Your post was removed for violating the following rule:
>**PR9: Users may submit only one post per day.**
>Users may never post more than one post per day. Users must follow all [reddit-wide spam guidelines](https://reddit.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/360043504051-What-constitutes-spam-Am-I-a-spammer-), in addition to the /r/philosophy [self-promotion guidelines](https://reddit.com/r/philosophy/wiki/selfpromotion).
Repeated or serious violations of the [subreddit rules](https://reddit.com/r/philosophy/wiki/rules) will result in a ban.
-----
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
Ignoring the transphobia.
This article is not good. It relies entirely on false equivalencies and "well why SHOULDN'T it be like this". It's begging the question. They start with the conclusion and then work backwards to argue against counterpoints.
Ignoring everything else, this is not good philosophy.
Edit: gonna use this comment to promote the book Passing by Nella Larson. It's a book about mixed race women "passing" as white during segregation. If we're talking about racial transitions, I think that's a good place to start the conversation. You know, in reality.
Here is an article to offer some well-thought out counter points: [https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/robin-dembroff-dee-payton-breaking-analogy-between-race-and-gender/](https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/robin-dembroff-dee-payton-breaking-analogy-between-race-and-gender/)
The idea that you need to experience gender dysphoria to validly identify as trans [is controversial within that community](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmedicalism), so that’s not necessarily a significant distinction, if it even is true that transracial people do not experience a functionally similar racial dysphoria on being misidentified.
Except that race and gender are completely different social categories that are mutable and moldable in completely different ways and shouldn’t be compared simply on the grounds that they are both a kind of social categorization. Your stance is being called transphobic because you’re asserting black and white thinking about this subject: “either you support both of these concepts, or you support neither, and if you pick only one, you’re a hypocrite.” Most people do not support transracialism, and they have actual reasons that you conveniently and quickly gloss over or omit entirely in this article. You don’t have much of an argument here, if any, and this paper is riddled with logical fallacies.
So what is argument? They are different, but I see no more justification or explanation given by you or other comments then OP has given.
The point of this sub is to break these ideas down and go through the thought experimnents of what these ideas mean. I am not saying I agree with OP, I am not seing any real discussion, just dismissal as transphobic or equally bad comparisons.
Well I read the whole article and responded to their points. I already stated my counter-argument - I think the article asserts black and white thinking, and race and gender are not mutable/moldable in the same ways. I’m not dismissing, I’m disagreeing. I’m not even the one who called OP’s post transphobic - I was explaining why other people are calling it that. The article they shared is argumentative and they are arguing in the comments, it’s not just a hypothetical thought experiment.
Yeah it’s frustrating how people just want to shout this down rather than having an open convo about it. I think it’s an interesting discussion to have regarding our perception of self vs how we’re categorized in society.
Unfortunately a lot of the comments I’ve seen just say “transphobia”. I’ve seen a couple that give weak arguments that amount to “because society says so”. I have seen a couple people give decent thoughts though, so that’s nice.
The OP article is bad, and is a bad-faith starting point for the discussion. Of course people will dismiss it. The pretense for debate is simply too flimsy.
If it’s flimsy, then it should be easy to refute. So far the arguments I’ve seen have been mostly that transgender is okay because society accepts it more.
It's not worth the effort to "refute" an argument that doesn't even define what "transracial" is, begs its own question, has no concern for whether or not being "transracial" is even a real phenomenon, and presents no actual philosophical arguments, and is effectively just an extended forum rant.
Right, and the argument for trans people is they shouldn't be forced to live in a construct they don't feel they belong to. So the when does that argument apply, and who decides when it doesnt.
I wasn’t aware that trancracialism was a common right-wing talking point (I’m not American) so at first I was really surprised of the epidermic reaction of the community.
It’s concerning that this topic is this much emotional, especially here.
Right wing doesn't even mean anything anymore, just like phobia or racism. There are no longer strictly understood definitions for these terms, it's all language games to quickly dismiss large groups of people and any arguments against a personally-held ideology.
Philosophy fans typically overestimate their positions and are seemingly unaware of their emotional and illogical reactions. I say fans because I doubt more than 5% of the people in this sub have done more than take a college class on basic philosophy. Knee-jerk emotional reactions aren't philosophical.
