Identity Politics - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

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

All sociological topics not appropriate or suited to other areas of the board.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
By Rich
#15168038
I love it, absolutely love it!

Identity politics is like cage fighting, but without a lot of the detrimental health effects. I'm too attached to my looks to do cage fighting and I don't particularly want to spoil someone else's looks either. Same goes for boxing, I don't want to get early dementia, neither do I particularly want to give someone else early dementia. So identity politics, when combined with some brisk walking, running, yoga etc can provide a much healthier alternative to violent sports and indeed warfare. People may not realise it but warfare too can have some very deleterious health consequences for individuals, damage infrastructure and I have to say I'm deeply sceptical of some of the claimed Keynesian economic benefits.

My identity is complex and to some extent flexible. But for starters I call myself an EOT, a European of tan. I object to racist bigots calling me White, I'm not white I hold some level of tan through out the winter and even during this plandemic, no lockdown Liberal was keeping me out of the sun. I have some Celtic blood / genes, but I'm mostly Germanic and the only reason that Germanic people became associated with Whiteness is because of the absorption of alien Admin edit: Rule 3 Violation cultural bigotry, a sick deranged bigotry that was not present in our ancient Celtic, Germanic, Latin or Greek ancestors. We need balance in all things, working in an office 48 weeks a year and then dashing out to Marbella and then lying in the Sun for two weeks is not healthy either. But the height of European Whiteness was the Victorian Genteel woman. Not an empowering identity I would suggest, which is why hate filled Cultural Marxists are so intent on enslaving us with it.
By late
#15168046
Rich wrote:
the only reason that Germanic people became associated with Whiteness is because of the absorption of alien Admin edit: Rule 3 Violation cultural bigotry...



Now that is next level crazy.

When Germany began it's Supernational era, and became a country, it also created a mythology about Germanic people. They didn't get that from Jews, they came up with that all on their own.

They were also intensely anti-Semitic back then, in the 1800s.

Which makes me wonder if you are projecting your awareness of bigotry onto Jews.
By Rich
#15168061
late wrote:Which makes me wonder if you are projecting your awareness of bigotry onto Jews.

I'm referring to Ancient and Orthodox Judaism, which like Islam sees the human body as shameful and something to be hidden. The story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden is a lie. it never happened. Teaching the Bible and Islam to children is a form of sexual abuse and should be recognised and treated as such. Clitoral castration is just an extreme form of these vile misogynistic ideologies.

This has nothing specifically to people who are descended from Jews or indeed are descended from Muslims. Its not a racial criticism its a cultural one. Many people of Jewish decent, but also people of Muslim decent have played leading roles in pushing back against these noxious superstitions.
By late
#15168064
Rich wrote:
I'm referring to Ancient and Orthodox Judaism, which like Islam sees the human body as shameful and something to be hidden. The story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden is a lie. it never happened. Teaching the Bible and Islam to children is a form of sexual abuse and should be recognised and treated as such. Clitoral castration is just an extreme form of these vile misogynistic ideologies.

This has nothing specifically to people who are descended from Jews or indeed are descended from Muslims. Its not a racial criticism its a cultural one. Many people of Jewish decent, but also people of Muslim decent have played leading roles in pushing back against these noxious superstitions.



It looks to me like you said more than that.
User avatar
By Wellsy
#15168081
froggo wrote:I just popped in to nitpick about something said earlier

I just don't understand how this is the very worst of identity politics.
Whether it has merit nowadays or not, the media is intended to display public artforms.
Nina Simone — 'It is an artist's duty to reflect the times.'

If I think of one of the earliest instances of an adjustment of media representation my mind goes back to Emile Zola, where the literary landscape was primarily focussed on either the fabulous or the noble, Zola came along and implicated that literature ought to depict the under-represented (the humble worker) so that these lives could be understood by all.
I believe this had a major impact on the methods of sociological study. I can't find the source now, but I recall Nadine Gordimer stating that the reason she wrote novels instead of essays was because one could say much more in a novel than they could in limited empirical study
“The facts are always less than what really happened.”-Nadine Gordimer

So, by representing the under-represented, Zola opened up a world of greater insight and understanding. He made the ones who were dismissed as 'unworthy of contemplative interest' very appealing, for the humanity of them. If we should be inundated with homogenous images in today's media, we would be doing a disservice to not only ourselves, but to the people we fail to see.

I watch things like RuPaul's drag race with my sister, and the queens often share stories to the camera, of how when they were children they never got to see people like themselves on the television, and it made them feel alienated and now they are proud to share their esteem with people just like them to prevent the horrendous afflictions of self-doubt they had to endure. I can only see a diversified media landscape as a positive thing for every viewer.

What you summarize here I have little issue with in a positive subjective experience in being able to identified with people in media but I however don't see it as the most significant site of struggle for the average person.

A good way to summarize my view is that I wish to keep in perspective the average person's living conditions over that of particular individuals which might make such individuals feel good, but doesn't necessarily help them.

Combahee's grasp of the centarlity of class in Black women's lives was not only based in history but was also in anticipation of its growing potential as a key divide even among Black women. Today that could not be clearer. The number of Black women who are wealthy and elite is small, but they are extremely visible and influential. From Michelle Obama to Oprah Winfrey to the US seanator Kamala Harris, they, as so many other Black wealthy and influential people, are held up as examples of an American capitalism as just and democratic. They are represented as the hope that the United States can still deliver the American dream.

For example, in the summer o 2016 Michelle Obama delievered a speech at the Democratic National COnvention that electrified her audience, as she outlined what she believed to be evidence of American progress. She described how "the generations of people who felt the lash of bondage, the shame of servitude, the sting of segregation ... kept striving ... kept hoping so that today I wake up every morning in a house that was built by slaves." Michelle Obama ender her speed declaring triumphantly - in a clear rebuke to Donald Trump - "Don't let anyone ever tell you that this country isn't great, that somehow we need to make it great again. Because this right now is the greatest country on earth." But the actual state of the country has never been measured or determined by the wealthiest or most powerful - even in those few instances when those people are Black or Brown. A more accurate view of the United States comes from the ground, not the perch of the White House. WHen we judge this country by the life of Charleena Lyles, a thiry year old, single Black mother, who was shot sevven times and killed by Seattle police officers in June 2017, the picture comes into sharper focus. THe ability to distinguish between the ideology of the American dream and the expereince of the American nightmare requires political analysis, histoy, and often, struggle. The COmbahee River COllective employed this dynamic approach to politics, not a reductive analysis that implied identity alone was enough to overcome the sharp differences imposed by social class in our society.

