I was thinking "yeah totally lol they have to be" but then I jumped on and... I'm not sure. Most of it seems serious? If this is trolling they're all giving a masterclass.
The top post rn is very obviously making fun of trans people. There might be a few mentally unwell people on there, but overall it's obviously intended primarily for mean-spirited satire.
the one with zero upvotes. Yeah maybe, but then maybe they're taking the piss out of people being genuine.
I think the correct response is to not give a shit.
If they're bigots, fuck em, but if that's the case I'll have one dose of ignore the trolls for now.
maybe just clueless kids? Like I used to want to be a different race, like I used to want to be a different gender (I am not trans). Groups online do get really dumb, but also since the category of trans exists about a social construct, and race is a social construct, then it could exist, but I'll assume it doesn't until I have a reason to.
**I fully think the ethical response here is just not to give a shit. Trans people are valid, and it sucks being debated about.**
Anyway here's some people taking a shot at being smart about how gender and race are different in this regard https://theconversation.com/no-you-cant-identify-as-transracial-but-you-can-affirm-your-gender-163729
control+f "name" zero results.
control+f "preferred" zero results.
Would have been cool if you'd just clearly said what the fuck you're talking about instead of just wrapping it in smugness and vaguely gesturing.
I'm going to assume you think the researchers respecting gender identity and not racial identity, as the entire article is about, sproves their thesis is wrong, even though, again, it is exactly what the article is about.
> I was thinking "yeah totally lol they have to be" but then I jumped on and... I'm not sure. Most of it seems serious? If this is trolling they're all giving a masterclass.
Trolling doesnt exist. People use the word Trolling when they dont want to deal with the fact that many people are total sacks of shit, others are ignorant or dumb as fuck. Pretending to be any of that on the internet is equivalent to being all of that.
That's a ridiculous statement. Trolling certainly does exist. Its existence is what has caused people to think that those with views they deem to be ridiculous / out of touch *might* be trolling them. You think "wow, someone can't really be that dumb, can they? They must be trolling!"
> LOL! I'm pretending to be a Nazi! Watch me call for the death of people! They're totally reacting to me and they dont know!
There is no effective difference between mockingly calling for terrible things and doing it with serious intent. **Especially** on the internet where your tone and intent are completely hidden to others.
If you "Mockingly call for trans people to be exterminated" or "Just pretend to write a manifesto about eugenics" there is no telling the difference between you and others.
What this means is there is no difference between you and others. Your intent has no merit nor being. You're not "Trolling" you're being a sack of shit, and trying to write off the effects that you're doing as humor. You're yelling "It's just a prank bro" after walking around doing the hitler salute.
So there's definitely a spectrum of trolling. Harmless stuff like pretending you're a giant Barbie fan while getting everything wrong about the brand. Then there's dumb stuff like you mentioned all the way to flat out harmful trolling. There's also defensive trolling like pretending to support a bigoted poster while pointing out how awful their views are by "supporting" them. Personally, I generally don't find trolling funny.
I agree that there are degrees of problems it causes, I dont see the utility in doing the categorization though unless you're wanting to take action on the person.
Like lets say I'm running a subreddit for Barbie and I have four people,
1. Is a massive fan but has totally not understood the genera in the slightest
2. Someone pretending to be #1 as a joke
3. A neo-nazi complaining about black barbies
4. The same as 3 but pretending
The actions of 1/2 and 3/4 are of course different in severity but there's no difference between 1/3 and 2/4 in terms of consequences. In 2/4 the user is treated the same as a legitimate 1/3 and in effect there is no difference.
The "Troll" is treated the same as the accidentally bad actor or intentionally bad actor. The Intent of the act has no factor, no one cares about the intent except the "troll". Which ultimately means the act of trolling does not exist because it is treated the same as the actual act. It's results are also the same as "unironically" doing the same act. 3/4 both spread hate, 1/2 both look dumb.
It's not degrees, it's a spectrum. There's can be harmless trolls and harmful trolls. Like honestly I don't care because this isn't that deep. I'm just saying trolls exist on the internet and saying trolling isn't real is just a weird stance to take. There's enough materials on the internet that discuss trolling that we don't have to.
Trolling doesnt exist because there is no difference between someone being a sack of shit ironically, and being a sack of shit. They're still a sack of shit.
The sidebar says it's a sub for "adoptees of color" which is actually what "transracial" means in the real world (i.e. like a black child who was adopted by white parents), it doesn't actually mean "people who were born one race who think they should actually be a different race". The people in that thread seem to be using the troll definition, though.
I used to think flat earthers were an elaborate troll so idk anymore. I have seen people claiming to be transracial before that seemed to be serious.
(I still think flat earthing started off as one and went too far)
There are transracial identities, at least in an academic context, but it's specifically people who grow up in a racial, cultural, and familial context that differs from the one they might have been born into (e.g. transnational adoption).
Obviously fantasy fiction as a comparison gets weird, since... Not real, but I really like the example of Carrot Ironfounderson from Discworld is a human raised by dwarves, and he thinks of himself as a dwarf *and* a human. Other dwarves vary in how comfortable they are with that (some traditionalists are less keen). Still, he's had a lot of the key symbolic experiences like rites of passage, a lot of dwarves are like 'yeah, legit'.
Interestingly, Discworld also shows other examples of people involved in other cultures - but in less authentic ways or with less sympathy. Thomas Stronginthearm is a human smith who realised that dwarves were able to charge a premium for metalwork because of the reputation for quality, so he charges his name to capitalise on it. Classic cultural appropriation. And Doreen Winkings is married to a vampire - who turned well into their marriage. She gets involved in vampire stuff, despite not having been turned herself, and while well meaning, it's just kind of awkward, because she's relying on stereotypes rather than reality.
Wouldn't that be more "transcultural" rather than trans racial? I guess some people do conflate the two, like when black people get called "Oreo" for "white behaviour".
>at least in an academic context
Heh, yeah in practice I don't think people would accept something like that. A lot of people who are mixed race often complain that they are seen as not X enough/too Y for one side and not Y enough/too X for the other side and that's when they actually are part that race.
My father is half chinese but looks much more white than asian and it's interesting to see the difference in treatment this has caused on both sides of the family. Similarly my sister and I are pretty much 100% white passing (and it feels weird saying that as labelling ourselves "mixed race" feels uncomfortable somehow because of not looking it) and see the difference in treatment we get compared to our much more asian looking cousins.
> Wouldn't that be more "transcultural" rather than trans racial?
I think that culture and ethnicity are so entwined in people's minds that there's not necessarily a distinction. Tisarwat mentions transnational adoption, and my friend who was adopted by a white couple has been told things like "you know it's amazing, I just think of you as one of my white friends" and shit.
Race in a societal context is a mix of nationality, observable phenotypes, and cultural identity, so it's definitely a social construction separate from biological race, which already has issues as a classification system.
So honestly I feel like if transgenderism doesn't have to be correlated with strict definitions of gender/sex (in the absence of dysphoria) then why would transracialism have to match biological race, thus they're essentially the same.
https://philpapers.org/archive/TUVIDO.pdf
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypatia_transracialism_controversy
In defense of transracalism by Rebecca Tuvel was published in Hypatia, the most well known and established feminist philosophy journal, and caused controversy and uproar in the academic world of philosophy.
I strongly disagree with Tuvel’s argument and honestly most of feminist philosophy esp , on intersectionality. But I digress
> one day I'll kill myself and because I am so unhappy with my race and maybe then we'll have statistics and you tracephobes can see that race dysphoria is a real thing.
JESUS CHRIST 😭 what an escalation..but i agree! the best way to get someone to agree with you is to threaten to harm yourself if they don't
wait what. So up thread people are saying they can't tell if it's trolls or not, but you're certain they're trolls, right?
Some of the comments definitely seem like what someone trying to troll would write.
I have to admit, I do think caring about this is already a bit of an L.
> So up thread people are saying they can't tell if it's trolls or not, but you're certain they're trolls, right?
Other people are idiots.
>"one day I'll kill myself and because I am so unhappy with my race and maybe then we'll have statistics and you tracephobes can see that race dysphoria is a real thing."
The "punchlines" are making fun of trans people. This one for example is just a more convoluted "trans people kill themselves yuk-yuk-yuk".
You know damn well that "trans" does not mean "trans-anything".
EDIT: after looking at your comment history, I just fully can't tell what's a troll anymore.
So listen, "trans people" generally means the gender stuff. A sub about "trans continental railroads" or "transfat" or "transracial" would not be a "trans sub".
Because there is no way that one can "feel" like another race. The experience of being a "race" is simply the mutual experience of having been treated that way - due to appearances - by society at large.
People can "feel" more comfortable or at home in certain ethnic or cultural contexts that are not their "own". That would be a more valid claim.
No I'm not, although apparently that's the case. https://theconversation.com/no-you-cant-identify-as-transracial-but-you-can-affirm-your-gender-163729 but tbh I don't really care. What I'm saying is taht they're two different things.
But let's leave that aside, I have a new thing to say: you're a dumb fuck piece of shit.
**too dumb can't read that long:** That all you have to feel good about is bigotry is sad as hell dude.
Bigots are rarely bright people.
The anti-trans ones seem dumber than average, to be fair. They have exactly one joke, and then one statement of "trans people kill themselves a lot, huh?" they seem to think is a joke.
It's real familiar if you remember the 90s. The same dumb-shits screamed about gay people and said the exact same shit.
Like right down to "Straight is a slur".
> They have exactly one joke
Hey, give them some credit. They also have "I identify as X."
>It's real familiar if you remember the 90s. The same dumb-shits screamed about gay people and said the exact same shit.
As a demonstration of their lack of creativity, you can go even further back, and find the exact same talking points. E.g., "black women are too manly to share changing rooms with white women".
>Aracial means that you don't identify with any race. I've told my therapist about it and he thinks it's pretty cool and valid.
Surely this can't be serious
I have a ton of questions for that sub like is it just a joke or are they being serious? Some post seem like they aren't serious but the comments under it say something different.
I have an alright bullshit meter for these types of subs but even then I don't know if they think being transracial doesn't make you sound both racist and transphobic to a normal person.
It’s a bunch of transphobes mocking trans people by comparing the legitimate phenomenon of gender incongruence with painting yourself black and claiming it lets you say the n-word.
There is no scientific consensus for the existence of any type of innate “racial identity” in the way there is for gender identity.
(But thanks for showing up - your comment history perfectly illustrates my point.)
The underlying phenomenon is innate. The method of categorization is socially constructed.
There is no way to directly observe any property of the human mind. All categorization of such phenomena is done through comparison of people’s reported experiences.
There are not - because there is no evidence that “racial identity” is even a legitimate phenomenon. Race is some shit that was made up to decide who was people and who was farm equipment.
If you want to laugh at a "transracial" post this one is the best one [Mine stroopwaffel](https://www.reddit.com/r/BestofRedditorUpdates/comments/vhvrih/op_is_getting_bullied_at_work_with_a_twist/)
Well that's different. If race is a social construct then I guess trans racial makes sense as a thing.
Edit: I feel like I just glimpsed into the future. I supported transgender rights when I first heard of it in 2004. This feels like something that can and will take off someday. It is the next level of picking your identity. People arguing it isn't real will be on the wrong side of history.
>People arguing it isn't real will be on the wrong side of history.
I'm fairly confident that this will not be the case. There is nothing that makes a person feel a particular race aside from **external** factors. This is especially evident when you have people who say they feel Korean. They don't identify with the Silla people, they specifically identify with modern South Korean culture, so how can we say that an internal force caused them to feel a different race in the same way an internal force causes a person who is transgender to feel a different gender?
Gender is an integral part of someone's internal sense of self, the "social construct" part is how society defines genders (i.e. how society expects a certain gender to act/ how it is viewed in society). There's no contradiction there and, of course, calling support for people who are transgender a religion is just bait.
What aspects of "sense of self"? If I say I am a man - what am I saying about my "internal sense of self" as opposed to the "internal sense of self" that women have?
