultural or ideological norms, according to Butler. As she puts it, "'sex' becomes something like a fiction, perhaps a fantasy, retroactively installed at a prelinguistic site to which there is no direct access" (Bodies 5). Nonetheless, that fiction is central to the establishment of subjectivity and human society, which is to say that, even so, it has material effects: "the 'I' neither precedes nor follows the process of this gendering, but emerges only within and as the matrix of gender relations themselves" (Bodies 7). That linguistic construction is also not stable, working as it does by always re-establishing boundaries (and a zone of abjection) through the endlessly repeated performative acts that mark us as one sex or another. "Sex" is thus unveiled not only as an artificial norm but also a norm that is subject to change. Butler's project, then, is "to 'cite' the law in order to reiterate and coopt its power, to expose the heterosexual matrix and to displace the effect of its necessity" (Bodies 15).

Yes, you often disapprove of any identity politics other than those championed by the status quo, so that would be a logical position for you to take.

Weird, because the usual claim is that the status quo is transphobic and racist, hence not allowing people to determine their own identities. The status quo would not recognize a Black-looking person claiming to be White as the latter and let this person enjoy whatever comes along with being White, I would personally not care at all and just play along. Yet I have neither the right nor the means to enforce my personal choices in this matter on others.

[noemon]

Basic biology.

Race is a social construct, while sex is not.

Did you just claim that gender identity is solely a matter of sexual biology?

[Pants-of-dog]

So?

So it is not a good comparison.

Are you sure?

Fairly sure. No one in this thread has made these arguments.

Weird, because the usual claim is that the status quo is transphobic and racist, hence not allowing people to determine their own identities. The status quo would not recognize a Black-looking person claiming to be White as the latter and let this person enjoy whatever comes along with being White, I would personally not care at all and just play along. Yet I have neither the right nor the means to enforce my personal choices in this matter on others.

The status quo is transphobic and racist. This transphobia and racism is identity politics.

Did you just claim that gender identity is solely a matter of sexual biology?

No. I claimed that race is entirely a social construct while sex is not. Sex is not gender identity and it is almost certainly true that gender identity is not based solely on sex.

Mind you, sexual designation is also based almost solely on visible gonads, even though sex is actually more complicated than that.

Gender roles are a social construct, but gender identity seems like it based on series of things, many of which are biological but many of which may also be social or environmental.

[wat0n]

So it is not a good comparison.

No. I claimed that race is entirely a social construct while sex is not. Sex is not gender identity and it is almost certainly true that gender identity is not based solely on sex.

Mind you, sexual designation is also based almost solely on visible gonads, even though sex is actually more complicated than that.

Gender roles are a social construct, but gender identity seems like it based on series of things, many of which are biological but many of which may also be social or environmental.

I'll assume your response to @noemon is an attempt to tease the difference out. It's fair but I don't really see how does it get to my argument. Why shouldn't transracial identities be recognized but transgender ones should? Why does it matter that gender is not completely socially constructed for this discussion?

I would actually say that, since race is indeed wholly socially constructed (since something as superficial as skin tone should not have any social effects just like hair or eye color does not, at least if one sticks to the old, and unscientific, biologicist definitions of race), that is actually a stronger argument for recognizing transracial identities if we go by how the usual (postmodern) understanding of how social constructions work. At least as far as gender goes, since it has a biological basis then you could make a case that people cannot be expected to just ignore them.

Now, as for gender roles, I don't think they have all that much to do with transgender identities. Although if they are indeed completely socially constructed, and you agree with the idea that revising them is in order, then I still have trouble seeing why wouldn't racial identities work the same way. Your only way out, I think, is to explain what's the essence behind race as a social construct and how does it differ from the essence of gender roles. I also don't think gender roles are wholly socially constructed, because there are some roles that are clearly connected to sex and serve to establish the corresponding gender identities (e.g. biological males cannot get pregnant and give birth, hence the social dimension of pregnancy and childbirth would be confined exclusively to biological females, and getting pregnant would definitely be something that is not "masculine" as a result), while it's a lot harder to find something analogous to this example with regards to racial/ethnic categories. I do not believe this is a reason good enough not to recognize transgender identities, by the way, but simply an observation of how some traditional, and still recognized, gender roles have been determined and how it also shapes traditional gender identity.

Fairly sure. No one in this thread has made these arguments.

But the TRA types often do. Of course it's part of the conversation and indeed informs it to a regrettably large extent.

If you personally reject Judith Butler's claims then that's great, I reject them as well. Her idea of performativity doesn't wholly determine gender and furthermore gender is clearly not the same as sex.

The status quo is transphobic and racist. This transphobia and racism is identity politics.

Sure, but my opinion is not quite following the status quo here.

[Pants-of-dog]

I'll assume your response to @noemon is an attempt to tease the difference out. It's fair but I don't really see how does it get to my argument. Why shouldn't transracial identities be recognized but transgender ones should? Why does it matter that gender is not completely socially constructed for this discussion?