- How We Get Free: Black Feminism and the Combahee River Collective

The point that this fits with is my earlier quote by Naomi Klein how the diversity was a great marketing means for late capitalism to appeal to different niches and sell them products. This doesn't denigrate the enjoyment in such consumption but simply points out that it doesn't challenge things at all as much as it is perfectly accommodated by capitalism. This is a non-issue if one strives for equality but equality is a very limiting focus when it comes to Capitalism because as a guiding notion, it cannot be resolved within such limits and as such the goal should not be equality. I feel like the liberal achievement of abstract equality has already been achieved and the dissatisfaction with the present state is not improved through liberalism as a political program as the current inequality is an essential feature of capitalism such that I align myself ideologically with those who do not see racism or sexism being possible to eradicate institutionally within capitalism but only on the basis of a new economic system that makes a struggle against their very roots possible.

https://thecharnelhouse.org/2014/02/07/a-marxist-feminist-critique-of-intersectionality-theory/
For several pages, Fanon argues that black people must embrace blackness, and struggle on the basis of being black, in order to negate white supremacists social relations. But to stop there reproduces our one-sided existence and the forms of appearance of capitalism. Identity politics argues, “I am a black man,” or “I am a woman,” without filling out the other side of the contradiction “…and I am a human.” If the starting and ending point is one-sided, there is no possibility for abolishing racialized and gendered social relations. For supporters of identity politics (despite claiming otherwise), womanhood, a form of appearance within society, is reduced to a natural, static “identity.” Social relations such as “womanhood,” or simply gender, become static objects, or “institutions.” Society is therefore organized into individuals, or sociological groups with natural characteristics. Therefore, the only possibility for struggle under identity politics is based on equal distribution or individualism...

https://www.lacan.com/zizrobes.htm
It is, however, this very consequent egalitarianism which is simultaneously the limitations of the Jacobin politics. Recall Marx's fundamental insight about the "bourgeois" limitation of the logic of equality: the capitalist inequalities ("exploitations") are not the "unprincipled violations of the principle of equality," but are absolutely inherent to the logic of equality, they are the paradoxical result of its consequent realization. What we have in mind here is not only the old boring motif of how market exchange presupposes formally/legally equal subjects who meet and interact on the market; the crucial moment of Marx's critique of "bourgeois" socialists is that capitalist exploitation does not involve any kind of "unequal" exchange between the worker and the capitalist - this exchange is fully equal and "just," ideally (in principle), the worker gets paid the full value of the commodity he is selling (his labour force). Of course, radical bourgeois revolutionaries are aware of this limitation; however, the way they try to amend it is through a direct "terrorist" imposition of more and more de facto equality (equal salaries, equal health service...), which can only be imposed through new forms of formal inequality (different sorts of preferential treatments of the under-privileged). In short, the axiom of "equality" means either not enough (it remains the abstract form of actual inequality) or too much (enforce "terrorist" equality) - it is a formalist notion in a strict dialectical sense, i.e., its limitation is precisely that its form is not concrete enough, but a mere neutral container of some content that eludes this form.
...
Marx's key insight into how the political struggle is a spectacle which, in order to be deciphered, has to be referred to the sphere of economics ("if Marxism had any analytical value for political theory, was it not in the insistence that the problem of freedom was contained in the social relations implicitly declared 'unpolitical' - that is, naturalized - in liberal discourse"). [14]


And there can be a political error in a kind of fetishism of a person's background over the content of their views and values that I strongly dislike in this pursuit of diversity and equal representation as a goal.

Which isn't an expression that I am entirely opposed to it, just that it really isn't the meaningful change that will help the majority of people because it seems to long for a kind of equality of conditions such that being black is no structural barrier to your ability to be part of the elite. I don't care for people becoming part of an elite or wealthy demographic as individuals, I think greater systemic change is required because something like Obama becoming president did not improve the condition of the average Black American.


Even in politics where I think representation would have somewhat of a meaningful impact although still quite limited, the point is still not about the attributes of being a woman or black, the essential thing is what goals and political ends they pursue, this is the real basis of connections between people and basis of solidarity against one which emphasizes and naturalized different identities.
https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/pdfs/On%20Political%20Representation.pdf
But representation is an active process: forming and giving expression to a collective view, selecting representatives, instructing the representatives, and then acting for the group whether in deliberation or action as such, reporting back, educating the group and over again ... A focus group or a committee that simply resembles the group it represents in some way is not thereby representing them at all. This is not to deny that a deliberative body which reflects the diversity of the principal in the diversity of its participants is not a good idea. It is, but it is not the essential question.

The problem of representation does not arise from the diversity of people; it arises even when I represent myself. (See Hegel, 1821, §115) I have innumerable different needs and desires, but at every given moment I nonetheless form an intention and act according to that intention. My intention furthers a purpose which resolves the contradictions between my various desires and the constraints imposed by those of others. I cannot act at all other than through momentarily resolving the contradictions between my various desires, and formulating a purpose, even while I take myself to be an single, independent human being – I cannot do two things at once, nevertheless, I must act. So in representing myself I face the same contradiction that confronts the representative who acts on behalf of a group. In selecting a representative and instructing the representative, the group implicitly resolves these contradictions and thereby forms itself into a subject, a personality.

It is by acting in the world that an individual makes themself into a personality and in just the same way, by choosing and mandating representatives, a group transforms themself from a collection of individuals into a subject, an actor on the stage of history. There is no implication in this that internal differences are dissolved, overridden or ignored, but they are transcended.

So we have two concepts here of what constitutes a person and what constitutes a representative. On the one hand, a person is seen as someone with a certain gender, age, education, experience, nationality, etc., etc., and on the other, a person is someone who pursues certain purposes, has commitments, a life. The former is the object of surveys of voter preferences, the passive object of political policy and action. The latter is the active subject, who pursues ends collaboratively with others and changes the world.