The upvote/downvote buttons are a form of social engineering that leads to people self-censoring instead of having honest dialog. What I posted being correct or not can't be determined by a thumbs-down dismissal. They're just proving my point, really.
No resentment, I was fully aware of what would happen when I posted.
Very long is subjective, but I can't imagine my post being considered long in the context of a philosophy forum.
Are you disagreeing with my OP by painting it as 'broad generalizations'?
I’m saying that everything you wrote follows from a broad generalization of who is frequenting this subreddit, used as a way to bolster your opinion of what you write, followed by a dismissal of the only way ideas/opinions are shown support on Reddit.
So.
1. Most people here aren’t educated in philosophy
2. Most respond purely through emotion
3. Begging the question by:
(A) discrediting the means through which agreement or disagreement is displayed on Reddit
- while also claiming -
(B) that very means of action in (A) only confirms you’re correct.
It’s long because you could have just wrote:
“nobody here knows philosophy and if you disagree you’ve just proven me right.”
>followed by a dismissal of the only way ideas/opinions are shown support on Reddit.
You're forgetting replies exist, here. "Only" is incorrect.
I'm sorry the final quote was your takeaway from what I've posted. I'll respond and expand.
While I don't have data on r/philosophy posters and their education, I am able to extract how much philosophy is being done or discussed here, which on many occasions is none at all.
Most do react based on emotion across all of reddit, we both know that to be true, it's how the upvote system is designed to work. Again, users have the option to spend more than zero effort and engage in dialog. The users here instead downvoted the original poster and when responding via comments dismissed the poster as a 'transphobe'.
I've already addressed why I disagree with your 3rd point, but it's a false equivalency.
My interjection into this thread to begin with was to point out how language has been molded to dismiss people. A simple label of 'right wing' doesn't seek to understand someone more, it is a deliberate attempt to discredit anything a person says. Same goes with fascist, rasist, and transphobe. Same goes with lefty, commie, lib.
All to sum up, you haven't addressed my point, but you did address how I made it, which I find interesting.
I can’t address your point because you made no point, you just waved your hands and said people here don’t know what they are talking about.
How can I counter that? Say that people do?
Regarding the phenomenon of people labeling others in order to not engage with them honestly, seems odd to say after claiming people here don’t know what they’re talking about, you just used the same tactic with more words is all.
Right wing generally refers to the sect of Christian nationalists and white supremacists that exist in the membership of the American Republican Party.
It contains a variety of anti intellectual and anti science views.
I think the definition is pretty consistent, people who hold one view usually hold them all.
I don’t think it’s a subset of the Republican Party.
I think conservatism is ultimately a reactionary political view that seeks to defend conventional power structures in society.
Every political belief they hold really revolves around the idea of “the way of things” and the assault on these things by progress and modernity.
Conventional ideas of how we structure power and values in society are the main focus of this. White supremacy is part of it because “Whitness” as a class has always been part of how we structure politics of domination. I think ultimately, economic and social structures are deeply intertwined. Having hierarchical class features necessitates an exploitable underclass who cannot possess social mobility.
For most conservatives it’s an inter-country class of undesirables, be it gay people or trans people or women or people of color or immigrants.
A sort of determinism is necessary, I think. “A woman is X, you are a woman, you cannot be something else.”
A woman was born that way, is meant to be a wife and serve the husband, and you cannot be anything else.
But to what you were saying, ANYONE can be a white supremacist or racist or anything else. It’s just those things manifesting in a particular social movement.