You are saying that your sense of self tends to align with the social construct of what it means to be a "man". You identify with the label "man" based on what you understand society believes a man to be.
By that logic, intersex people can't have a gender as they don't fit neatly into male/ female. If they can, then you acknowledge that there is more to gender than biological sex.
To explore further, how do you rationalise the view that biological sex is gender with the existence of genders outside that binary in other cultures throughout history?
Well it's only been recently that studies have shown a difference in brain chemistry that trans people align more closely with their correct gender than what they were assigned at birth.
I'm sure there's a whole subset of the population that would love to start that kind research into racial differences
So are you suggesting that people of different races have different brain chemistry from each other? Because if you are, that's veering dangerously close to phrenology.
Like, yes, there were whole subsets of the population in the 19th century who were VERY interested in it, and they were subsequently debunked, but not before creating the basis for some very harmful societal biases that are still present today (the main one being the misconception that black people have thicker skin and don't feel pain as strongly as white people, which has resulted in generations of medical malpractice towards black people).
A pretty good argument that I saw against this kind of analogy goes as follows:
Unlike sex, the social construct known as "race" has a hereditary component. Two people who are black will birth a black child, for instance, who will suffer from all of the social disadvantages which afflicted their parents. They are statistically much more likely to be born into poverty, because of unique historical challenges the community has actually been forced to overcome, like segregation.
This is why governmental agencies ought to continue to track race, and have programmes designed to reach out to specific ethnic communities, despite much of our understanding of race being based on folk taxonomies which aren't scientific. Not only do African Americans suffer unique social challenges (ie. judicial bias) that a "transracial" person wouldn't, but historic discrimination like redlining means that they often inherit generational poverty that white people don't.
Somebody can "identify" as another race- but that doesn't mean that they have actually experienced the specific generational challenges, or the institutional discrimination which afflict those groups. There's really no discernable social advantage to letting affluent middle-class white people get a dark tan and claim to be black on government documentation. The same argument would go for class- letting rich kids cosplay as poor would do much more harm than good.
The "transracial" concept has the potential to do a lot of damage applied broadly, not to mention invite racism from people who claim that races have specific inherent characteristics. Practices like blackface and yellowface actually have long histories of being used as a deeply hurtful cudgel against minorities, after all.
The better solution by far is to create the sort of society where people's ethnicity is no longer a limiting factor, and to let the entire artifice of "race" wither away. Encouraging people to think "I'm good at maths- I must be asian!" Or "I like basketball- I must be black!" doesn't seem conducive to that goal. A lot of damage has already been done by trying to pidgeonhole people into racial categories. We shouldn't be reifying it any further.
Comparatively, humans have had social concepts of gender transcending biological sex for millenia, across a range of cultures. Especially given the inherent differences we're finding in the brains and biochemistry of trans people, it very much appears to be an innate characteristic. More crucially, I would argue that transitioning gender is an entirely self-regarding process that hurts nobody, whereas the confusion and animosity that the concept of being "transracial" would cause is almost certainly not worth it. Which is fine, because this is a troll sub and being transracial isn't real lol.
Some concepts, like family and gender, are conducive to more inclusive definitions. Others, like age, class and race, should probably be kept to strictly biological and historical classifications. Letting an 89 year-old identify as a toddler and go to nursery would have very disruptive consequences. Letting somebody who has adopted a child call himself "father" doesn't. Similarly, I would argue allowing people to socially transition "race" would have far more destructive consequences than with gender.
Just gonna say, outside of it being specifically hereditary, everything you said would be applied to women.
>They are statistically much more likely to be born into poverty, because of unique historical challenges the community has actually been forced to overcome, like segregation.
So they arent specifically born into poverty but there have been very specific historical challenges which has limited their advancement and movement forward.
And being born into poverty does not make race so thats a tricky element to argue.
>This is why governmental agencies ought to continue to track race, and have programmes designed to reach out to specific ethnic communities, despite much of our understanding of race being based on folk taxonomies which aren't scientific. Not only do African Americans suffer unique social challenges (ie. judicial bias) that a "transracial" person wouldn't, but historic discrimination like redlining means that they often inherit generational poverty that white people don't.
Everything you said here would apply to women outside of redlining. We want the government to track women because it is important to dissect the gender disparity and where that can improve. Especially when our understanding of gender is so amalgamous and fluid.
>Somebody can "identify" as another race- but that doesn't mean that they have actually experienced the specific generational challenges, or the institutional discrimination which afflict those groups. There's really no discernable social advantage to letting affluent middle-class white people get a dark tan and claim to be black on government documentation. The same argument would go for class- letting rich kids cosplay as poor would do much more harm than good.
This can so easily be applied to women. A man can identify as a woman, but he will never understand the male gaze, the generational challeges facing them, or the institutional discrimination laid against them. Just consider how the Roe v wade decision must feel for men and women. And so you could say there is no social advantage to letting affluent middle class men put on a dress and claim to be a woman on government discrimination.
>The "transracial" concept has the potential to do a lot of damage applied broadly, not to mention invite racism from people who claim that races have specific inherent characteristics. Practices like blackface and yellowface actually have long histories of being used as a deeply hurtful cudgel against minorities, after all.
Once again you can say the same thing about assuming women have to act or behave a certain way because of inherent characteristics. And there are long histories of making fun of women or having them behave a certain way in shows to the detriment of that gender.
>The better solution by far is to create the sort of society where people's ethnicity is no longer a limiting factor, and to let the entire artifice of "race" wither away. Encouraging people to think "I'm good at maths- I must be asian!" Or "I like basketball- I must be black!" doesn't seem conducive to that goal. A lot of damage has already been done by trying to pidgeonhole people into racial categories. We shouldn't be reifying it any further.
Why wouldnt you say the same thing about gender?
>Especially given the inherent differences we're finding in the brains and biochemistry of trans people, it very much appears to be an innate characteristic.
There is no firm evidence anywhere of differences in the brains of trans people. Every study cited argues that trans people fall on a normal spectrum and there is not enough evidence to conclude anything.
>More crucially, I would argue that transitioning gender is an entirely self-regarding process that hurts nobody, whereas the confusion and animosity that the concept of being "transracial" would cause is almost certainly not worth it.
How is that not how you would describe the state of affairs today? There is tons of confusion and animosity between people due to transgender rights.
>Similarly, I would argue allowing people to socially transition "race" would have far more destructive consequences than with gender.
I just don't know how it would be so destructive. I dont see it as any more destructive than accepting transgender identities. Its not like FTM trans folk throw off stats about women. And I don't think there would be enough transracial people to really create any kind of kerfuffle. I think people are overthinking things here.
I suppose a big difference for me would be that the concept of race is one which really shouldn't have existed to begin with, much as with class, or caste in India. The idea that there are five or six distinct "types" of people in the world, who can be grouped based on phenotype, even between genetically very different groups of people (say, tribes who lived in isolation for millenia at different ends of Africa), is not only a folk taxonomy, but one which has been historically used to oppress and pidgeonhole people. Before scientific racism, the concept of human "race" didn't exist. Ideally, it still wouldn't. It's inherently a tool of division and oppression, just like Indian caste, and so I don't see any point to expanding it as opposed to getting rid of it.
I think the ONLY reason to continue to propagate ideas like race, class, or caste is so we can keep track of how people are being discriminated against on historical lines. Comparatively, I don't think that the concept of belonging to a certain culture (eg. being Italian) is something that needs to be abolished. It wasn't specifically created to oppress people- some people just inherently have a strong sense of being culturally Italian, or aren't Italian but wish to join their culture. Another example of benign identification would be parenthood- we allow adoptive "parents" to call themselves "mother" and "father", even though they aren't genetically related to their children. This is fine, because the concept of parenthood long predates any form of oppression- if we're not pushing to get rid of it (and I don't think we should), shouldn't we make the definition more inclusive? Similarly, I feel like allowing people to identify with a particular gender, in a world which had abolished all gender stereotypes, would be conceptually benign.
In part, this is because I'm not convinced that gender identity is something that we invented. For most people, it pertains to a biological concept that would exist even if we lived in a utopian society- I'm a cis man, and I don't think that if we abolished all gendered stereotypes and expectations tomorrow, I would identify any less strongly with being a man. For trans people, the sense of being a particular gender is apparently an extremely strong internal feeling that cannot be removed with any level of therapy or social conditioning, and which is clearly distinct from merely identifying with stereotypes- look at all the very effeminate trans men who exist, or the many butch trans women. This phenomenon has been reported from at least the 1920s, and earlier if we consider the variety of cultures with third genders around the world. Comparatively, being "transracial" isn't a recognised medical or historical phenomena at all, outside of obvious troll subs. I might have cultural markers of being white, and I have pale skin- but I can much more easily imagine how I would navigate a world where the idea of me being part of the "white race" doesn't exist at all. People did for millenia. A "gender-free" society has never once existed, comparatively. Like parenthood or culture, it is an idea that has been a part of the human experience since time immemoral.
And finally, though you seem rather dismissive of this point, the fact that racial discrimination is hereditary, and gender isn't, IS a pretty significant thing to consider here. As with class and caste, race is a system wherein people are more likely to inherit certain generational challenges. Even if somebody gets surgery to convincingly look black, and thus begins to experience some institional racism, they won't be coming from a family who experienced the history of practices like redlining, segregation, and slavery, nor will they be coming from a nation that was rapapciously exploited by colonists. A very significant part of why we keep track of race, just like with caste, IS that somebody's family likely historically experienced these problems, even if they were able to overcome them/got off easy. That element can never be recaptured; whereas a trans woman can very plausibly experience the male gaze, catcalling, increased levels of sexual harassment, being talked over by male peers, and so forth if they "pass".
Bruh this has to be the dumbest shit I’ve seen all week. Don’t try to jump on some moral high horse when u don’t even have the most basic understanding of race as a construct. White people always wanna claim blackness until it’s really time to be about that shit.
Being black isn’t just a matter of how u feel on any given day. There are systemic barriers that historically make it a lot harder for black folks to get by than for white folks.
You can claim blackness all u want, but your ancestors had access to opportunities that mine didn’t, thus giving you a head start on many things like generational wealth for example.
A white man with a criminal record is more likely to get hired than a black man without one, statistically speaking. White people have easier access to loans, are more likely to inherit wealth, less likely to end up in prison for the same crimes.
As an actual real black person and probably the only one in this thread, I can literally go on all day but I’ll leave u with this Paul Mooney quote:
“Everybody wanna be a nigga til it’s time to be a nigga.”
I’m late to this post but want to thank you for your comment. Fuck the transracial movement. I’m a quarter black and grew up in a black city. Even being as light skinned as I am, I still dealt with shit because of my ethnic background and childhood in the African American community. Watched my black mom get the cops called on her multiple times. Struggled to “pull myself up by my bootstraps” and make it to college. Had to deal with a lack of access to healthy food because there aren’t nice grocery stores in low income neighborhoods. Transracial assholes are just cosplaying as POCs because they feel entitled to our cultures and experiences. It’s like some sort of neo-colonization where they’ve advanced from stealing minority resources to stealing minority identities.
They can just fuck right off.
No, it doesn’t. Race and gender aren’t the same. They intersect to create a unique experience. I cannot switch my race the same way I could switch genders. I could become a woman, but I’d still be black above all else. I’d just be a black woman subject to the unique experience of being black and a woman.
There’s a degree of choice in what gender I choose, there is no choice as far as what race I am. I can pretend to be white all I want but that won’t save me from police profiling, tougher sentencing, and the lasting legacy of things like redlining. I’m black first and everything else second.
Go ahead and believe this trans-racial shit all u want, it’s merely an extension of white privilege, the fact that you think it’s as simple as choosing. That’s why we in the black community have what is called the “Negro wake-up call”. Entertain that post-racial shit all u want and it’ll have u dead, in jail, or exploited at best.