In the black community they have a phrase along the lines that not all skin folk are kin folk, that is just because someones black that doesn't mean they're on your side and the same within the women liberation movement, feminist activists constitued a minority of the population of women. Not all women were for the gains which they made despite many adopting them today as normative but not necessarily feminist.
User avatar
By ckaihatsu
#15169207
Wellsy wrote:



[Klein:]

"The backlash that identity politics inspired did a pretty good job of masking for us the fact that many of our demands for better representation were quickly accommodated by marketers, media makers and pop-culture producers alike - though perhaps not for the reasons we had hoped.



I'm reminded of Michael Moore's Planet of the Humans documentary.


wat0n wrote:
One ironic thing is that those obsessed with identity politics are the first ones to impose identities on others when it suits them.



Agreed -- such becomes a self-centered self-validating self-fulfilling prophecy, or 'worldview' of pure postmodernist radical subjectivity. (Not like the *following* depicted worldview, though, since it happens to also include the broader categories of 'subjective social reality', 'objective social reality', and 'objective (natural) reality'.)


Worldview Diagram

Spoiler: show
Image



[6] Worldview Diagram

Spoiler: show
Image



---


wat0n wrote:
One ironic thing is that those obsessed with identity politics are the first ones to impose identities on others when it suits them.



Pants-of-dog wrote:
Do you mean cops?

Or racist politicians?

Or the right in general?



wat0n wrote:
The last two, plus postmodern culture warriors and the left in general too. I don't think all cops play the identity politics game, even if some do.



This lumping-together of politically- / demographically-different groups is politically *problematic*, though -- you're conflating cops with reformers, basically, and cops *benefit* from the nationalist status-quo while reformers of color do *not* benefit from it, and are *harmed* by it, as at the hands of qualified-immunity-protected killer cops.

So this is to say that the practice of identity politics by *cops* is inherently a power-play, while the practice of identity politics by 'culture warriors [of color]' is inherently socially-*progressive*, since their particular identity, BIPOC, is *underrepresented* in the positions of power in racist capitalist bourgeois society. (Not to imply that the best political strategy is to seek more social-minority positions / representation *within* that racist capitalist bourgeois power structure, for obvious reasons.)


---


wat0n wrote:
...And yet, you are clearly imposing an identity on other individuals when rejecting their claims of being transracial just like the TERF do with biological males claiming they are actually females.



Again, I'd have to say that you're too-casually / -recklessly conflating *dissimilar* terms.

'Transracial' here -- in my understanding -- is 'white-to-black', which isn't really *insulting* or *demeaning* to blacks, in practice, but it's still *privileged* behavior, since it's being done by whites, a privileged demographic.

Feminists saying that they accept transgenderism is a *different* matter, because they're implicitly critiquing *from-the-left* with that chosen positioning -- it's a critique and differentiation leftward from the more-conventional and -conservative *radical feminist* camp / turf, which seeks *bourgeois* status within the capitalist bourgeois power structure, in parity with *men* in the power structure.

The 'transracial' thing is more *cultural*, and even arguably socially *progressive* since such whites are implicitly *forfeiting* any demonstrated claims to 'whiteness', from their adoption of aspects of *black* culture.

The TERF thing is more politically- and power-*conscious*, since it's an explicitly stated political position, of principle.


---


Rich wrote:
But the height of European Whiteness was the Victorian Genteel woman. Not an empowering identity I would suggest, which is why hate filled Cultural Marxists are so intent on enslaving us with it.



Rich, would you mind *rephrasing*, or elaborating on this? I'm finding your meaning to be somewhat unclear, due to the wording.
By wat0n
#15169232
ckaihatsu wrote:This lumping-together of politically- / demographically-different groups is politically *problematic*, though -- you're conflating cops with reformers, basically, and cops *benefit* from the nationalist status-quo while reformers of color do *not* benefit from it, and are *harmed* by it, as at the hands of qualified-immunity-protected killer cops.

So this is to say that the practice of identity politics by *cops* is inherently a power-play, while the practice of identity politics by 'culture warriors [of color]' is inherently socially-*progressive*, since their particular identity, BIPOC, is *underrepresented* in the positions of power in racist capitalist bourgeois society. (Not to imply that the best political strategy is to seek more social-minority positions / representation *within* that racist capitalist bourgeois power structure, for obvious reasons.)


Yes, I know that "progressives" justify their hypocrisy by claiming their position represents progress (without ever presenting arguments to that effect). If anything, the radical subjectivity you referred to above can easily be claimed to be regressive.

ckaihatsu wrote:Again, I'd have to say that you're too-casually / -recklessly conflating *dissimilar* terms.

'Transracial' here -- in my understanding -- is 'white-to-black', which isn't really *insulting* or *demeaning* to blacks, in practice, but it's still *privileged* behavior, since it's being done by whites, a privileged demographic.

Feminists saying that they accept transgenderism is a *different* matter, because they're implicitly critiquing *from-the-left* with that chosen positioning -- it's a critique and differentiation leftward from the more-conventional and -conservative *radical feminist* camp / turf, which seeks *bourgeois* status within the capitalist bourgeois power structure, in parity with *men* in the power structure.

The 'transracial' thing is more *cultural*, and even arguably socially *progressive* since such whites are implicitly *forfeiting* any demonstrated claims to 'whiteness', from their adoption of aspects of *black* culture.

The TERF thing is more politically- and power-*conscious*, since it's an explicitly stated political position, of principle.


And yet, the same people who as you mention represent progress are those who oppose transracial claims, even when they could indeed be seen as progressive as you say, and the right of those who make them to choose their own identity and be recognized as such - a right they claim those who identify themselves as transgender have and are being violated by transphobia.

It's very arbitrary when you look into it. Also, is this arbitrariness progressive?
User avatar
By ckaihatsu
#15169237
wat0n wrote:
Yes, I know that "progressives" justify their hypocrisy by claiming their position represents progress (without ever presenting arguments to that effect). If anything, the radical subjectivity you referred to above can easily be claimed to be regressive.



'Regressive' compared to *what*, exactly?

And what are the allegedly "hypocritical" arguments being made by progressives (presumably 'cultural warriors [of color]') -- ?


wat0n wrote:
And yet, the same people who as you mention represent progress are those who oppose transracial claims, even when they could indeed be seen as progressive as you say, and the right of those who make them to choose their own identity and be recognized as such - a right they claim those who identify themselves as transgender have and are being violated by transphobia.



I have to reiterate that you're still comparing apples-and-oranges -- whites who are enamored with black culture are *not* being explicitly political, as the TERFs are doing with their explicit political positioning / statements.