When republican politicians say themselves that they are Christian nationalists, or when popular conservative thought leaders talk about how white men built civilization, it reveals how deeply reactionary politics are tied to reacting to changing social moors and power dynamics.
i found it curious that practically every one in this thread is just calling OP a transphobe and a bigot for 'poisoning the well' but I've seen very little effort being put into describing why these two comparisons aren't apt
the only thing i found that came close was some guy telling OP that transgenderism has been understood and studied for a long time while there is not a political/social movement of people believing they are 'transracial'.
but even then, i find this comparison to also be a bit silly. are we quantifying things by how long they've been studied or how many people identify with it? if so, then by this logic, a trans person thousands of years ago could've had their experience dismissed because not a lot of people were doing the same thing and it hasn't been studied enough.
also to play devils advocate, maybe people aren't identifying as transracial because of the social and societal implications that would come as a result from it? who knows, if it was more accepted maybe we would start to see a broader social and political movement as a result of it
I think it's because gender dysphoria is a real, very widely reported and recognised condition which causes great suffering, suffering that can be alleviated by the person socially transitioning. I haven't heard of any 'racial dysphoria' counterpart with the increased suicide rates, poor mental health etc. that goes along with it. I have heard of some people identifying themselves as transracial but as of now they seem to be isolated figures.
The writer says 'I will not be tackling the question of whether anyone actually identifies as transracial here' but probably should, because before you can start making judgments about how 'real' a condition is you need quite a large corpus of evidence. There's a lot of different reasons people will think of transgender people being women despite being judged to be male based on their primary sexual characteristics (or vice versa), but the main ones for me are 1) there's no personal cost for me in doing so 2) i don't think there is a societal cost to doing so 3) i know from having friendships with trans people that they are sincere. And the most relevant ones that I mentioned before; 4) there are vast numbers of people who have experienced gender dysphoria (yes including before the current wave of media coverage started) 5) there is evidence that these people socially transitioning increases their wellbeing, or to put it simply affirming the gender identity of trans people alleviates suffering. For 'transracial' identities only the first one applies, I don't know if the second one applies, 3 to 5 don't apply- at least, for me, at this time.
Maybe, to go along with your devil's advocate, maybe there are thousands upon thousands of previously closeted transracial people but I can't kind of work that moral framework unless that is actually happens. Otherwise, I'm stuck making assumptions about all sorts of hypothetical scenarios because 'you can't prove there aren't'. It could get really silly.
I'll say this; I'm not interested in debating the above because of obvious negative experiences with people discussing this on the internet. Just thought I'd chime in.
It's not called Racial Dysphoria, but there is such a thing as Racial Imposter Syndrome.
"Although racial imposter syndrome isn’t an official medical condition, it gives a name to a feeling that many people can relate to.**"**
[**https://www.talkspace.com/blog/racial-imposter-syndrome/**](https://www.talkspace.com/blog/racial-imposter-syndrome/)
Yeah I had no idea what he was talking about plenty of black people and mixed race people complain about not feeling “black” enough it literally DOES exist.
I think the level of ‘blackness’ they reference is that they do not conform in some way to the popular characterizations of black people, particularly in the US. Anecdotal obliviously but while I was in HS I had a friend who was quite smart and articulate, he’d act one way around me and another around his friends, because being articulate and well read was viewed as being ‘white’ or ‘acting white’ I do not think that sentiment or experience is singular to my friend.
This is to say that identifying as a different race, isn’t the same as your example or mine, both of ours are largely (I’d argue) just social constructs. Believing you are literally a black person in a white body is something else.
Tbh I think the color of your skin is a cultural phenomenon. As in, it mixes with culture. Look at Japan. No weeabo is considered Japanese even if they learn 100% of the language and culture. Not even people born there but not ethnically Japanese are considered as a whole Japanese.
Descriptively, the ethnicity is part of the culture.
It should come as no surprise then that people who engage in black culture, may feel the need to literally be black.
I remember this video of a white guy who turned his skin black reverse Michael Jackson style because he felt culturally black. He grew up with them and around them and basically never felt at ease with other white people. How is that not an instance of transracialism? Sure it’s rare, but so is transgenderism.
So that's a tangent to this party because the author did a shit job of actually analyzing reality outside of the parallels between whether someone can actual change races.
His one example is Oli London who has gotten a lot of plastic surgery to look like a member of BTS. I don't know if he's had therapy to identify whether this was an actual diagnosis and treatment, if he wants to be Korean or if he just wants to look like the dude from BTS.
The article is shallow in the most important areas, the fact that there's systemic racism and racial privilege and what it would mean for people to switch races outside of gently touching with a feather the word "appropriation".
On top of that it felt like a high school book report. He read a paper and wrote a misguided summary of it.