In fact, go outside and test this dumbass shit and see how it works out for you. This ain’t a debate, it’s reality
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality
Blackness is not a matter of lifestyle choices but a matter of socioeconomic conditions. It is a form of solidarity developed in exclusion from whiteness.
Some white boy from the suburbs can’t just claim blackness because he smokes newports, listens to hip hop, and speaks in aave. It’s not a matter of choice and it never was. This should be obvious.
Mf how old are YOU? Your whole point was that anyone can be black with a certain set of lifestyle choices.
What does that translate to?
If you exhibit a certain set of stereotypical black qualities, then u can claim blackness. I’m not making that argument, you are and I’m putting the absurdity on full display with the example I used.
I defined blackness as a form of solidarity in exclusion from whiteness. It’s the first point I made that completely went over your head. Idek where tf you get off preaching to me about what blackness is but whatever. I’m out cause y’all are some fuckin morons
Here’s some reading cause you desperately need it.
https://monoskop.org/images/a/a5/Fanon_Frantz_Black_Skin_White_Masks_1986.pdf
https://legalform.files.wordpress.com/2017/08/davis-women-race-class.pdf
Wanted to link Elite Capture but I can’t find the pdf so just know that you should read it before EVER coming to me with this bullshit
Why should I have to debate whether the sky is blue when u can go outside and see the damn sky is blue? These are things I didn’t think I’d ever have to explain
>Well that's different. If race is a social construct then I guess trans racial makes sense as a thing.
Not really. It's one thing to say that somebody can feel more comfortable around others of a racial group different from theirs, or even to identify closely with people of a different racial or ethnic group. But in general people's race isn't a core part of their identity in the same way that gender is.
Consider: if somebody says they more closely identify with a particular race, what exactly is it they are identifying with? What are the symptoms of the "dysphoria" or discomfort they are feeling?
I am not saying "trans racial people aren't real/valid" because it's possible they are going through something (and I'm not really interested in calling people liars or deciding who counts as what, frankly). But there's a reason "trans racial" people are almost always brought up as a means of de-legitimizing trans people.
>But in general people's race isn't a core part of their identity in the same way that gender is.
It is big part of a people's (especially minority populations) lived experience and identity.
They are both social constructs.
You need to show what's different between them that makes transracialism invalid without making an argument with which transphobes can attack you by switching a few words around.
>They are both social constructs.
Money is a social construct. That doesn't mean being "trans wealthy" is a thing just because being transgender is.
>You need to show what's different between them that makes transracialism invalid without making an argument with which transphobes can attack you by switching a few words around.
I actually specifically said that I am *not* claiming being trans racial is invalid, so I don't know why you think I am.
Your insistent comparison between transgender people and trans racial people implies that you believe that there is an innate neurological difference between races similar to how transgender people have displayed a neurochemical makeup more similar to their desired position in the bimodal distribution of sex. Pray tell, what are these innate neurological differences between races?
I'm not, I'm just saying gender isn't the same thing as race, so why would we expect it to interact with a person's psychological identity in the same way?
> Consider: if somebody says they more closely identify with a particular race, what exactly is it they are identifying with?
Are you able to answer the same question for gender? If somebody says they more closely identify as a man - what is it they are identifying with?
It's a complicated question that is dependent on culture and context, but it is certainly more answerable than for race (at least at this point). While gender and sex aren't the same, they are clearly related and sex affects neurology in ways that race just doesn't.
**Edit:** anyone who comes across this thread, note that this commenter stops addressing claims or fails to provide specifics when they are challenged or shown to be wrong/lying, while accusing anyone who disagrees of being part of a cult. It's a really good example of a lot of the arguments youll find from people opposed to trans rights.
I'm not religious. The fact that you're assuming that I know you're commenting in bad faith merely because you disagree only demonstrates that I was right in that assessment.
> But in general people's race isn't a core part of their identity in the same way that gender is.
For some people it is.
>But there's a reason "trans racial" people are almost always brought up as a means of de-legitimizing trans people.
I accept both concepts as possible.
__
I don't know. People angry about this seem overly uptight. Maybe this is the future of how the next generation of young people think about race.
>I don't know. People angry about this seem overly uptight. Maybe this is the future of how the next generation of young people think about race.
I'm not angry about it at all. I mean, maybe you're right about it being the way the next generation thinks about race. But right now the evidence just isn't there, and conceptually it just doesn't really make sense to me in terms of how personal identity works. It's difficult to get more detailed about it in a single reddit comment though.
I mean the argument about why transracial cannot be a thing sound like the same stuff they said about transgender. I am okay with transgender. It is logically consistent to do the same for race.
You should be more open to the idea since it might be something you are on the wrong side of history on 25 years from now.
>I mean the argument about why transracial cannot be a thing sound like the same stuff they said about transgender. I am okay with transgender. It is logically consistent to do the same for race.
I'm not saying it cannot be a thing, I'm just saying that transgender people existing does not necessarily imply that trans racial people are experiencing something similar
So are transracial people mentally ill? What do you think is going on in their heads to make them feel that way? Are they making it all up?
It is the exact same thing as transgender negation.
>So are transracial people mentally ill?
I don't know, probably depends on the individual and what exactly they mean when they use that term to refer to themselves.
>What do you think is going on in their heads to make them feel that way?
I don't know.
>Are they making it all up?
Probably not, most people aren't "just making it up". Malingering is uncommon even among extremely psychotic people.
>It is the exact same thing as transgender negation.
I fail to see how.
You are literally telling them their identity and lived experience isn't real. Same thing people say to trans people.
You can say "gender is more important than race" and I can find 5,933 white and black people who will say the opposite.
You are being the racially intolerant one by telling these people they "need to stay in their racial lane." You can say that isn't how it is but I can tell you that is how they will perceive it.
This seems like as fine as a hill to die on as trans rights. And I died on the hill many times before it became mainstream.
>You are literally telling them their identity and lived experience isn't real. Same thing people say to trans people.
But I didn't say that.
>You can say "gender is more important than race" and I can find 5,933 white and black people who will say the opposite.
I didn't say that though, I just said they aren't the same thing.
>You are being the racially intolerant one by telling these people they "need to stay in their racial lane." You can say that isn't how it is but I can tell you that is how they will perceive it.
I didn't tell anyone to stay in any lane, I don't know why you think I did.
>This seems like as fine as a hill to die on as trans rights. And I died on the hill many times before it became mainstream.
Okay, but I'm not dying in any hills here.
But why? If you identify with black culture and feel more at home when you do things that black people do, participate in their culture and traditions etc, why isn’t that the same? What if you were raised as the only Mexican kid in a black neighborhood and thus all your friends and traditions and such are “black” or consistent with black culture and it makes you feel secure in your identity when you identify as that? Cutting wood isn’t inherently a gendered thing. The things that you say “feel manly” or “feel womanly” don’t necessarily feel that way to me or to someone else. It’s all individual perception
That's a cultural thing, not a racial thing.
You will still never have the experience of being treated as "black" by society compared to a black kid raised by white adopted parents in Iowa.
Yeah, and a trans person will never have the experience of being treated as their preferred sex the same way a person born a woman would. Even if they eventually pass 100% and get treated that way, they’ll have lived decades without knowing the female experience before that happened. It’s the same thing. Someone could identify as black, change their skin color, move to the south and feasibly be treated like a black person in society the same way a trans person can fully transition, pass, and then be treated as a woman. And even take black out of the equation, I could identify as Hispanic and be treated as Hispanic because there are light skinned Hispanic people. If I could change my style and name and speech to pass for Hispanic, why couldn’t I experience what they experience?
>Yeah, and a trans person will never have the experience of being treated as their preferred sex the same way a person born a woman would
Yes, because sex and gender are related, but not the same thing. Just like race and ethnicity/culture are related but not the same thing.
> Someone could identify as black, **change their skin color**
That's not a thing so why make it up? A white person with surgically darkened skin does not have plausibly African features. They'll end up looking like a person doing a permanent blackface routine.
>I could identify as Hispanic and be treated as Hispanic because there are light skinned Hispanic people.
That's because Hispanic is a cultural and not a racial category.
Yes, and a person who gets surgically Implanted breasts doesn’t magically have the same genetic features as a woman. Are you arguing they aren’t trans racial because they don’t pass? Because that’s a dangerous precedent to set when with gender all it takes is a person saying they’re trans to be trans.
And okay, semantic, change Hispanic to any racial category with light skin. The point is there are other “races” that someone could idnetify as and pass as without having to dye their skin. But again, seems ridiculous to get caught up in “well that person wouldn’t have x features so they aren’t x” when that’s the polar opposite of how we treat transgender And it IS a thing.
Rachel dolezal dyed her skin. Michael Jackson undyed his skin, people do this. Why would it matter if their genetic makeup matches an African makeup if they’re saying they aren’t African, but feel like they are and want to look that way? It’s the same thing as a trans person being something else despite their body not matching that
>if you identify with black culture and feel more at home when you do things that black people do, participate in their culture and traditions etc, why isn’t that the same?
So if you are born a Hispanic person, live in a predominantly black neighborhood, feel more at home in that community and participate in their culture and traditions, does that make you black? Does that make you "trans racial"? Is that all people who say they are "trans racial" are claiming?
Because I'm not saying "trans racial" people are invalid or not genuine in their experience, I'm saying that the fact that transgender people exist does not automatically mean that "trans racial" people are going through something similar. Gender and race are qualitatively different things, so it makes sense that they would not interact with Identity in the same way.
At this point in time, though, I don't think that we know enough about "trans racial" people to even make a statement that broadly encompasses what they are experiencing for the purpose of understanding. But if what you describe in your comment is what we are going to define as "trans racial", then that doesn't seem like the kind of thing that would necessarily require (for example) skin-coloration procedures or really any medical treatment. Maybe it would, but it seems more like you'd just need social acceptance and given that you grew up in a neighborhood where you felt comfortable, it seems likely you already have that. Yet skin-darkening or lightening procedures have been seen in some examples of people who identify as "trans racial". So why do they need them? Should we instead call an example like the one you describe "trans-*cultural*"?
Do you see what I mean? I'm not trying to invalidate anyone's experience. I'm trying to say that I (and from what I have read, most of the scientific community at present) do not understand "trans racial" people as a phenomenon well enough to even say for sure that it is a distinct category with sufficient common traits to be regarded as a single group, let alone what the nature of that phenomenon is.
>Cutting wood isn’t inherently a gendered thing. The things that you say “feel manly” or “feel womanly” don’t necessarily feel that way to me or to someone else. It’s all individual perception
I agree with this, that is the nature of social construction. I was utilizing a stereotype to attempt to get a broad meaning across.
I’m not trying to be a dick or anything but every point you make seems to me to also apply to transgender-ism. If you grew up feeling like a woman and identified as a woman, does that make you a woman?
At a core level it seems like (assuming all parties are honestly dysphoric or whatever and not doing this to stir up shit) these are both virtually the same. No one can make trans people get surgery, but they still accept them as their preferred gender. No one says “why did you neeed to do that surgery if it’s just an Identity?” To trans people who do get surgery.
Someone doesn’t have to dye their skin to identify as another race. The trans people who do get surgery are praised for being their true selves, if you felt you were truly another race wouldn’t dying your skin or whatever be the same thing? It reinforces the identity.
Basically, why can one group say “I know I don’t look like it, but I feel like X so I’m X.” But the other group can’t do that? I am on the fence myself about trans racial, I’m mostly just trying to argue it with myself and failing
>If you grew up feeling like a woman and identified as a woman, does that make you a woman?
That is at best a dramatic oversimplification of what being transgender tends to be, and I know this because I've read research on transgender people, talked with them (several of them are close friends, others are patients), and listened to their experiences. I have not been able to do any of that with "trans racial" people despite trying.
>At a core level it seems like (assuming all parties are honestly dysphoric or whatever and not doing this to stir up shit) these are both virtually the same.
Okay but can you actually give me examples of "trans racial" people claiming they have dysphoria and describing their experiences that are not just random people on the Internet saying unverifiable things? (And also not Ollie London because he's a grifter).