I don't think that any whites being 'transracial' (necessarily culturally), are *benefitting* from their intentional step-down in (bourgeois-)power-structure social status. So where's the harm? (And what are the transracial 'claims', exactly?)

Trans-*gender* claims, on the other hand, are *not* cultural -- they're *not* a personal cultural *choice*, but rather are a *biological* trait (like one's 'straightness' or 'gayness'), and so are *unintentional* and thus deserving of civil rights.

'Transracial' is a personal, discretionary *lifestyle* choice, while sex and sexual identity / transgenderism are *biological*, and unintentional, like eye color or height.

For context:


‭History, Macro-Micro -- politics-logistics-lifestyle

Spoiler: show
Image




wat0n wrote:
It's very arbitrary when you look into it. Also, is this arbitrariness progressive?



I'll invite you to acknowledge the distinction between [1] personally-discretionary / lifestyle, and [2] biological / genetic. The first *is* arbitrary, and possibly progressive, depending, while the second is simply *empirical* / emergent, *involuntary*, and thus not a personal socio-political decision of any kind, though one's own *response* to it may potentially be socially expressed -- 'consciousness'.
By wat0n
#15169245
ckaihatsu wrote:'Regressive' compared to *what*, exactly?


How about using the scientific method to understand reality? Do you think claims like that the idea that there is a reality is about exercising power are profoundly regressive?

ckaihatsu wrote:And what are the allegedly "hypocritical" arguments being made by progressives (presumably 'cultural warriors [of color]') -- ?


People have a right to determine their own identity when it comes to gender, but not when it comes to race.

ckaihatsu wrote:I have to reiterate that you're still comparing apples-and-oranges -- whites who are enamored with black culture are *not* being explicitly political, as the TERFs are doing with their explicit political positioning / statements.

I don't think that any whites being 'transracial' (necessarily culturally), are *benefitting* from their intentional step-down in (bourgeois-)power-structure social status. So where's the harm? (And what are the transracial 'claims', exactly?)

Trans-*gender* claims, on the other hand, are *not* cultural -- they're *not* a personal cultural *choice*, but rather are a *biological* trait (like one's 'straightness' or 'gayness'), and so are *unintentional* and thus deserving of civil rights.

'Transracial' is a personal, discretionary *lifestyle* choice, while sex and sexual identity / transgenderism are *biological*, and unintentional, like eye color or height.

For context:


‭History, Macro-Micro -- politics-logistics-lifestyle

Spoiler: show
Image


I don't see why any of this matters (more on this below) but either way the claim is that whites who regard themselves as black are appropriating blackness in some way, for their own gain. And it's similar to what TERFs claim, in that MtF transgender people are also trying to appropriate femininity in some way.

ckaihatsu wrote:I'll invite you to acknowledge the distinction between [1] personally-discretionary / lifestyle, and [2] biological / genetic. The first *is* arbitrary, and possibly progressive, depending, while the second is simply *empirical* / emergent, *involuntary*, and thus not a personal socio-political decision of any kind, though one's own *response* to it may potentially be socially expressed -- 'consciousness'.


There are 3 possible responses to this:

1) Gender is not biological, not according to some feminists at least. Particularly those of the postmodern kind who will claim it's socially constructed like race is (and some, like Judith Butler, take this further and claim sex is also socially constructed). A more moderate claim is that gender is about social roles and perception, while sex is strictly about biology, which justifies that seeing yourself as a woman while being a biological male (with a normal Y-chromosome) is possible.

2) It's a meaningless distinction when the arguments for supporting one trans-category can apply to the other.

3) If race is, as you imply, personally-discretionary (or socially constructed) and not a biological construct dealing with skin pigmentation or genealogy, you could say there is a stronger case for trans-identities dealing with race than for those dealing with sex (or gender, if used as a synonym of sex).

For all of these cases, the conclusion is the same: It is hypocritical and arbitrary to support one and not the other when it comes to both transgender and transracial identities.
User avatar
By ckaihatsu
#15169291
wat0n wrote:
Yes, I know that "progressives" justify their hypocrisy by claiming their position represents progress (without ever presenting arguments to that effect). If anything, the radical subjectivity you referred to above can easily be claimed to be regressive.



ckaihatsu wrote:
'Regressive' compared to *what*, exactly?



wat0n wrote:
How about using the scientific method to understand reality? Do you think claims like that the idea that there is a reality is about exercising power are profoundly regressive?



You're indicating the political balkanization on the left, according to turf, which is a fair critique, empirically.

Coming from *you*, though, such a critique has to be viewed with suspicion, since you're definitely *not* a leftist, or sympathetic.


Interpersonal Meanings

Spoiler: show
Image



philosophical abstractions

Spoiler: show
Image



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
And what are the allegedly "hypocritical" arguments being made by progressives (presumably 'cultural warriors [of color]') -- ?



wat0n wrote:
People have a right to determine their own identity when it comes to gender, but not when it comes to race.



I can't agree that the two are inherently comparable regarding individual 'identity' -- you're subscribing to the notion that gender identity is a *choice*, and I just don't see the empirical social evidence for that to be the case.

Rather, aspects like sex and sexual / gender identity are internally *realized*, and so no one can argue against someone's 'straightness' or 'gayness', or 'masculinity', or 'femininity'.

In attempting to situate gender identity as being a 'choice' you're trying to open the door to *cultural* arguments and provocations, to fuel right-wing-type *culture wars*, as over gender. But, since gender identity *isn't* a lifestyle choice, it's inherently *removed* from bickering over cultural preferences, and instead well-situated in the domain of *human* rights, and civil rights.

Racial preferences, on the other hand, are *clearly* a lifestyle choice, and so *is* cultural -- meaning whatever culture one may choose to subjectively select and identify-with, whether it's a *nationality* culture, or a *racial* / cultural one.


---


wat0n wrote:
I don't see why any of this matters (more on this below) but either way the claim is that whites who regard themselves as black are appropriating blackness in some way, for their own gain. And it's similar to what TERFs claim, in that MtF transgender people are also trying to appropriate femininity in some way.