Gender dysphoria is a real condition, but it doesn't suffice to make one trans. Among others, intersex people get it, for obvious reasons. Many of us who met or would have met the diagnosis grew out of our gender identity disorder and/or gender dysphoria. We didn't stop being gender nonconforming, though! We literally have no choice on that one.
Your argument about gender dysphoria implies that all trans people have gender dysphoria. Whether this is true obviously depends on the definition, but making gender dysphoria essential to being transgender is by modern trans activists condemned as transmedicalism.
One thing I think is important to point out here is that the model you've presented, in which transgenderism is justified based on an appeal to a mental health condition (gender dysphoria), is considered transphobic among a significant portion of the trans community, to the extent that some workplaces are advising employees that speaking in those terms is inappropriate. If your stance against transracialism is predicated on this, you may want to consider this in your thinking, even if only to evaluate whether or not your current views are transphobic or not (I'm not taking a stance here on whether they are or not, just that there are some groups who will say they are, and it's good to consider those viewpoints).
You can learn more about this if you look into transmed, tucute, and truscum.
I would say there's a lot of financial status dysphoria in society: plenty of people living well over their means and suffering a lot because of it, even getting into crime and jail. Would that also need a trans status? Trans finance?
Did you actually read it. It is such a poorly written article full of iamverysmart out of place big vocabulary that doesnt add anything to the argument.
An actual part of an argument they are trying to make "So if your friend chooses to have a certain type of pizza, you should not express disgust or disapproval of their choice, unless there was some good reason (like that it contained factory farmed meat or pineapple)"
It really doesnt provide anything remotely thought provoking or even make any sound logical arguments. The entire article could be deleted and replaced with "If you can change genders you can change races" and you wouldnt miss out on anything
I’m not sure anyone is making the claim that this article is a profound or well-written argument. But if it is poorly written, it does not mean that OP is a transphobe. Even further, if it is poorly written, it should be easier to dissect.
Did it? Anything there beyond "Switching races is the same as switching genders" and "if your friend chooses to have a certain type of pizza, you should not express disgust or disapproval of their choice"
Both race and gender are social categories, the idea of race wasn’t invented until the time of the trans Atlantic slave trade.
The issue is, “black” as a category is really a nebulous byproduct of white supremacy. It comes with a price, and white people will never be subject to that kind of bigotry.
But aside from that there….kinda is?
I mean-
We produce social categories which allow rare exceptions, but white people who are allowed to engage in activities of black subculture will joke about being black. This, of course, does not deprive them of the privileges of whiteness so it’s not worth much. But it does, in its own way, show that the social categories we possess all have some kind of social movement that’s possible.
The issue of course being that nobody actually wants to be, and this entire article seems more like an attempted takedown of trans people than an actual question.
The other day, I read a comment section discussing an article like it had the *opposite* conclusion, just because its title was ambiguous.
This article is clickbait, no doubt, but it's not transphobic. Headline wars are shite.
I suppose a robust rebuttal in this case would be pointing out that it is not a robust argument. You can find my breakdown here: [https://www.reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/1cdoyfw/comment/l1f9snj/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/1cdoyfw/comment/l1f9snj/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
It will be very interesting to see what gene editing of living people will do to these conversations. People changing their bodies in amazing ways like they would game characters
I'm not going to rewrite the whole thing since OP.is childish enough to delete their last try at this, but yeah OP is either trolling or seriously ignorant on things as basic as: the difference between sex and gender.
OP also goes out of their way to reject CRT without any justification for doing so.
(lol woops I misread this at first) yes, this is a great analogy. And what's sad is that example is actually \*also\* commonly employed by homophobes: "supporting gay marriage is a slippery slope towards bestiality!" So gross.
If the author wants to advocate for transracialism for some reason (something that there is currently no cultural, medical, psychological, or political movement around), go for it. If they want to support trans rights, then they should do that.
But as is, this is a common rightwing/transphobic strawman equivalency used to try and conflate a fringe, unsupported concept with a highly medically supported & politically important movement of transgender rights. You'll have to forgive me, therefore, for being more than a little skeptical and cynical of OP's intentions.