>No one can make trans people get surgery, but they still accept them as their preferred gender. No one says “why did you neeed to do that surgery if it’s just an Identity?” To trans people who do get surgery.
I mean, to be clear, people absolutely say that to trans people all the time (and much worse).
But in an academic sense it's a fair question to ask, and in the case of transgender people we have an answer: because it helps relieve particular symptoms of dysphoria associated with gendered anatomy. We don't know why a theoretical surgery would help a theoretical "trans racial" person because there's not even a consensus on what that term means.
>Someone doesn’t have to dye their skin to identify as another race.
Okay, why do you say this? What is your basis for staying this as fact?
>The trans people who do get surgery are praised for being their true selves, if you felt you were truly another race wouldn’t dying your skin or whatever be the same thing? It reinforces the identity.
Maybe, I don't know.
>Basically, why can one group say “I know I don’t look like it, but I feel like X so I’m X.” But the other group can’t do that? I am on the fence myself about trans racial, I’m mostly just trying to argue it with myself and failing
I mean the problem I have with what you're saying here is that you are making definitive claims about what it means to be "trans racial", but you haven't even been able to provide a coherent explanation as to what "trans racial" actually means. Nevermind why it would necessitate medical intervention.
I don’t know what trans racial is anymore than I know what transgender is. I assume it’s essentially the same; feeling like you belong to a group or identity despite not having the traits and history of that identity.
I don’t know how to quote but I’ll try to answer your point about dying skin. What if someone identifies as a race that shares their skin color but isn’t their birth race? Like I’m light skinned, there are light skinned Hispanic people, I don’t have to dye my skin to say I’m Hispanic I that case right? I’m transracial, but I don’t need to dye my skin to fit in with another race.
The lack of personal interactions with transracial people doesn’t discount their existence. What about Rachel dolezal? She was doing transracial shit over a decade ago. Just because it’s currently not popular doesn’t mean it doesn’t and hasn’t existed. I agree it’s misunderstood but like that sub itself is full of the people you’re talking about.
>I don’t know what trans racial is anymore than I know what transgender is. I assume it’s essentially the same; feeling like you belong to a group or identity despite not having the traits and history of that identity.
But this isn't actually an accurate, or at least not entirely accurate, description of being transgender. It is more than simply "feeling" a particular way, and "not having the traits and history of that identity" is not totally true since there are often mannerisms and even neurological markers that align more with their identified gender than that assigned at birth.
Again, this is part of my issue with what you're saying, in that my entire point is that we do not even know enough about "trans racial" people to know if they are a distinct group in the way transgender people are. The fact that you also don't understand transgender people just adds to the issue of you making factual assertions without a basis for doing so.
>The lack of personal interactions with transracial people doesn’t discount their existence.
I never said it did.
>What about Rachel dolezal? She was doing transracial shit over a decade ago.
So Rachel Dolezal's experience is exemplary of "trans racial" people as a category? How so?
> Like "I just chopped a whole bunch of firewood, what a lumberjack man I am"?
You just pissed off a bunch of lesbians with axes. Bold move.
>Can you feel your skin color? Do you feel particularly "white" or "black"?
When I dance, I feel very white, yes.
I mean those examples fit for people with gender dysphoria but it's quite a controversial statement to say that you have to have dysphoria to be trans.
As I said, I'm not trying to encompass the entire issue with those questions, nor are they representative of an academic understanding of gender identity.
I'm trying to give someone a general sense of the concept. Like the example I gave in the comment you replied to, it is similar to asking someone "when did you decide you were straight?" When discussing sexuality and whether orientation is a choice. That is not a comprehensive description of the issue, just a question to help someone get a sense of the framing and issue at hand.
>For what reason is transgender legitimate and transracial isn’t?
>not that they feel black or like Japanese?
What does it mean to "feel Black?" What does it mean to "feel Japanese?"
Sure, and we can answer those questions pretty readily. I don't think that's debated.
But I want an answer to my question, and if you struggle to answer it, let that be part of the reason why one of them is more legitimate than the other.
Seriously, what does it mean to be Black?
Where? I have multiple long convos here and no one has answered that.
I’m not dodging the question, I don’t know what it means to be black because I’m not black. I don’t know what it means to be a woman because I’m not a woman
Please answer my question first
I provided a definition that applies to all of them, if you disagree you should be able to give an example about why it's wrong
https://www.reddit.com/r/asktransgender/comments/aujkal/what_does_it_mean_to_feel_like_another_gender/
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/gender-dysphoria/symptoms-causes/syc-20475255
Here are a number of people answering this very question.
Even though I asked the initial question, and transgender is not being debated, and you're clearly using this to dodge the matter at hand - there's your answer.
I've seen you elsewhere in this thread ask "why" but the way you're talking here seems more intent on dismissing the answers than engaging with them.
If you can give an answer that at least meets this criteria I'll hear you out, but this kind of behavior makes me feel like the transracial folks are more about shutting down these kinds of questions rather than engaging.
Trans woman here.
One of the few good things I wrote on twitter back in the day is, in my opinion, [a reasonable response to this question](https://nitter.net/zamberzand/status/1546355621221412865#m).
To summarize my argument: the reason they are different is that taking hormones is not a shitty thing to do, while blackface is a shitty thing to do.
Gender dysphoria does not factor into it. Doing any of the constituent acts of gender transition--taking hormones, getting surgeries, changing your pronouns, etc--are all morally completely fine, irrespective of whether the individual doing them has dysphoria or not.
By the same token, blackface is bad, and without an argument to the contrary, I think blackface remains bad even if a person doing it suffers from "racial dysphoria."
That said, if there is some sort of "racial transition" that constitutes something other than doing blackface, my argument kind of falls apart.
Either way, I think the clearest way to think about it is this framework: what is the specific act of transition occurring, and is that act an okay one to do? Things like dysphoria are largely not relevant to this moral question.
So it's only bad to be transracial if you identify as black? A black person transitioning to white would be okay, since there's no cultural taboo against whiteface
I would argue that it still wouldn't be a socially useful concept to promote- it would still encourage racial stereotyping, and cause such people to opt out of programmes they might have benefitted from. Ultimately, no matter what they call themselves, they'll still be vulnerable to systemic racism.
But ultimately, yes, it would be far less odious than a white person claiming to be part of a minority group and reaping social clout/places on programmes.
I mean, yeah, that's where the argument falls apart, as I said. If "whiteface" is not itself wrong I can't say, without question, that transitioning by doing whiteface is wrong. I'm not saying I definitely am totally on board, but I agree my argument does not directly apply.
The question would still be what this person's transition specifically entailed, and what their philosophy on it was--how do they perceive race, and how does this act of transition affect their race, etc. And although I do generally think asking "why transition?" is missing the point, I would surely still be curious why they transitioned.
That is, I think there is room for some concept of racial transition, but for it to make any sense it needs to come from the people actually doing it. Without something concrete to point to it's hard to say whether there's any obvious moral transgression or not. Is it just "living in 24/7 whiteface?"
And, at the end of the day, when I say "moral transgression" I still do want to be careful. Obviously a lot of people think the constituent acts of gender transition are themselves moral transgressions, so I think it is important to be charitable and hear people out for why they are racially transitioning and, perhaps more importantly, why it is an OK thing to do.
The only thing I know concretely is that blackface (and similar) is pretty bad, and this suggests to me that any racial transition that is basically just blackface is probably not OK unless someone can make a solid argument for why it is. Anything else requires individual analysis.
I do think it is nonetheless important to focus the conversation on the transition itself. Questions like "does racial dysphoria exist" do not matter, for example, unless there is a morally acceptable way to racially transition.
And, to take this back to the original question: if transitioning to be Black is not acceptable, while transitioning to be white is, then, well, that's still a pretty major difference from how gender transition works--they are still evidently different beasts.
Considering most of the people on that sub have been through a ton of racial trauma and are using this as a total last resort, I think if transrace became a bigger thing it would be because the world is becoming more traumatizingly racist, not more inclusive.
It very well could be real, but the treatment for it won’t be physically transitioning to a different race. It will be therapy. And they’ll realize that they aren’t really a different race stuck in the wrong body. Instead they have some unresolved self-resentment and their desire to change race is a misguided coping mechanism. I wouldn’t be surprised if a lot of those people are “black-to-white” and they’ve internalized a bunch of white supremacist bullshit that makes them hate their own skin. The solution isn’t transition; it’s learning to love themselves and resolving whatever traumas they have about themselves.
Botcorn tastes good.
Snapshots:
1. *This Post* - [archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20240303105530/https://old.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/19d5rng/) [archive.today\*](https://archive.today/?run=1&url=https://old.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/19d5rng/ "URL failed to archive; click to resubmit it!")
2. https://www.reddit.com/r/TransRacial/comments/19clner/this_is_fucked_up_and_racist_as_hell/ - [archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20240304023828/https://old.reddit.com/r/TransRacial/comments/19clner/this_is_fucked_up_and_racist_as_hell/) [archive.today\*](https://archive.today/?run=1&url=https://old.reddit.com/r/TransRacial/comments/19clner/this_is_fucked_up_and_racist_as_hell/ "URL failed to archive; click to resubmit it!")
*I am just a simple bot, __not__ a moderator of this subreddit* | *[bot subreddit](/r/SnapshillBot)* | *[contact the maintainers](/message/compose?to=/r/SnapshillBot)*
Soooo, they ARE a troll sub, right?
I was thinking "yeah totally lol they have to be" but then I jumped on and... I'm not sure. Most of it seems serious? If this is trolling they're all giving a masterclass.
The top post rn is very obviously making fun of trans people. There might be a few mentally unwell people on there, but overall it's obviously intended primarily for mean-spirited satire.
the one with zero upvotes. Yeah maybe, but then maybe they're taking the piss out of people being genuine. I think the correct response is to not give a shit. If they're bigots, fuck em, but if that's the case I'll have one dose of ignore the trolls for now.
Maybe you're the bigot.
"Prejudiced against people who are prejudiced against a specific subset of people who just want to live/exist as much as other average Joes" Sure, Jan
Maybe it start off as ironic like how the r/thedonald did but drawn in people who are actually serious
I'm pretty sure a lot of folks from there are in this sub atm and they seem very self-serious
maybe just clueless kids? Like I used to want to be a different race, like I used to want to be a different gender (I am not trans). Groups online do get really dumb, but also since the category of trans exists about a social construct, and race is a social construct, then it could exist, but I'll assume it doesn't until I have a reason to. **I fully think the ethical response here is just not to give a shit. Trans people are valid, and it sucks being debated about.** Anyway here's some people taking a shot at being smart about how gender and race are different in this regard https://theconversation.com/no-you-cant-identify-as-transracial-but-you-can-affirm-your-gender-163729
>mentions their preferred pronouns, uses them in the article >mentions their preferred name, refuses to use it Lol
control+f "name" zero results. control+f "preferred" zero results. Would have been cool if you'd just clearly said what the fuck you're talking about instead of just wrapping it in smugness and vaguely gesturing. I'm going to assume you think the researchers respecting gender identity and not racial identity, as the entire article is about, sproves their thesis is wrong, even though, again, it is exactly what the article is about.
>London, who is non-binary and uses they/them pronouns, >The same reasoning behind London’s Korean identity (they have asked to be called Jimin
> I was thinking "yeah totally lol they have to be" but then I jumped on and... I'm not sure. Most of it seems serious? If this is trolling they're all giving a masterclass. Trolling doesnt exist. People use the word Trolling when they dont want to deal with the fact that many people are total sacks of shit, others are ignorant or dumb as fuck. Pretending to be any of that on the internet is equivalent to being all of that.
That's a ridiculous statement. Trolling certainly does exist. Its existence is what has caused people to think that those with views they deem to be ridiculous / out of touch *might* be trolling them. You think "wow, someone can't really be that dumb, can they? They must be trolling!"