But are *you* making this argument? You're detachedly indicating the left-wing 'cultural imperialism' argument, but you're not left-wing yourself.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
I'll invite you to acknowledge the distinction between [1] personally-discretionary / lifestyle, and [2] biological / genetic. The first *is* arbitrary, and possibly progressive, depending, while the second is simply *empirical* / emergent, *involuntary*, and thus not a personal socio-political decision of any kind, though one's own *response* to it may potentially be socially expressed -- 'consciousness'.



wat0n wrote:
There are 3 possible responses to this:

1) Gender is not biological, not according to some feminists at least. Particularly those of the postmodern kind who will claim it's socially constructed like race is (and some, like Judith Butler, take this further and claim sex is also socially constructed). A more moderate claim is that gender is about social roles and perception, while sex is strictly about biology, which justifies that seeing yourself as a woman while being a biological male (with a normal Y-chromosome) is possible.



If you want to consider a 'mix', or 'hybrid' treatment of nurture-with-nature, that's fair as well, though the result, regardless, is a gender identity that is still not *chosen* by oneself. By the age of adolescence, or earlier, one has a fairly solid sense of one's own gender / sexual identity, meaning that it's *still* not a lifestyle choice, contrary to right-wing imputations.


wat0n wrote:
2) It's a meaningless distinction when the arguments for supporting one trans-category can apply to the other.



You seem to be indicating the civil-society sphere here, so, yes, I'd say we all need to get used to transgenderism -- as in public bathrooms -- just as we should all be past Jim Crow attitudes by now.


wat0n wrote:
3) If race is, as you imply, personally-discretionary (or socially constructed) and not a biological construct dealing with skin pigmentation or genealogy, you could say there is a stronger case for trans-identities dealing with race than for those dealing with sex (or gender, if used as a synonym of sex).



I never said or implied that race itself is solely socially constructed -- *of course* there's genetics for racial characteristics at the biological level.

That said, though, what I *did* say is that racial *identity* is a lifestyle choice, as much as one's cultural dining preferences.

Your right-wing approach here is to take the *biological* basis of gender identity, and to incorrectly *generalize* it to 'transracial' cultural choices, in an attempt to situate racial-cultural treatments on the same hard ground as (inherently involuntary) gender-identity ones.

In other words if someone can say that they're "inherently" black, despite being phenotypically white, then they would have socially legitimate access to plundering marginalized, culturally-rich black cultures, for the sake of commodification and profit-making.


wat0n wrote:
For all of these cases, the conclusion is the same: It is hypocritical and arbitrary to support one and not the other when it comes to both transgender and transracial identities.



No, it's *not* an arbitrary, false dichotomy -- it's a *real* dichotomy. Gender identity is mainly / mostly *biological* (combined with social conditioning from early-on), while one's chosen *cultural* identity, including preferences of race / ethnicity / gender / nationality / etc., is *not* involuntary, and is instead personally subjective and *intentional* as far as society and government is concerned.
User avatar
By Potemkin
#15169305
It is, however, this very consequent egalitarianism which is simultaneously the limitations of the Jacobin politics. Recall Marx's fundamental insight about the "bourgeois" limitation of the logic of equality: the capitalist inequalities ("exploitations") are not the "unprincipled violations of the principle of equality," but are absolutely inherent to the logic of equality, they are the paradoxical result of its consequent realization. What we have in mind here is not only the old boring motif of how market exchange presupposes formally/legally equal subjects who meet and interact on the market; the crucial moment of Marx's critique of "bourgeois" socialists is that capitalist exploitation does not involve any kind of "unequal" exchange between the worker and the capitalist - this exchange is fully equal and "just," ideally (in principle), the worker gets paid the full value of the commodity he is selling (his labour force). Of course, radical bourgeois revolutionaries are aware of this limitation; however, the way they try to amend it is through a direct "terrorist" imposition of more and more de facto equality (equal salaries, equal health service...), which can only be imposed through new forms of formal inequality (different sorts of preferential treatments of the under-privileged). In short, the axiom of "equality" means either not enough (it remains the abstract form of actual inequality) or too much (enforce "terrorist" equality) - it is a formalist notion in a strict dialectical sense, i.e., its limitation is precisely that its form is not concrete enough, but a mere neutral container of some content that eludes this form.

It seems to me that this is the crux of the problem which American politics is facing right now - this contradiction between two different versions of bourgeois egalitarianism. Both sides believe in formal equality in a liberal republic, but the one (the Right) believe in maintaining the formal "equality" implicit in market relations, while the other (the Left) believe in a "terrorist" imposition of actual equality (which may involve violations of abstract formal equality). By European standards, both sides could be described as "liberal", since both sides are essentially Jacobins (the American Constitution is essentially a Jacobin constitution). And, as Marx pointed out, both are one-sided, both are trapped within the horizon of "bourgeois right", bourgeois equality. Which is why the contradiction between them cannot be resolved.
By wat0n
#15169311
ckaihatsu wrote:You're indicating the political balkanization on the left, according to turf, which is a fair critique, empirically.

Coming from *you*, though, such a critique has to be viewed with suspicion, since you're definitely *not* a leftist, or sympathetic.


Interpersonal Meanings

Spoiler: show
Image



philosophical abstractions

Spoiler: show
Image


The truth of my argument is independent of whether I'm a leftist or not.

ckaihatsu wrote:I can't agree that the two are inherently comparable regarding individual 'identity' -- you're subscribing to the notion that gender identity is a *choice*, and I just don't see the empirical social evidence for that to be the case.

Rather, aspects like sex and sexual / gender identity are internally *realized*, and so no one can argue against someone's 'straightness' or 'gayness', or 'masculinity', or 'femininity'.

In attempting to situate gender identity as being a 'choice' you're trying to open the door to *cultural* arguments and provocations, to fuel right-wing-type *culture wars*, as over gender. But, since gender identity *isn't* a lifestyle choice, it's inherently *removed* from bickering over cultural preferences, and instead well-situated in the domain of *human* rights, and civil rights.

Racial preferences, on the other hand, are *clearly* a lifestyle choice, and so *is* cultural -- meaning whatever culture one may choose to subjectively select and identify-with, whether it's a *nationality* culture, or a *racial* / cultural one.


I don't see why is racial identity all that "clearly" just a lifestyle choice nor do I see why does it matter at all.

ckaihatsu wrote:But are *you* making this argument? You're detachedly indicating the left-wing 'cultural imperialism' argument, but you're not left-wing yourself.