I would actually say that, since race is indeed wholly socially constructed (since something as superficial as skin tone should not have any social effects just like hair or eye color does not, at least if one sticks to the old, and unscientific, biologicist definitions of race), that is actually a stronger argument for recognizing transracial identities if we go by how the usual (postmodern) understanding of how social constructions work. At least as far as gender goes, since it has a biological basis then you could make a case that people cannot be expected to just ignore them.

If you wish to ignore the differences in order to make an argument, feel free.

Your argument will still be flawed because of these differences.

Now, as for gender roles, I don't think they have all that much to do with transgender identities. Although if they are indeed completely socially constructed, and you agree with the idea that revising them is in order, then I still have trouble seeing why wouldn't racial identities work the same way. Your only way out, I think, is to explain what's the essence behind race as a social construct and how does it differ from the essence of gender roles. I also don't think gender roles are wholly socially constructed, because there are some roles that are clearly connected to sex and serve to establish the corresponding gender identities (e.g. biological males cannot get pregnant and give birth, hence the social dimension of pregnancy and childbirth would be confined exclusively to biological females, and getting pregnant would definitely be something that is not "masculine" as a result), while it's a lot harder to find something analogous to this example with regards to racial/ethnic categories. I do not believe this is a reason good enough not to recognize transgender identities, by the way, but simply an observation of how some traditional, and still recognized, gender roles have been determined and how it also shapes traditional gender identity.

I have no idea how this is a reply to my point.

I think you are confusing my reply to noemon with your argument, and your strawman,

But the TRA types often do. Of course it's part of the conversation and indeed informs it to a regrettably large extent.

If you personally reject Judith Butler's claims then that's great, I reject them as well. Her idea of performativity doesn't wholly determine gender and furthermore gender is clearly not the same as sex.

Since no one in this thread is making arguments like Butler, this is a strawman.

Sure, but my opinion is not quite following the status quo here.

I see no attempts for you to address the identity politics of the status quo.

[wat0n]

If you wish to ignore the differences in order to make an argument, feel free.

Your argument will still be flawed because of these differences.

I have no idea how this is a reply to my point.

I think you are confusing my reply to noemon with your argument, and your strawman,

You have yet to actually make a point. Saying one is a social construct and the other is not does not explain why would both trans identities should be treated differently, and I quite clearly showed why that argument could actually be used to argue the opposite of what you are arguing for: If race is a social construction and gender has a scientifically established biological basis, then it's actually harder to argue one should recognize a transgender identity instead of a transracial one since the former amounts to a denial of scientific knowledge and the latter is not. I'm still waiting for you to show why would this logic be wrong or inaccurate...

Since no one in this thread is making arguments like Butler, this is a strawman.

Butler is way too influential to ignore in this debate. But it's good to see you rejecting her nonsense.

I see no attempts for you to address the identity politics of the status quo.

Really? I'm taking the affirmation of these trans identities to its logical conclusion.

Some could actually say you are the one who's affirming the status quo by imposing your views on how should people should perceive themselves on others.

[Pants-of-dog]

You have yet to actually make a point. Saying one is a social construct and the other is not does not explain why would both trans identities should be treated differently, and I quite clearly showed why that argument could actually be used to argue the opposite of what you are arguing for: If race is a social construction and gender has a scientifically established biological basis, then it's actually harder to argue one should recognize a transgender identity instead of a transracial one since the former amounts to a denial of scientific knowledge and the latter is not. I'm still waiting for you to show why would this logic be wrong or inaccurate...

There are two reasons why I am not making an arguemnt.

1. I feel this is off topic.
2. This is usually used as a justification for transphobia or for cultural appropriation by conservatives, and is not actually a real argument that impacts people’s lives in any way.

Butler is way too influential to ignore in this debate. But it's good to see you rejecting her nonsense.

You seem to think it is not nonsense and have assumed it is part of everyone’s arguments even though it is not.

Really? I'm taking the affirmation of these trans identities to its logical conclusion.

Some could actually say you are the one who's affirming the status quo by imposing your views on how should people should perceive themselves on others.

If you wish to incorrectly categorise my argument as supoorting the status quo, feel free.

This does not change the fact that the status quo also imposes its transphobic and racist identity politics and that people ignore this.

[wat0n]

There are two reasons why I am not making an arguemnt.

1. I feel this is off topic.
2. This is usually used as a justification for transphobia or for cultural appropriation by conservatives, and is not actually a real argument that impacts people’s lives in any way.

If you don't want to show why it's wrong, then you shouldn't be surprised if this becomes a more common argument as time goes by.

To me it sounds like an arbitrary difference to be quite honest with you. But I'll be happy to contrast arguments here.

You seem to think it is not nonsense and have assumed it is part of everyone’s arguments even though it is not.