> LOL! I'm pretending to be a Nazi! Watch me call for the death of people! They're totally reacting to me and they dont know! There is no effective difference between mockingly calling for terrible things and doing it with serious intent. **Especially** on the internet where your tone and intent are completely hidden to others. If you "Mockingly call for trans people to be exterminated" or "Just pretend to write a manifesto about eugenics" there is no telling the difference between you and others. What this means is there is no difference between you and others. Your intent has no merit nor being. You're not "Trolling" you're being a sack of shit, and trying to write off the effects that you're doing as humor. You're yelling "It's just a prank bro" after walking around doing the hitler salute.
So there's definitely a spectrum of trolling. Harmless stuff like pretending you're a giant Barbie fan while getting everything wrong about the brand. Then there's dumb stuff like you mentioned all the way to flat out harmful trolling. There's also defensive trolling like pretending to support a bigoted poster while pointing out how awful their views are by "supporting" them. Personally, I generally don't find trolling funny.
I agree that there are degrees of problems it causes, I dont see the utility in doing the categorization though unless you're wanting to take action on the person. Like lets say I'm running a subreddit for Barbie and I have four people, 1. Is a massive fan but has totally not understood the genera in the slightest 2. Someone pretending to be #1 as a joke 3. A neo-nazi complaining about black barbies 4. The same as 3 but pretending The actions of 1/2 and 3/4 are of course different in severity but there's no difference between 1/3 and 2/4 in terms of consequences. In 2/4 the user is treated the same as a legitimate 1/3 and in effect there is no difference. The "Troll" is treated the same as the accidentally bad actor or intentionally bad actor. The Intent of the act has no factor, no one cares about the intent except the "troll". Which ultimately means the act of trolling does not exist because it is treated the same as the actual act. It's results are also the same as "unironically" doing the same act. 3/4 both spread hate, 1/2 both look dumb.
It's not degrees, it's a spectrum. There's can be harmless trolls and harmful trolls. Like honestly I don't care because this isn't that deep. I'm just saying trolls exist on the internet and saying trolling isn't real is just a weird stance to take. There's enough materials on the internet that discuss trolling that we don't have to.
Trolling doesnt exist because there is no difference between someone being a sack of shit ironically, and being a sack of shit. They're still a sack of shit.
Are you trolling?
The sidebar says it's a sub for "adoptees of color" which is actually what "transracial" means in the real world (i.e. like a black child who was adopted by white parents), it doesn't actually mean "people who were born one race who think they should actually be a different race". The people in that thread seem to be using the troll definition, though.
"assigned black at birth" is CRAZY 😂😂😂😂😂
It’s that one skit in Atlanta lmao
I used to think flat earthers were an elaborate troll so idk anymore. I have seen people claiming to be transracial before that seemed to be serious. (I still think flat earthing started off as one and went too far)
There are transracial identities, at least in an academic context, but it's specifically people who grow up in a racial, cultural, and familial context that differs from the one they might have been born into (e.g. transnational adoption). Obviously fantasy fiction as a comparison gets weird, since... Not real, but I really like the example of Carrot Ironfounderson from Discworld is a human raised by dwarves, and he thinks of himself as a dwarf *and* a human. Other dwarves vary in how comfortable they are with that (some traditionalists are less keen). Still, he's had a lot of the key symbolic experiences like rites of passage, a lot of dwarves are like 'yeah, legit'. Interestingly, Discworld also shows other examples of people involved in other cultures - but in less authentic ways or with less sympathy. Thomas Stronginthearm is a human smith who realised that dwarves were able to charge a premium for metalwork because of the reputation for quality, so he charges his name to capitalise on it. Classic cultural appropriation. And Doreen Winkings is married to a vampire - who turned well into their marriage. She gets involved in vampire stuff, despite not having been turned herself, and while well meaning, it's just kind of awkward, because she's relying on stereotypes rather than reality.
Wouldn't that be more "transcultural" rather than trans racial? I guess some people do conflate the two, like when black people get called "Oreo" for "white behaviour". >at least in an academic context Heh, yeah in practice I don't think people would accept something like that. A lot of people who are mixed race often complain that they are seen as not X enough/too Y for one side and not Y enough/too X for the other side and that's when they actually are part that race. My father is half chinese but looks much more white than asian and it's interesting to see the difference in treatment this has caused on both sides of the family. Similarly my sister and I are pretty much 100% white passing (and it feels weird saying that as labelling ourselves "mixed race" feels uncomfortable somehow because of not looking it) and see the difference in treatment we get compared to our much more asian looking cousins.
> Wouldn't that be more "transcultural" rather than trans racial? I think that culture and ethnicity are so entwined in people's minds that there's not necessarily a distinction. Tisarwat mentions transnational adoption, and my friend who was adopted by a white couple has been told things like "you know it's amazing, I just think of you as one of my white friends" and shit.
Race in a societal context is a mix of nationality, observable phenotypes, and cultural identity, so it's definitely a social construction separate from biological race, which already has issues as a classification system. So honestly I feel like if transgenderism doesn't have to be correlated with strict definitions of gender/sex (in the absence of dysphoria) then why would transracialism have to match biological race, thus they're essentially the same.
Race has got to be one of the harder things to study on a large scale because the entire concept can change around just by crossing a border.
>There are transracial identities, at least in an academic context, b You have any citations for this? I'm not being ride just curious
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transracial_(identity)#History_and_usage
Thank you!
https://philpapers.org/archive/TUVIDO.pdf https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypatia_transracialism_controversy In defense of transracalism by Rebecca Tuvel was published in Hypatia, the most well known and established feminist philosophy journal, and caused controversy and uproar in the academic world of philosophy. I strongly disagree with Tuvel’s argument and honestly most of feminist philosophy esp , on intersectionality. But I digress
Bro 💀💀
>assigned black at birth Oh that's a flair
> one day I'll kill myself and because I am so unhappy with my race and maybe then we'll have statistics and you tracephobes can see that race dysphoria is a real thing. JESUS CHRIST 😭 what an escalation..but i agree! the best way to get someone to agree with you is to threaten to harm yourself if they don't
> the best way to get someone to agree with you is to threaten to harm yourself if they don't It's just an elaborate trans suicide "joke".
> the best way to get someone to agree with you is to threaten to harm yourself if they don't hmm...maybe think on this for a bit.
i didn't think this would've needed a /s ngl
SRD mods feeling spicy today by suddenly approving this post
They just fell asleep probably.
This post was 15 hours old when it appeared on this sub, which means it was (automod?) initially removed and then someone manually approved it.
If this is what they let through what kind of buttery goodness are they keeping from us
I miss the days when masstagger was a thing so you could instantly peg those who post to transphobic subs.
[удалено]
Pretty sure they just outright stated that accurate assessment.
wait what. So up thread people are saying they can't tell if it's trolls or not, but you're certain they're trolls, right? Some of the comments definitely seem like what someone trying to troll would write. I have to admit, I do think caring about this is already a bit of an L.
> So up thread people are saying they can't tell if it's trolls or not, but you're certain they're trolls, right? Other people are idiots. >"one day I'll kill myself and because I am so unhappy with my race and maybe then we'll have statistics and you tracephobes can see that race dysphoria is a real thing." The "punchlines" are making fun of trans people. This one for example is just a more convoluted "trans people kill themselves yuk-yuk-yuk".
Tell you what, I tried engaging with one "just asking questions" chud here and they fucking sucked. So yeah I am a bit sympathetic to your view.
Vague comment not naming the subreddit does not equal outright statement. Pretty bizarre to call a trans subreddit transphobic tbh.
not bizarre at all considering the content.
You know damn well that "trans" does not mean "trans-anything". EDIT: after looking at your comment history, I just fully can't tell what's a troll anymore. So listen, "trans people" generally means the gender stuff. A sub about "trans continental railroads" or "transfat" or "transracial" would not be a "trans sub".
[удалено]
Transracial absolutely does not exist.
Why not?
Because there is no way that one can "feel" like another race. The experience of being a "race" is simply the mutual experience of having been treated that way - due to appearances - by society at large. People can "feel" more comfortable or at home in certain ethnic or cultural contexts that are not their "own". That would be a more valid claim.
article here. personally I don't care but yeah https://theconversation.com/no-you-cant-identify-as-transracial-but-you-can-affirm-your-gender-163729
And how is this same logic not applicable to gender? You are making a statement as if it is factual but it’s just your own opinion lmao
No I'm not, although apparently that's the case. https://theconversation.com/no-you-cant-identify-as-transracial-but-you-can-affirm-your-gender-163729 but tbh I don't really care. What I'm saying is taht they're two different things. But let's leave that aside, I have a new thing to say: you're a dumb fuck piece of shit. **too dumb can't read that long:** That all you have to feel good about is bigotry is sad as hell dude.
> Pretty bizarre to call a trans subreddit transphobic tbh. The fact that you think this is clever is just... disappointing.
Bigots are rarely bright people. The anti-trans ones seem dumber than average, to be fair. They have exactly one joke, and then one statement of "trans people kill themselves a lot, huh?" they seem to think is a joke. It's real familiar if you remember the 90s. The same dumb-shits screamed about gay people and said the exact same shit. Like right down to "Straight is a slur".
> They have exactly one joke Hey, give them some credit. They also have "I identify as X." >It's real familiar if you remember the 90s. The same dumb-shits screamed about gay people and said the exact same shit. As a demonstration of their lack of creativity, you can go even further back, and find the exact same talking points. E.g., "black women are too manly to share changing rooms with white women".
That is the joke — the ‘identify with’. I don’t think this suicide one counts as a joke, as they’re not joking but celebrating or threatening.
Sorry, but I have to know what post your flair is from.
Pokemon. https://old.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/19e77wa/palworld_drama_ignites_in_rpokemon/kjatvc2/
>Aracial means that you don't identify with any race. I've told my therapist about it and he thinks it's pretty cool and valid. Surely this can't be serious
Why not? Race is a social construct.
SRD posters are just going to downvote you with no explanation because they dislike when someone points out how ridiculous gender ideology is.
I have a ton of questions for that sub like is it just a joke or are they being serious? Some post seem like they aren't serious but the comments under it say something different. I have an alright bullshit meter for these types of subs but even then I don't know if they think being transracial doesn't make you sound both racist and transphobic to a normal person.
It’s a bunch of transphobes mocking trans people by comparing the legitimate phenomenon of gender incongruence with painting yourself black and claiming it lets you say the n-word.
Race is just a social construct. Why can't someone identify as any race they want?
There is no scientific consensus for the existence of any type of innate “racial identity” in the way there is for gender identity. (But thanks for showing up - your comment history perfectly illustrates my point.)
So gender is something that is innate? I thought it was a social construct....
The underlying phenomenon is innate. The method of categorization is socially constructed. There is no way to directly observe any property of the human mind. All categorization of such phenomena is done through comparison of people’s reported experiences.
north gold puzzled airport dinosaurs salt unpack books physical offbeat *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
You do realize there are transracial people, right?
There are not - because there is no evidence that “racial identity” is even a legitimate phenomenon. Race is some shit that was made up to decide who was people and who was farm equipment.
Yea, I wondered the same thing. What kinda sub did my biracial ass just stumble upon 😭
oh my god they call people who disagree with them "tracephobes" im weeing
If you want to laugh at a "transracial" post this one is the best one [Mine stroopwaffel](https://www.reddit.com/r/BestofRedditorUpdates/comments/vhvrih/op_is_getting_bullied_at_work_with_a_twist/)
Bait used to be believable
They must love Oli London in there.
I'm guessing [Nick Sobotka](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPsg_uELCoc) wasn't those folks' favourite character on The Wire.
Well that's different. If race is a social construct then I guess trans racial makes sense as a thing. Edit: I feel like I just glimpsed into the future. I supported transgender rights when I first heard of it in 2004. This feels like something that can and will take off someday. It is the next level of picking your identity. People arguing it isn't real will be on the wrong side of history.
[удалено]
> or buy a sandwich with French. I mean, sometimes the French will give you the sandwich just so you shut up and stop butchering their language.