That's because I'm criticizing the inconsistency of the postmodern left.

ckaihatsu wrote:If you want to consider a 'mix', or 'hybrid' treatment of nurture-with-nature, that's fair as well, though the result, regardless, is a gender identity that is still not *chosen* by oneself. By the age of adolescence, or earlier, one has a fairly solid sense of one's own gender / sexual identity, meaning that it's *still* not a lifestyle choice, contrary to right-wing imputations.


Actually IIRC gender identity can change until reaching adulthood, to the point that most cases of gender dysphoria are actually solved as people age.

ckaihatsu wrote:You seem to be indicating the civil-society sphere here, so, yes, I'd say we all need to get used to transgenderism -- as in public bathrooms -- just as we should all be past Jim Crow attitudes by now.


You could have a third unspecified bathroom, I agree.

ckaihatsu wrote:I never said or implied that race itself is solely socially constructed -- *of course* there's genetics for racial characteristics at the biological level.

That said, though, what I *did* say is that racial *identity* is a lifestyle choice, as much as one's cultural dining preferences.

Your right-wing approach here is to take the *biological* basis of gender identity, and to incorrectly *generalize* it to 'transracial' cultural choices, in an attempt to situate racial-cultural treatments on the same hard ground as (inherently involuntary) gender-identity ones.

In other words if someone can say that they're "inherently" black, despite being phenotypically white, then they would have socially legitimate access to plundering marginalized, culturally-rich black cultures, for the sake of commodification and profit-making.


Why would the generalization be incorrect? What makes you believe gender expression is anything but a lifestyle choice too? If you want to behave according to what society associates with a different gender, it's still your preference.

Your last paragraph is exactly what TERFs say about MtF transgender people.

ckaihatsu wrote:No, it's *not* an arbitrary, false dichotomy -- it's a *real* dichotomy. Gender identity is mainly / mostly *biological* (combined with social conditioning from early-on), while one's chosen *cultural* identity, including preferences of race / ethnicity / gender / nationality / etc., is *not* involuntary, and is instead personally subjective and *intentional* as far as society and government is concerned.


The first part is not what postmodern people claim (Judith Butler is a textbook example of it). Since I'm criticizing them, it is of course relevant to listen to their antics.
User avatar
By Tainari88
#15169312
Potemkin wrote:It seems to me that this is the crux of the problem which American politics is facing right now - this contradiction between two different versions of bourgeois egalitarianism. Both sides believe in formal equality in a liberal republic, but the one (the Right) believe in maintaining the formal "equality" implicit in market relations, while the other (the Left) believe in a "terrorist" imposition of actual equality (which may involve violations of abstract formal equality). By European standards, both sides could be described as "liberal", since both sides are essentially Jacobins (the American Constitution is essentially a Jacobin constitution). And, as Marx pointed out, both are one-sided, both are trapped within the horizon of "bourgeois right", bourgeois equality. Which is why the contradiction between them cannot be resolved.


So how to make this go away or have one side win and make the other concede? Your opinion?
User avatar
By Potemkin
#15169327
Tainari88 wrote:So how to make this go away or have one side win and make the other concede? Your opinion?

Neither side can win, @Tainari88. Both are one-sided and both sides are, within the horizon of bourgeois values, correct. One side simply places more emphasis on formal equality, while the other places more emphasis on actual equality of outcome. Paradoxically, it is their very similarity, and the assumptions and values which they share, which make it almost impossible for either side to gain a final victory. The answer of course, as always, is revolution. :)
User avatar
By ckaihatsu
#15169356


In short, the axiom of "equality" means either not enough (it remains the abstract form of actual inequality) or too much (enforce "terrorist" equality) - it is a formalist notion in a strict dialectical sense, i.e., its limitation is precisely that its form is not concrete enough, but a mere neutral container of some content that eludes this form.



Potemkin wrote:
It seems to me that this is the crux of the problem which American politics is facing right now - this contradiction between two different versions of bourgeois egalitarianism. Both sides believe in formal equality in a liberal republic, but the one (the Right) believe in maintaining the formal "equality" implicit in market relations, while the other (the Left) believe in a "terrorist" imposition of actual equality (which may involve violations of abstract formal equality). By European standards, both sides could be described as "liberal", since both sides are essentially Jacobins (the American Constitution is essentially a Jacobin constitution). And, as Marx pointed out, both are one-sided, both are trapped within the horizon of "bourgeois right", bourgeois equality. Which is why the contradiction between them cannot be resolved.



Agreed, and -- given a recent illustrative treatment of 'equality', of mine, below -- I'd just like to note that a *sounder* approach to equality would be an ever-widening *scope* of socio-political terrain devoted to the intentional implementation and practice of social equality.

Starting with the aforementioned (legal) formal equality of the 'liberal republic', one can ask why isn't there also legal equality regarding access to early childhood education, and equality in access to food provisioning, and also for housing, and jobs, and then control of the workplace and industrial mass production for humane need -- ?

Just as one isn't necessarily going to *sue* someone in the course of their lives, but still has lifelong *access* to the courts, we in discussion don't need to get bogged-down in the landscape of actual varying individual *usage*, but rather we can stay focused on the societal formal *institution* of governmental and resource provisioning and public access, to whatever socially-progressive and enlightened extents.


3-Dimensional Axes of Social Reality

Spoiler: show
Image
User avatar
By ckaihatsu
#15169365
wat0n wrote:
The truth of my argument is independent of whether I'm a leftist or not.



So you're *what*, then, a political *ombudsman*, just innocuously floating around in the public domain while neutrally attacking leftist postmodernism for the common good?

I don't think so myself, but you're certainly adept in the right-wing intellectual guerrilla tactics that you use, such as that detached-neutrality thing that you do.


wat0n wrote:
I don't see why is racial identity all that "clearly" just a lifestyle choice nor do I see why does it matter at all.



Here it is -- you missed this part:


ckaihatsu wrote:
In other words if someone can say that they're "inherently" black, despite being phenotypically white, then they would have socially legitimate access to plundering marginalized, culturally-rich black cultures, for the sake of commodification and profit-making.



---


wat0n wrote:
That's because I'm criticizing the inconsistency of the postmodern left.



Did Wikipedia demur on your offer? (grin)


wat0n wrote:
Actually IIRC gender identity can change until reaching adulthood, to the point that most cases of gender dysphoria are actually solved as people age.