Unfortunately, nonsensical arguments have been quite popular (socially) lately. The sad part is that the base intent here (to provide arguments to stop gender discrimination) is not wrong, it's just that the justification isn't all that sound here. A better way I think would be to recognize those essential differences (e.g. biological ones) and draw a clear distinction between what is biologically grounded and what is not, along with showing why should those essential differences be socially relevant. And an even better way would be to also provide the necessary incentives so rigid gender roles are simply not practical, which is what has been happening in the West during the last 150 years or so.

If you wish to incorrectly categorise my argument as supoorting the status quo, feel free.

This does not change the fact that the status quo also imposes its transphobic and racist identity politics and that people ignore this.

I don't see how that has anything to do with my position.

[Pants-of-dog]

If you don't want to show why it's wrong, then you shouldn't be surprised if this becomes a more common argument as time goes by.

To me it sounds like an arbitrary difference to be quite honest with you. But I'll be happy to contrast arguments here.

Can you provide an example of anyone arguing this who was not trying to excuse either transphobia or cultural appropriation?

Unfortunately, nonsensical arguments have been quite popular (socially) lately. The sad part is that the base intent here (to provide arguments to stop gender discrimination) is not wrong, it's just that the justification isn't all that sound here. A better way I think would be to recognize those essential differences (e.g. biological ones) and draw a clear distinction between what is biologically grounded and what is not, along with showing why should those essential differences be socially relevant. And an even better way would be to also provide the necessary incentives so rigid gender roles are simply not practical, which is what has been happening in the West during the last 150 years or so.

I have no idea why you are telling me this.

I don't see how that has anything to do with my position.

I understand that you do not see it.

You see people opposing transphobia and racism as playing identity politics, but you do not view people perpetuating the inherent racism and transphobia of the status quo as playing identity politics.

[wat0n]

Can you provide an example of anyone arguing this who was not trying to excuse either transphobia or cultural appropriation?

How about you look for people to claim to have transracial identities?

Also, aren't claims of cultural appropriation all too similar to those claims that male to female transgender people are appropriating female spaces? What's the difference between both?

I have no idea why you are telling me this.

That was a small digression, I guess.

I understand that you do not see it.

You see people opposing transphobia and racism as playing identity politics, but you do not view people perpetuating the inherent racism and transphobia of the status quo as playing identity politics.

Not really. For instance, Trump was also practicing identity politics in his own way.

[Pants-of-dog]

How about you look for people to claim to have transracial identities?

Also, aren't claims of cultural appropriation all too similar to those claims that male to female transgender people are appropriating female spaces? What's the difference between both?

Since you cannot find anyone actually arguing your hypothetical claim, I think we can see that this is a non-issue at best and a way of disguising racism and transphobia at worst.

Not really. For instance, Trump was also practicing identity politics in his own way.

Yes, and?

[wat0n]

Since you cannot find anyone actually arguing your hypothetical claim, I think we can see that this is a non-issue at best and a way of disguising racism and transphobia at worst.

Oh, so you want cases of transracial identity? Be my guest

There was also a controversy on this matter between feminist theorists, ironically using arguments reminiscent to those used by the TERF.

Yes, and?

Isn't he a defender of the conservative identity politics? So why would you believe I can't tell that he plays identity politics his own way, then?

[Pants-of-dog]

Oh, so you want cases of transracial identity? Be my guest

There was also a controversy on this matter between feminist theorists, ironically using arguments reminiscent to those used by the TERF.

Okay.

Quote the part where someone argues that trans identity is the same as pretending to be another rade.

Isn't he a defender of the conservative identity politics? So why would you believe I can't tell that he plays identity politics his own way, then?

Because he is not a “defender of the conservative identity politics” of the status quo. He is a reactionary who supports the even more transphobic and racist past. His supporters have convinced themselves that the status quo oppresses cis and white people in favour of trans people and people of colour.

[wat0n]

Okay.

Quote the part where someone argues that trans identity is the same as pretending to be another rade.

You could refer to the discussion about trans women and bathrooms in this very thread to see an example of that.

Because he is not a “defender of the conservative identity politics” of the status quo. He is a reactionary who supports the even more transphobic and racist past. His supporters have convinced themselves that the status quo oppresses cis and white people in favour of trans people and people of colour.

Weird, and I thought you believed the current status quo was as transphobic and racist as it gets. So what is it?

[Pants-of-dog]

You could refer to the discussion about trans women and bathrooms in this very thread to see an example of that.

No, that would not provide any sort of evidence for your argument.

And since you are not quoting anything, I will assume there is none.

Weird, and I thought you believed the current status quo was as transphobic and racist as it gets. So what is it?

The different ideological outlooks of different types of non-progressive groups is not relevant to the topic. Suffice it to say that claiming one side is playing identity politics and we should ignore them because of this makes no sense. All sides are doing so.