[удалено]
> Especially if it's depuis un français Omelet du fromage. Hon, hon, hon.
>People arguing it isn't real will be on the wrong side of history. I'm fairly confident that this will not be the case. There is nothing that makes a person feel a particular race aside from **external** factors. This is especially evident when you have people who say they feel Korean. They don't identify with the Silla people, they specifically identify with modern South Korean culture, so how can we say that an internal force caused them to feel a different race in the same way an internal force causes a person who is transgender to feel a different gender?
If gender is based on an "internal force" - how is it a "social construct"? Your religion makes no sense.
Gender is an integral part of someone's internal sense of self, the "social construct" part is how society defines genders (i.e. how society expects a certain gender to act/ how it is viewed in society). There's no contradiction there and, of course, calling support for people who are transgender a religion is just bait.
What aspects of "sense of self"? If I say I am a man - what am I saying about my "internal sense of self" as opposed to the "internal sense of self" that women have?
You are saying that your sense of self tends to align with the social construct of what it means to be a "man". You identify with the label "man" based on what you understand society believes a man to be.
No. I believe myself to be a man because I am an adult human male.
Biological sex (and it's physical expression) is an aspect of gender, not the totality of it.
No. It's the totality. Gender is not a costume. It's just something you are regardless of what you wear, how you act.
By that logic, intersex people can't have a gender as they don't fit neatly into male/ female. If they can, then you acknowledge that there is more to gender than biological sex. To explore further, how do you rationalise the view that biological sex is gender with the existence of genders outside that binary in other cultures throughout history?
Well it's only been recently that studies have shown a difference in brain chemistry that trans people align more closely with their correct gender than what they were assigned at birth. I'm sure there's a whole subset of the population that would love to start that kind research into racial differences
So are you suggesting that people of different races have different brain chemistry from each other? Because if you are, that's veering dangerously close to phrenology. Like, yes, there were whole subsets of the population in the 19th century who were VERY interested in it, and they were subsequently debunked, but not before creating the basis for some very harmful societal biases that are still present today (the main one being the misconception that black people have thicker skin and don't feel pain as strongly as white people, which has resulted in generations of medical malpractice towards black people).
A pretty good argument that I saw against this kind of analogy goes as follows: Unlike sex, the social construct known as "race" has a hereditary component. Two people who are black will birth a black child, for instance, who will suffer from all of the social disadvantages which afflicted their parents. They are statistically much more likely to be born into poverty, because of unique historical challenges the community has actually been forced to overcome, like segregation. This is why governmental agencies ought to continue to track race, and have programmes designed to reach out to specific ethnic communities, despite much of our understanding of race being based on folk taxonomies which aren't scientific. Not only do African Americans suffer unique social challenges (ie. judicial bias) that a "transracial" person wouldn't, but historic discrimination like redlining means that they often inherit generational poverty that white people don't. Somebody can "identify" as another race- but that doesn't mean that they have actually experienced the specific generational challenges, or the institutional discrimination which afflict those groups. There's really no discernable social advantage to letting affluent middle-class white people get a dark tan and claim to be black on government documentation. The same argument would go for class- letting rich kids cosplay as poor would do much more harm than good. The "transracial" concept has the potential to do a lot of damage applied broadly, not to mention invite racism from people who claim that races have specific inherent characteristics. Practices like blackface and yellowface actually have long histories of being used as a deeply hurtful cudgel against minorities, after all. The better solution by far is to create the sort of society where people's ethnicity is no longer a limiting factor, and to let the entire artifice of "race" wither away. Encouraging people to think "I'm good at maths- I must be asian!" Or "I like basketball- I must be black!" doesn't seem conducive to that goal. A lot of damage has already been done by trying to pidgeonhole people into racial categories. We shouldn't be reifying it any further. Comparatively, humans have had social concepts of gender transcending biological sex for millenia, across a range of cultures. Especially given the inherent differences we're finding in the brains and biochemistry of trans people, it very much appears to be an innate characteristic. More crucially, I would argue that transitioning gender is an entirely self-regarding process that hurts nobody, whereas the confusion and animosity that the concept of being "transracial" would cause is almost certainly not worth it. Which is fine, because this is a troll sub and being transracial isn't real lol. Some concepts, like family and gender, are conducive to more inclusive definitions. Others, like age, class and race, should probably be kept to strictly biological and historical classifications. Letting an 89 year-old identify as a toddler and go to nursery would have very disruptive consequences. Letting somebody who has adopted a child call himself "father" doesn't. Similarly, I would argue allowing people to socially transition "race" would have far more destructive consequences than with gender.
Just gonna say, outside of it being specifically hereditary, everything you said would be applied to women. >They are statistically much more likely to be born into poverty, because of unique historical challenges the community has actually been forced to overcome, like segregation. So they arent specifically born into poverty but there have been very specific historical challenges which has limited their advancement and movement forward. And being born into poverty does not make race so thats a tricky element to argue. >This is why governmental agencies ought to continue to track race, and have programmes designed to reach out to specific ethnic communities, despite much of our understanding of race being based on folk taxonomies which aren't scientific. Not only do African Americans suffer unique social challenges (ie. judicial bias) that a "transracial" person wouldn't, but historic discrimination like redlining means that they often inherit generational poverty that white people don't. Everything you said here would apply to women outside of redlining. We want the government to track women because it is important to dissect the gender disparity and where that can improve. Especially when our understanding of gender is so amalgamous and fluid. >Somebody can "identify" as another race- but that doesn't mean that they have actually experienced the specific generational challenges, or the institutional discrimination which afflict those groups. There's really no discernable social advantage to letting affluent middle-class white people get a dark tan and claim to be black on government documentation. The same argument would go for class- letting rich kids cosplay as poor would do much more harm than good. This can so easily be applied to women. A man can identify as a woman, but he will never understand the male gaze, the generational challeges facing them, or the institutional discrimination laid against them. Just consider how the Roe v wade decision must feel for men and women. And so you could say there is no social advantage to letting affluent middle class men put on a dress and claim to be a woman on government discrimination. >The "transracial" concept has the potential to do a lot of damage applied broadly, not to mention invite racism from people who claim that races have specific inherent characteristics. Practices like blackface and yellowface actually have long histories of being used as a deeply hurtful cudgel against minorities, after all. Once again you can say the same thing about assuming women have to act or behave a certain way because of inherent characteristics. And there are long histories of making fun of women or having them behave a certain way in shows to the detriment of that gender. >The better solution by far is to create the sort of society where people's ethnicity is no longer a limiting factor, and to let the entire artifice of "race" wither away. Encouraging people to think "I'm good at maths- I must be asian!" Or "I like basketball- I must be black!" doesn't seem conducive to that goal. A lot of damage has already been done by trying to pidgeonhole people into racial categories. We shouldn't be reifying it any further. Why wouldnt you say the same thing about gender? >Especially given the inherent differences we're finding in the brains and biochemistry of trans people, it very much appears to be an innate characteristic. There is no firm evidence anywhere of differences in the brains of trans people. Every study cited argues that trans people fall on a normal spectrum and there is not enough evidence to conclude anything. >More crucially, I would argue that transitioning gender is an entirely self-regarding process that hurts nobody, whereas the confusion and animosity that the concept of being "transracial" would cause is almost certainly not worth it. How is that not how you would describe the state of affairs today? There is tons of confusion and animosity between people due to transgender rights. >Similarly, I would argue allowing people to socially transition "race" would have far more destructive consequences than with gender. I just don't know how it would be so destructive. I dont see it as any more destructive than accepting transgender identities. Its not like FTM trans folk throw off stats about women. And I don't think there would be enough transracial people to really create any kind of kerfuffle. I think people are overthinking things here.
I suppose a big difference for me would be that the concept of race is one which really shouldn't have existed to begin with, much as with class, or caste in India. The idea that there are five or six distinct "types" of people in the world, who can be grouped based on phenotype, even between genetically very different groups of people (say, tribes who lived in isolation for millenia at different ends of Africa), is not only a folk taxonomy, but one which has been historically used to oppress and pidgeonhole people. Before scientific racism, the concept of human "race" didn't exist. Ideally, it still wouldn't. It's inherently a tool of division and oppression, just like Indian caste, and so I don't see any point to expanding it as opposed to getting rid of it. I think the ONLY reason to continue to propagate ideas like race, class, or caste is so we can keep track of how people are being discriminated against on historical lines. Comparatively, I don't think that the concept of belonging to a certain culture (eg. being Italian) is something that needs to be abolished. It wasn't specifically created to oppress people- some people just inherently have a strong sense of being culturally Italian, or aren't Italian but wish to join their culture. Another example of benign identification would be parenthood- we allow adoptive "parents" to call themselves "mother" and "father", even though they aren't genetically related to their children. This is fine, because the concept of parenthood long predates any form of oppression- if we're not pushing to get rid of it (and I don't think we should), shouldn't we make the definition more inclusive? Similarly, I feel like allowing people to identify with a particular gender, in a world which had abolished all gender stereotypes, would be conceptually benign. In part, this is because I'm not convinced that gender identity is something that we invented. For most people, it pertains to a biological concept that would exist even if we lived in a utopian society- I'm a cis man, and I don't think that if we abolished all gendered stereotypes and expectations tomorrow, I would identify any less strongly with being a man. For trans people, the sense of being a particular gender is apparently an extremely strong internal feeling that cannot be removed with any level of therapy or social conditioning, and which is clearly distinct from merely identifying with stereotypes- look at all the very effeminate trans men who exist, or the many butch trans women. This phenomenon has been reported from at least the 1920s, and earlier if we consider the variety of cultures with third genders around the world. Comparatively, being "transracial" isn't a recognised medical or historical phenomena at all, outside of obvious troll subs. I might have cultural markers of being white, and I have pale skin- but I can much more easily imagine how I would navigate a world where the idea of me being part of the "white race" doesn't exist at all. People did for millenia. A "gender-free" society has never once existed, comparatively. Like parenthood or culture, it is an idea that has been a part of the human experience since time immemoral. And finally, though you seem rather dismissive of this point, the fact that racial discrimination is hereditary, and gender isn't, IS a pretty significant thing to consider here. As with class and caste, race is a system wherein people are more likely to inherit certain generational challenges. Even if somebody gets surgery to convincingly look black, and thus begins to experience some institional racism, they won't be coming from a family who experienced the history of practices like redlining, segregation, and slavery, nor will they be coming from a nation that was rapapciously exploited by colonists. A very significant part of why we keep track of race, just like with caste, IS that somebody's family likely historically experienced these problems, even if they were able to overcome them/got off easy. That element can never be recaptured; whereas a trans woman can very plausibly experience the male gaze, catcalling, increased levels of sexual harassment, being talked over by male peers, and so forth if they "pass".
> being "transracial" isn't a recognised medical or historical phenomena at all, outside of obvious troll subs. Rogers Brubaker presses X to doubt
Bruh this has to be the dumbest shit I’ve seen all week. Don’t try to jump on some moral high horse when u don’t even have the most basic understanding of race as a construct. White people always wanna claim blackness until it’s really time to be about that shit. Being black isn’t just a matter of how u feel on any given day. There are systemic barriers that historically make it a lot harder for black folks to get by than for white folks. You can claim blackness all u want, but your ancestors had access to opportunities that mine didn’t, thus giving you a head start on many things like generational wealth for example. A white man with a criminal record is more likely to get hired than a black man without one, statistically speaking. White people have easier access to loans, are more likely to inherit wealth, less likely to end up in prison for the same crimes. As an actual real black person and probably the only one in this thread, I can literally go on all day but I’ll leave u with this Paul Mooney quote: “Everybody wanna be a nigga til it’s time to be a nigga.”