Then my point stands that gender identity is *not* intentional, and is *not* a lifestyle choice -- it needs to be fully equally protected as a civil right along with all other identity-based government-recognized civil rights.


wat0n wrote:
You could have a third unspecified bathroom, I agree.


wat0n wrote:
Why would the generalization be incorrect? What makes you believe gender expression is anything but a lifestyle choice too? If you want to behave according to what society associates with a different gender, it's still your preference.



There's a distinction between one's inherent, involuntary gender identity, and one's own voluntary intentional *consciousness* / expression of the same.

Behaving according to what society associates with a different gender is transgenderism, while behaving in some kind of gender *expression* kind of way is either lifestyle and/or *politics* and both enjoy their own Bill-of-Rights-type protections under governmental (bourgeois) law, or 'civil rights'.


wat0n wrote:
Your last paragraph is exactly what TERFs say about MtF transgender people.



I've already addressed this spurious conflation of yours -- of necessarily-involuntary transgenderism, with lifestyle-choice cultural preferences, or 'transracialism'. The terms are not comparable.


wat0n wrote:
The first part is not what postmodern people claim (Judith Butler is a textbook example of it). Since I'm criticizing them, it is of course relevant to listen to their antics.



So soft-left types say that gender identity is mostly *socially constructed* [early-on] -- so what?

It's still *involuntary*, meaning that transgenderism is not the wanton and frivolous 'lifestyle choice' formulation that's imputed by the right-wing.
By wat0n
#15169370
ckaihatsu wrote:So you're *what*, then, a political *ombudsman*, just innocuously floating around in the public domain while neutrally attacking leftist postmodernism for the common good?

I don't think so myself, but you're certainly adept in the right-wing intellectual guerrilla tactics that you use, such as that detached-neutrality thing that you do.


Are you claiming only leftists can criticize the left? Or are you one of those subjectivists who believes claims are true but only when it suits you?

ckaihatsu wrote:Here it is -- you missed this part:


Yes, it's the TERF argument but applied to race. What's your point?

ckaihatsu wrote:Did Wikipedia demur on your offer? (grin)


:eh:

ckaihatsu wrote:Then my point stands that gender identity is *not* intentional, and is *not* a lifestyle choice -- it needs to be fully equally protected as a civil right along with all other identity-based government-recognized civil rights.


Is racial identity a lifestyle choice? Can a visibly Black person join the KKK claiming to identify as White? Can a visibly White person apply to scholarships directed to Blacks claiming to identify as Black?

ckaihatsu wrote:There's a distinction between one's inherent, involuntary gender identity, and one's own voluntary intentional *consciousness* / expression of the same.

Behaving according to what society associates with a different gender is transgenderism, while behaving in some kind of gender *expression* kind of way is either lifestyle and/or *politics* and both enjoy their own Bill-of-Rights-type protections under governmental (bourgeois) law, or 'civil rights'.


What makes you believe the same distinction cannot apply to other identity classes like race?

ckaihatsu wrote:I've already addressed this spurious conflation of yours -- of necessarily-involuntary transgenderism, with lifestyle-choice cultural preferences, or 'transracialism'. The terms are not comparable.


And you have yet to show this distinction you are making isn't spurious itself.

ckaihatsu wrote:So soft-left types say that gender identity is mostly *socially constructed* [early-on] -- so what?

It's still *involuntary*, meaning that transgenderism is not the wanton and frivolous 'lifestyle choice' formulation that's imputed by the right-wing.


What makes you believe transracialism is voluntary? Can you prove so?
User avatar
By ckaihatsu
#15169387
wat0n wrote:
Are you claiming only leftists can criticize the left? Or are you one of those subjectivists who believes claims are true but only when it suits you?



Per my 'Interpersonal Meanings' and 'philosophical abstractions' diagrams, I see that even *empirical facts* are necessarily politicized, so your own location on the political / ideological spectrum *colors* the content of what you say here.


Ideologies & Operations -- Fundamentals

Spoiler: show
Image



---


wat0n wrote:
Yes, it's the TERF argument but applied to race. What's your point?



My point is this, as already mentioned:


ckaihatsu wrote:
Then my point stands that gender identity is *not* intentional, and is *not* a lifestyle choice -- it needs to be fully equally protected as a civil right along with all other identity-based government-recognized civil rights.


ckaihatsu wrote:
Behaving according to what society associates with a different gender is transgenderism, while behaving in some kind of gender *expression* kind of way is either lifestyle and/or *politics* and both enjoy their own Bill-of-Rights-type protections under governmental (bourgeois) law, or 'civil rights'.



---


wat0n wrote:
:eh:


wat0n wrote:
Is racial identity a lifestyle choice?



Yes, it is, and there are voluminous examples for people choosing to subscribe to cultures, including racial ones, that are other than their own biologically.


wat0n wrote:
Can a visibly Black person join the KKK claiming to identify as White?



*No one* should join any white supremacist organization. Bad example.


wat0n wrote:
Can a visibly White person apply to scholarships directed to Blacks claiming to identify as Black?



This is exactly why I say that cultural / racial identity is a lifestyle / choice, because of this potential scenario that you're positing.

I have no problem -- and I think *no one* should -- in letting transgendered people pick which public bathroom to use (etc.), but this scenario of yours would be *invalid*, and thus *not* like the transgendered aspect, as I've been arguing.

This scenario is making my point for me that 'transracialism' is *not* comparable to transgenderism.


wat0n wrote:
What makes you believe the same distinction cannot apply to other identity classes like race?



See my entire, repeated line of argumentation up to this point.


wat0n wrote:
And you have yet to show this distinction you are making isn't spurious itself.



You're not addressing my position, and I'm not here to "justify" my stated position to you.


wat0n wrote:
What makes you believe transracialism is voluntary? Can you prove so?



What matters is that *society* -- most importantly *government* -- does not recognize 'transracialism' as being involuntary, the way that transgenderism is.
By wat0n
#15169389
ckaihatsu wrote:Per my 'Interpersonal Meanings' and 'philosophical abstractions' diagrams, I see that even *empirical facts* are necessarily politicized, so your own location on the political / ideological spectrum *colors* the content of what you say here.