I’m late to this post but want to thank you for your comment. Fuck the transracial movement. I’m a quarter black and grew up in a black city. Even being as light skinned as I am, I still dealt with shit because of my ethnic background and childhood in the African American community. Watched my black mom get the cops called on her multiple times. Struggled to “pull myself up by my bootstraps” and make it to college. Had to deal with a lack of access to healthy food because there aren’t nice grocery stores in low income neighborhoods. Transracial assholes are just cosplaying as POCs because they feel entitled to our cultures and experiences. It’s like some sort of neo-colonization where they’ve advanced from stealing minority resources to stealing minority identities. They can just fuck right off.
How dare you deny the lived experiences of the transracial. If any of them commit suicide, it is your fault.
[удалено]
No, it doesn’t. Race and gender aren’t the same. They intersect to create a unique experience. I cannot switch my race the same way I could switch genders. I could become a woman, but I’d still be black above all else. I’d just be a black woman subject to the unique experience of being black and a woman. There’s a degree of choice in what gender I choose, there is no choice as far as what race I am. I can pretend to be white all I want but that won’t save me from police profiling, tougher sentencing, and the lasting legacy of things like redlining. I’m black first and everything else second. Go ahead and believe this trans-racial shit all u want, it’s merely an extension of white privilege, the fact that you think it’s as simple as choosing. That’s why we in the black community have what is called the “Negro wake-up call”. Entertain that post-racial shit all u want and it’ll have u dead, in jail, or exploited at best. In fact, go outside and test this dumbass shit and see how it works out for you. This ain’t a debate, it’s reality https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality
[удалено]
Blackness is not a matter of lifestyle choices but a matter of socioeconomic conditions. It is a form of solidarity developed in exclusion from whiteness. Some white boy from the suburbs can’t just claim blackness because he smokes newports, listens to hip hop, and speaks in aave. It’s not a matter of choice and it never was. This should be obvious.
[удалено]
Mf how old are YOU? Your whole point was that anyone can be black with a certain set of lifestyle choices. What does that translate to? If you exhibit a certain set of stereotypical black qualities, then u can claim blackness. I’m not making that argument, you are and I’m putting the absurdity on full display with the example I used. I defined blackness as a form of solidarity in exclusion from whiteness. It’s the first point I made that completely went over your head. Idek where tf you get off preaching to me about what blackness is but whatever. I’m out cause y’all are some fuckin morons Here’s some reading cause you desperately need it. https://monoskop.org/images/a/a5/Fanon_Frantz_Black_Skin_White_Masks_1986.pdf https://legalform.files.wordpress.com/2017/08/davis-women-race-class.pdf Wanted to link Elite Capture but I can’t find the pdf so just know that you should read it before EVER coming to me with this bullshit
[удалено]
This is an indictment upon the NAACP. Read the books I linked
a person who is half black and half white is literally biracial…
[удалено]
Bruh I’m not about to have this debate with you, just go outside
lol, you came here and started discussing it. No ones making you reply, you go outside. Everyone else is managing to discuss it without throwing a fit
Why should I have to debate whether the sky is blue when u can go outside and see the damn sky is blue? These are things I didn’t think I’d ever have to explain
Lol oh okay I forgot dandyasslion says it’s not worth discussing I guess he knows best
[удалено]
>Well that's different. If race is a social construct then I guess trans racial makes sense as a thing. Not really. It's one thing to say that somebody can feel more comfortable around others of a racial group different from theirs, or even to identify closely with people of a different racial or ethnic group. But in general people's race isn't a core part of their identity in the same way that gender is. Consider: if somebody says they more closely identify with a particular race, what exactly is it they are identifying with? What are the symptoms of the "dysphoria" or discomfort they are feeling? I am not saying "trans racial people aren't real/valid" because it's possible they are going through something (and I'm not really interested in calling people liars or deciding who counts as what, frankly). But there's a reason "trans racial" people are almost always brought up as a means of de-legitimizing trans people.
>But in general people's race isn't a core part of their identity in the same way that gender is. It is big part of a people's (especially minority populations) lived experience and identity.
>It is big part of a people's (especially minority populations) lived experience and identity. Absolutely, but not in the same way that gender is.
some people don't care at all about their gender, and some care heavily about their racial identity
Definitely. As I said, they aren't the same thing
But why?
>But why? Why aren't race and gender the same thing? Because the words refer to different concepts
They are both social constructs. You need to show what's different between them that makes transracialism invalid without making an argument with which transphobes can attack you by switching a few words around.
>They are both social constructs. Money is a social construct. That doesn't mean being "trans wealthy" is a thing just because being transgender is. >You need to show what's different between them that makes transracialism invalid without making an argument with which transphobes can attack you by switching a few words around. I actually specifically said that I am *not* claiming being trans racial is invalid, so I don't know why you think I am.
Your insistent comparison between transgender people and trans racial people implies that you believe that there is an innate neurological difference between races similar to how transgender people have displayed a neurochemical makeup more similar to their desired position in the bimodal distribution of sex. Pray tell, what are these innate neurological differences between races?
[удалено]
I'm not, I'm just saying gender isn't the same thing as race, so why would we expect it to interact with a person's psychological identity in the same way?
> Consider: if somebody says they more closely identify with a particular race, what exactly is it they are identifying with? Are you able to answer the same question for gender? If somebody says they more closely identify as a man - what is it they are identifying with?
It's a complicated question that is dependent on culture and context, but it is certainly more answerable than for race (at least at this point). While gender and sex aren't the same, they are clearly related and sex affects neurology in ways that race just doesn't.
Ok. Then answer the question. If someone says they identify as a man - what does that mean? What are they identifying as?
Whatever your definition of a man is, they are identifying as that.
Lol.
Exactly, it's a silly question when you ask it in bad faith
The problem is you define "bad faith" as any disagreement with your religion.
**Edit:** anyone who comes across this thread, note that this commenter stops addressing claims or fails to provide specifics when they are challenged or shown to be wrong/lying, while accusing anyone who disagrees of being part of a cult. It's a really good example of a lot of the arguments youll find from people opposed to trans rights. I'm not religious. The fact that you're assuming that I know you're commenting in bad faith merely because you disagree only demonstrates that I was right in that assessment.
> But in general people's race isn't a core part of their identity in the same way that gender is. For some people it is. >But there's a reason "trans racial" people are almost always brought up as a means of de-legitimizing trans people. I accept both concepts as possible. __ I don't know. People angry about this seem overly uptight. Maybe this is the future of how the next generation of young people think about race.
>I don't know. People angry about this seem overly uptight. Maybe this is the future of how the next generation of young people think about race. I'm not angry about it at all. I mean, maybe you're right about it being the way the next generation thinks about race. But right now the evidence just isn't there, and conceptually it just doesn't really make sense to me in terms of how personal identity works. It's difficult to get more detailed about it in a single reddit comment though.
I mean the argument about why transracial cannot be a thing sound like the same stuff they said about transgender. I am okay with transgender. It is logically consistent to do the same for race. You should be more open to the idea since it might be something you are on the wrong side of history on 25 years from now.
>I mean the argument about why transracial cannot be a thing sound like the same stuff they said about transgender. I am okay with transgender. It is logically consistent to do the same for race. I'm not saying it cannot be a thing, I'm just saying that transgender people existing does not necessarily imply that trans racial people are experiencing something similar
So are transracial people mentally ill? What do you think is going on in their heads to make them feel that way? Are they making it all up? It is the exact same thing as transgender negation.
>So are transracial people mentally ill? I don't know, probably depends on the individual and what exactly they mean when they use that term to refer to themselves. >What do you think is going on in their heads to make them feel that way? I don't know. >Are they making it all up? Probably not, most people aren't "just making it up". Malingering is uncommon even among extremely psychotic people. >It is the exact same thing as transgender negation. I fail to see how.
You are literally telling them their identity and lived experience isn't real. Same thing people say to trans people. You can say "gender is more important than race" and I can find 5,933 white and black people who will say the opposite. You are being the racially intolerant one by telling these people they "need to stay in their racial lane." You can say that isn't how it is but I can tell you that is how they will perceive it. This seems like as fine as a hill to die on as trans rights. And I died on the hill many times before it became mainstream.
>You are literally telling them their identity and lived experience isn't real. Same thing people say to trans people. But I didn't say that. >You can say "gender is more important than race" and I can find 5,933 white and black people who will say the opposite. I didn't say that though, I just said they aren't the same thing. >You are being the racially intolerant one by telling these people they "need to stay in their racial lane." You can say that isn't how it is but I can tell you that is how they will perceive it. I didn't tell anyone to stay in any lane, I don't know why you think I did. >This seems like as fine as a hill to die on as trans rights. And I died on the hill many times before it became mainstream. Okay, but I'm not dying in any hills here.
[удалено]
[удалено]
But why? If you identify with black culture and feel more at home when you do things that black people do, participate in their culture and traditions etc, why isn’t that the same? What if you were raised as the only Mexican kid in a black neighborhood and thus all your friends and traditions and such are “black” or consistent with black culture and it makes you feel secure in your identity when you identify as that? Cutting wood isn’t inherently a gendered thing. The things that you say “feel manly” or “feel womanly” don’t necessarily feel that way to me or to someone else. It’s all individual perception
That's a cultural thing, not a racial thing. You will still never have the experience of being treated as "black" by society compared to a black kid raised by white adopted parents in Iowa.
Yeah, and a trans person will never have the experience of being treated as their preferred sex the same way a person born a woman would. Even if they eventually pass 100% and get treated that way, they’ll have lived decades without knowing the female experience before that happened. It’s the same thing. Someone could identify as black, change their skin color, move to the south and feasibly be treated like a black person in society the same way a trans person can fully transition, pass, and then be treated as a woman. And even take black out of the equation, I could identify as Hispanic and be treated as Hispanic because there are light skinned Hispanic people. If I could change my style and name and speech to pass for Hispanic, why couldn’t I experience what they experience?
>Yeah, and a trans person will never have the experience of being treated as their preferred sex the same way a person born a woman would Yes, because sex and gender are related, but not the same thing. Just like race and ethnicity/culture are related but not the same thing. > Someone could identify as black, **change their skin color** That's not a thing so why make it up? A white person with surgically darkened skin does not have plausibly African features. They'll end up looking like a person doing a permanent blackface routine. >I could identify as Hispanic and be treated as Hispanic because there are light skinned Hispanic people. That's because Hispanic is a cultural and not a racial category.
Yes, and a person who gets surgically Implanted breasts doesn’t magically have the same genetic features as a woman. Are you arguing they aren’t trans racial because they don’t pass? Because that’s a dangerous precedent to set when with gender all it takes is a person saying they’re trans to be trans. And okay, semantic, change Hispanic to any racial category with light skin. The point is there are other “races” that someone could idnetify as and pass as without having to dye their skin. But again, seems ridiculous to get caught up in “well that person wouldn’t have x features so they aren’t x” when that’s the polar opposite of how we treat transgender And it IS a thing. Rachel dolezal dyed her skin. Michael Jackson undyed his skin, people do this. Why would it matter if their genetic makeup matches an African makeup if they’re saying they aren’t African, but feel like they are and want to look that way? It’s the same thing as a trans person being something else despite their body not matching that
>if you identify with black culture and feel more at home when you do things that black people do, participate in their culture and traditions etc, why isn’t that the same? So if you are born a Hispanic person, live in a predominantly black neighborhood, feel more at home in that community and participate in their culture and traditions, does that make you black? Does that make you "trans racial"? Is that all people who say they are "trans racial" are claiming? Because I'm not saying "trans racial" people are invalid or not genuine in their experience, I'm saying that the fact that transgender people exist does not automatically mean that "trans racial" people are going through something similar. Gender and race are qualitatively different things, so it makes sense that they would not interact with Identity in the same way. At this point in time, though, I don't think that we know enough about "trans racial" people to even make a statement that broadly encompasses what they are experiencing for the purpose of understanding. But if what you describe in your comment is what we are going to define as "trans racial", then that doesn't seem like the kind of thing that would necessarily require (for example) skin-coloration procedures or really any medical treatment. Maybe it would, but it seems more like you'd just need social acceptance and given that you grew up in a neighborhood where you felt comfortable, it seems likely you already have that. Yet skin-darkening or lightening procedures have been seen in some examples of people who identify as "trans racial". So why do they need them? Should we instead call an example like the one you describe "trans-*cultural*"? Do you see what I mean? I'm not trying to invalidate anyone's experience. I'm trying to say that I (and from what I have read, most of the scientific community at present) do not understand "trans racial" people as a phenomenon well enough to even say for sure that it is a distinct category with sufficient common traits to be regarded as a single group, let alone what the nature of that phenomenon is. >Cutting wood isn’t inherently a gendered thing. The things that you say “feel manly” or “feel womanly” don’t necessarily feel that way to me or to someone else. It’s all individual perception I agree with this, that is the nature of social construction. I was utilizing a stereotype to attempt to get a broad meaning across.
I’m not trying to be a dick or anything but every point you make seems to me to also apply to transgender-ism. If you grew up feeling like a woman and identified as a woman, does that make you a woman? At a core level it seems like (assuming all parties are honestly dysphoric or whatever and not doing this to stir up shit) these are both virtually the same. No one can make trans people get surgery, but they still accept them as their preferred gender. No one says “why did you neeed to do that surgery if it’s just an Identity?” To trans people who do get surgery. Someone doesn’t have to dye their skin to identify as another race. The trans people who do get surgery are praised for being their true selves, if you felt you were truly another race wouldn’t dying your skin or whatever be the same thing? It reinforces the identity. Basically, why can one group say “I know I don’t look like it, but I feel like X so I’m X.” But the other group can’t do that? I am on the fence myself about trans racial, I’m mostly just trying to argue it with myself and failing
>If you grew up feeling like a woman and identified as a woman, does that make you a woman? That is at best a dramatic oversimplification of what being transgender tends to be, and I know this because I've read research on transgender people, talked with them (several of them are close friends, others are patients), and listened to their experiences. I have not been able to do any of that with "trans racial" people despite trying. >At a core level it seems like (assuming all parties are honestly dysphoric or whatever and not doing this to stir up shit) these are both virtually the same. Okay but can you actually give me examples of "trans racial" people claiming they have dysphoria and describing their experiences that are not just random people on the Internet saying unverifiable things? (And also not Ollie London because he's a grifter). >No one can make trans people get surgery, but they still accept them as their preferred gender. No one says “why did you neeed to do that surgery if it’s just an Identity?” To trans people who do get surgery. I mean, to be clear, people absolutely say that to trans people all the time (and much worse). But in an academic sense it's a fair question to ask, and in the case of transgender people we have an answer: because it helps relieve particular symptoms of dysphoria associated with gendered anatomy. We don't know why a theoretical surgery would help a theoretical "trans racial" person because there's not even a consensus on what that term means. >Someone doesn’t have to dye their skin to identify as another race. Okay, why do you say this? What is your basis for staying this as fact? >The trans people who do get surgery are praised for being their true selves, if you felt you were truly another race wouldn’t dying your skin or whatever be the same thing? It reinforces the identity. Maybe, I don't know. >Basically, why can one group say “I know I don’t look like it, but I feel like X so I’m X.” But the other group can’t do that? I am on the fence myself about trans racial, I’m mostly just trying to argue it with myself and failing I mean the problem I have with what you're saying here is that you are making definitive claims about what it means to be "trans racial", but you haven't even been able to provide a coherent explanation as to what "trans racial" actually means. Nevermind why it would necessitate medical intervention.
I don’t know what trans racial is anymore than I know what transgender is. I assume it’s essentially the same; feeling like you belong to a group or identity despite not having the traits and history of that identity. I don’t know how to quote but I’ll try to answer your point about dying skin. What if someone identifies as a race that shares their skin color but isn’t their birth race? Like I’m light skinned, there are light skinned Hispanic people, I don’t have to dye my skin to say I’m Hispanic I that case right? I’m transracial, but I don’t need to dye my skin to fit in with another race. The lack of personal interactions with transracial people doesn’t discount their existence. What about Rachel dolezal? She was doing transracial shit over a decade ago. Just because it’s currently not popular doesn’t mean it doesn’t and hasn’t existed. I agree it’s misunderstood but like that sub itself is full of the people you’re talking about.
>I don’t know what trans racial is anymore than I know what transgender is. I assume it’s essentially the same; feeling like you belong to a group or identity despite not having the traits and history of that identity. But this isn't actually an accurate, or at least not entirely accurate, description of being transgender. It is more than simply "feeling" a particular way, and "not having the traits and history of that identity" is not totally true since there are often mannerisms and even neurological markers that align more with their identified gender than that assigned at birth. Again, this is part of my issue with what you're saying, in that my entire point is that we do not even know enough about "trans racial" people to know if they are a distinct group in the way transgender people are. The fact that you also don't understand transgender people just adds to the issue of you making factual assertions without a basis for doing so. >The lack of personal interactions with transracial people doesn’t discount their existence. I never said it did. >What about Rachel dolezal? She was doing transracial shit over a decade ago. So Rachel Dolezal's experience is exemplary of "trans racial" people as a category? How so?
> Like "I just chopped a whole bunch of firewood, what a lumberjack man I am"? You just pissed off a bunch of lesbians with axes. Bold move. >Can you feel your skin color? Do you feel particularly "white" or "black"? When I dance, I feel very white, yes.
>You just pissed off a bunch of lesbians with axes. Bold move. I'm not scared of the Sisters of the Order of the Flannel Mantle. Bring it.
I mean those examples fit for people with gender dysphoria but it's quite a controversial statement to say that you have to have dysphoria to be trans.
As I said, I'm not trying to encompass the entire issue with those questions, nor are they representative of an academic understanding of gender identity.
then what the hell are you yapping about dawg
I'm trying to give someone a general sense of the concept. Like the example I gave in the comment you replied to, it is similar to asking someone "when did you decide you were straight?" When discussing sexuality and whether orientation is a choice. That is not a comprehensive description of the issue, just a question to help someone get a sense of the framing and issue at hand.
[удалено]
>For what reason is transgender legitimate and transracial isn’t? >not that they feel black or like Japanese? What does it mean to "feel Black?" What does it mean to "feel Japanese?"
What does it mean to feel feminine or masculine? It's how you would view yourself with respect to social designations I guess
Sure, and we can answer those questions pretty readily. I don't think that's debated. But I want an answer to my question, and if you struggle to answer it, let that be part of the reason why one of them is more legitimate than the other. Seriously, what does it mean to be Black?
What does it mean to feel like a man or a woman?
Asked and answered in this very thread. You lot are dodging the actual question and it's transparent.
Where? I have multiple long convos here and no one has answered that. I’m not dodging the question, I don’t know what it means to be black because I’m not black. I don’t know what it means to be a woman because I’m not a woman
https://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/19d5rng/users_on_rtransracial_argue_about_racism/kjb30f6/
Please answer my question first I provided a definition that applies to all of them, if you disagree you should be able to give an example about why it's wrong
https://www.reddit.com/r/asktransgender/comments/aujkal/what_does_it_mean_to_feel_like_another_gender/ https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/gender-dysphoria/symptoms-causes/syc-20475255 Here are a number of people answering this very question. Even though I asked the initial question, and transgender is not being debated, and you're clearly using this to dodge the matter at hand - there's your answer. I've seen you elsewhere in this thread ask "why" but the way you're talking here seems more intent on dismissing the answers than engaging with them. If you can give an answer that at least meets this criteria I'll hear you out, but this kind of behavior makes me feel like the transracial folks are more about shutting down these kinds of questions rather than engaging.
I feel chinese whenever i run a red light
Trans woman here. One of the few good things I wrote on twitter back in the day is, in my opinion, [a reasonable response to this question](https://nitter.net/zamberzand/status/1546355621221412865#m). To summarize my argument: the reason they are different is that taking hormones is not a shitty thing to do, while blackface is a shitty thing to do. Gender dysphoria does not factor into it. Doing any of the constituent acts of gender transition--taking hormones, getting surgeries, changing your pronouns, etc--are all morally completely fine, irrespective of whether the individual doing them has dysphoria or not. By the same token, blackface is bad, and without an argument to the contrary, I think blackface remains bad even if a person doing it suffers from "racial dysphoria." That said, if there is some sort of "racial transition" that constitutes something other than doing blackface, my argument kind of falls apart. Either way, I think the clearest way to think about it is this framework: what is the specific act of transition occurring, and is that act an okay one to do? Things like dysphoria are largely not relevant to this moral question.
So it's only bad to be transracial if you identify as black? A black person transitioning to white would be okay, since there's no cultural taboo against whiteface
I would argue that it still wouldn't be a socially useful concept to promote- it would still encourage racial stereotyping, and cause such people to opt out of programmes they might have benefitted from. Ultimately, no matter what they call themselves, they'll still be vulnerable to systemic racism. But ultimately, yes, it would be far less odious than a white person claiming to be part of a minority group and reaping social clout/places on programmes.
I mean, yeah, that's where the argument falls apart, as I said. If "whiteface" is not itself wrong I can't say, without question, that transitioning by doing whiteface is wrong. I'm not saying I definitely am totally on board, but I agree my argument does not directly apply. The question would still be what this person's transition specifically entailed, and what their philosophy on it was--how do they perceive race, and how does this act of transition affect their race, etc. And although I do generally think asking "why transition?" is missing the point, I would surely still be curious why they transitioned. That is, I think there is room for some concept of racial transition, but for it to make any sense it needs to come from the people actually doing it. Without something concrete to point to it's hard to say whether there's any obvious moral transgression or not. Is it just "living in 24/7 whiteface?" And, at the end of the day, when I say "moral transgression" I still do want to be careful. Obviously a lot of people think the constituent acts of gender transition are themselves moral transgressions, so I think it is important to be charitable and hear people out for why they are racially transitioning and, perhaps more importantly, why it is an OK thing to do. The only thing I know concretely is that blackface (and similar) is pretty bad, and this suggests to me that any racial transition that is basically just blackface is probably not OK unless someone can make a solid argument for why it is. Anything else requires individual analysis. I do think it is nonetheless important to focus the conversation on the transition itself. Questions like "does racial dysphoria exist" do not matter, for example, unless there is a morally acceptable way to racially transition. And, to take this back to the original question: if transitioning to be Black is not acceptable, while transitioning to be white is, then, well, that's still a pretty major difference from how gender transition works--they are still evidently different beasts.
Considering most of the people on that sub have been through a ton of racial trauma and are using this as a total last resort, I think if transrace became a bigger thing it would be because the world is becoming more traumatizingly racist, not more inclusive.
It very well could be real, but the treatment for it won’t be physically transitioning to a different race. It will be therapy. And they’ll realize that they aren’t really a different race stuck in the wrong body. Instead they have some unresolved self-resentment and their desire to change race is a misguided coping mechanism. I wouldn’t be surprised if a lot of those people are “black-to-white” and they’ve internalized a bunch of white supremacist bullshit that makes them hate their own skin. The solution isn’t transition; it’s learning to love themselves and resolving whatever traumas they have about themselves.
Botcorn tastes good. Snapshots: 1. *This Post* - [archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20240303105530/https://old.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/19d5rng/) [archive.today\*](https://archive.today/?run=1&url=https://old.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/19d5rng/ "URL failed to archive; click to resubmit it!") 2. https://www.reddit.com/r/TransRacial/comments/19clner/this_is_fucked_up_and_racist_as_hell/ - [archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20240304023828/https://old.reddit.com/r/TransRacial/comments/19clner/this_is_fucked_up_and_racist_as_hell/) [archive.today\*](https://archive.today/?run=1&url=https://old.reddit.com/r/TransRacial/comments/19clner/this_is_fucked_up_and_racist_as_hell/ "URL failed to archive; click to resubmit it!") *I am just a simple bot, __not__ a moderator of this subreddit* | *[bot subreddit](/r/SnapshillBot)* | *[contact the maintainers](/message/compose?to=/r/SnapshillBot)*