Ideologies & Operations -- Fundamentals

Spoiler: show
Image


I see. So if you throw yourself off the rooftop of a 40 floor building, will what happens to you depend on whether you are a leftist or a rightist?

ckaihatsu wrote:My point is this, as already mentioned:


TERFs would say MtF transgender people are choosing to identify as female.

ckaihatsu wrote:Yes, it is, and there are voluminous examples for people choosing to subscribe to cultures, including racial ones, that are other than their own biologically.


And same thing could apply to genders, it seems.

ckaihatsu wrote:*No one* should join any white supremacist organization. Bad example.


I'm not asking about what should happen, but about what would happen.

ckaihatsu wrote:This is exactly why I say that cultural / racial identity is a lifestyle / choice, because of this potential scenario that you're positing.

I have no problem -- and I think *no one* should -- in letting transgendered people pick which public bathroom to use (etc.), but this scenario of yours would be *invalid*, and thus *not* like the transgendered aspect, as I've been arguing.

This scenario is making my point for me that 'transracialism' is *not* comparable to transgenderism.


Well, TERFs would say MtF transgender people are claiming to be women to get something out of it. For instance, there are scholarships that are exclusive to women. There are sport competitions that are also exclusive to women. Also entrepreneurship support that is geared towards females. And in some jurisdictions, women can retire early.

Why are those claims different from what you are complaining about here?

ckaihatsu wrote:You're not addressing my position, and I'm not here to "justify" my stated position to you.


Usually when people claim something, they should back it up.

ckaihatsu wrote:What matters is that *society* -- most importantly *government* -- does not recognize 'transracialism' as being involuntary, the way that transgenderism is.


Government doesn't recognize transracialism at all, period. Posing as being from a different race to get government benefits could get you jailed for fraud. Same applies to gender, if you haven't formally filed a gender reassignment request. And actually, it also applies (squarely) to nonbinary and genderfluid identities, plenty of governments don't recognize the former and I don't know about any recognizing the latter.

So what's the answer here? Should people who claim to be from a different gender or racial identity than that which is determined by biology, appearance or ancestry have their claims recognized by society at large? I actually think it's a difficult question to deal with, but I do believe there is no reason to treat both differently and particularly if you adhere to postmodern notions about these things.

Probably an intermediate solution where people are expected to provide proof of their trans-identity to avoid fraud and where criteria varies depending on the situation makes most sense. But this requires a level of moderation and pragmatism that the far left can't practice, so I'm actually all for recognizing trans-identities so all of this nonsense will collapse under its own weight when you see masses of people claiming to be from a disadvantaged group to get government benefits and the law does not allow the government to demand proof, or simply recognizes that identity can be fluid and thus one can perfectly feel from a different gender or race sometimes (like when it comes to applying for grants and social welfare).
User avatar
By ckaihatsu
#15169394
wat0n wrote:
I see. So if you throw yourself off the rooftop of a 40 floor building, will what happens to you depend on whether you are a leftist or a rightist?



Cute -- now you're conflating objective (physical) reality, with objective *social* reality.


[6] Worldview Diagram

Spoiler: show
Image



---


wat0n wrote:
TERFs would say MtF transgender people are choosing to identify as female.



Okay, let's nail down some definitions here....



Gender identity is the personal sense of one's own gender.[1]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_identity




TERF (/ˈtɜːrf/, also written terf) is an acronym for trans-exclusionary radical feminist. First recorded in 2008,[1] the term originally applied to the minority of feminists espousing sentiments that other feminists considered transphobic, such as the rejection of the assertion that trans women are women, the exclusion of trans women from women's spaces, and opposition to transgender rights legislation.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TERF



Obviously my position *conflicts* with the TERF position, since any transphobic position, like the TERF one, is *reactionary*.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
[T]here are voluminous examples for people choosing to subscribe to cultures, including racial ones, that are other than their own biologically.



wat0n wrote:
And same thing could apply to genders, it seems.



So you concur with the reactionary TERF position that gender identity is a lifestyle choice, and is not involuntary.


wat0n wrote:
I'm not asking about what should happen, but about what would happen.



I'm not addressing your imaginary hypothetical scenario -- I'm here for the politics, which is all-about the 'should'.


wat0n wrote:
Well, TERFs would say MtF transgender people are claiming to be women to get something out of it. For instance, there are scholarships that are exclusive to women. There are sport competitions that are also exclusive to women. Also entrepreneurship support that is geared towards females. And in some jurisdictions, women can retire early.

Why are those claims different from what you are complaining about here?



I'm not 'complaining' about anything on this thread, contrary to your imputation. (What am I "complaining" about, or are you just using a caricature / stereotype of my politics in a wantonly disparaging way?)

I don't agree with the TERF accusation of transgendered-based opportunism.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
You're not addressing my position, and I'm not here to "justify" my stated position to you.



wat0n wrote:
Usually when people claim something, they should back it up.



And so I have -- I've said repeatedly that gender identity is involuntary, and I referenced Wikipedia.


wat0n wrote:
Government doesn't recognize transracialism at all, period. Posing as being from a different race to get government benefits could get you jailed for fraud. Same applies to gender, if you haven't formally filed a gender reassignment request. And actually, it also applies (squarely) to nonbinary and genderfluid identities, plenty of governments don't recognize the former and I don't know about any recognizing the latter.

So what's the answer here? Should people who claim to be from a different gender or racial identity than that which is determined by biology, appearance or ancestry have their claims recognized by society at large? I actually think it's a difficult question to deal with, but I do believe there is no reason to treat both differently and particularly if you adhere to postmodern notions about these things.

Probably an intermediate solution where people are expected to provide proof of their trans-identity to avoid fraud and where criteria varies depending on the situation makes most sense. But this requires a level of moderation and pragmatism that the far left can't practice, so I'm actually all for recognizing trans-identities so all of this nonsense will collapse under its own weight when you see masses of people claiming to be from a disadvantaged group to get government benefits and the law does not allow the government to demand proof, or simply recognizes that identity can be fluid and thus one can perfectly feel from a different gender or race sometimes (like when it comes to applying for grants and social welfare).



The far left position (nominally) is to provide government benefits for *all*, regardless of social identity, so that one's particular identity and/or work history has no bearing on one's experienced standard of living.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gy4dl5Yz3Qc

Trump on trial

Damn a 3 1/2 month old thread and Trump is no wher[…]

2021 Israeli-Palestine Conflict

You're either lying or simply being wrong and stu[…]

This Florida man is a real shit bag. He is trying[…]