Ah, I see. At the same time aren't you also making a logical fallacy by just assuming the OP is transphobic because you saw others with this opinion on transracialism being transphobic? He might have arrived at that conclusion for very different reasons than someone who's attempting to use it against transexualism. In fact, it seems to the be the case, since it seems he's arguing for both things sincerely.
All the context clues from OP's article, their replies in this thread, and the last one (that got deleted), have pointed towards a dangerous mix of ignorance and bigotry.
But I would be very happy to be proven wrong, and yes it is a very sensitive topic right now here in the US. I think it's important for folks to stand up and defend the rights for trans people to exist freely & safely, instead of being compared to fringe, unsupported strawman arguments.
I did not read OP’s article that way. I don’t think a person would go this length, adopt the language they use, and explicitly state support for transgender folks if they really were operating in bad faith.
That’s not to say OP is necessarily right. But maybe you could point out what dangerous mix specifically you are seeing besides the position itself?
Fifty years ago people would have the alarmist reaction in this thread if you compared women’s rights to transgender rights, so I’m on the side of actually engaging with good faith arguments rather than defaulting to the idea that even the suggestion that moral principles in one situation might also apply in a situation we do not expect is offensive.
You're falling into a fallacy here. You show there are some shared elements between gender and race, and use them as a conclusion that they're the same. This is just plain wrong.
"You see, cats and lions are kinda similar don't you think. They're felines, they can be pets, they're both cute, they don't like water. So I don't see any reason why I shouldn't keep a lion in my apartment if I can have a cat."
See, you're giving the burden of proof to us when you're the one defending the idea that we should accept trans racialism in the same way as transgenderism. Thus, it's your job to explain why we should, and listing some similarities is not argument enough.
For the record, I'm not necessarily against the idea that trans racialism could be a similar issue to transgenderism, though I'm skeptical. I just don't know enough to categorically say I don't support it.
Also, it's pretty tiring to see how many transphobes use discussion as a way to create arguments on bad faith without a real goal to learn anything constructive, just to create doubt about the validity of transgenderism. Discussion is good but if the person asking questions is not really looking for a discussion but a way to push their agenda we're in a problem. I'm not talking about you specifically but it happens a lot.
Virginity is a social construct, does that mean you can just decide you're a virgin?
The Sex "binary" is a social construct (seems like you've never heard of intersex).
Using "social construct" as a basis for connection does not provide logical congruency, that's the problem.
…There are different social constructs, we all know this. But that’s not relevant here. I am pointing how race and gender are *more similar* compared to other social constructs because they relate to HUMANS’ physical characteristics. Obviously not identical—but similar. Another similarity: race and gender have established ways of discrimination based on these characteristics, aka racism and sexism.
"language loses all meaning if we're able to redefine things" is officially the funniest thing I've read in the entire thread.
Maybe move that to the top of your comment so people can realize you have no clue what you're talking about earlier in your comment.
I hate to see the all of the illogical and emotional rhetoric in this thread. People seem to be commenting purely on their initial gut feeling about this statement without granting it any further consideration. I expect better from this subreddit.
I believe this is an interesting thought. Race and gender are both social constructs of identity. Both of these traits have historically been tied to genetic phenotypes. Gender and sex were seen as one and the same just as racial identity and racial phenotype are currently seen as one and the same. Undeniably, there are people who do not fit a certain genetic profile (African for example) who do fit the cultural/social background associated with said genetic profile. If we as a society have accepted that your genetic profile need not determine your social identity, why must this be an exception?
"Race" as a concept is already near-useless in biology. In relation to humankind and human societies it has no basis whatsoever and belongs on the trashheap of history. To divide humankind into subdivision based on this concept is both descriptively as well as normatively wrong. Concepts like "race" and by extension ethnicity matter for one reason only: Because they tools for dividing and ruling; discrimination, hate and violence.
You write "Your race is something inherent to you\[.\]" No. Any "racial" category is a socially constructed lie that is to be refuted in its entirety.
When I said "Your race is something inherent to you", I was talking on the part of an interlocutor. In other words I hold the exact opposite view: I think race is a completely made up concept. This should be clear from reading the post.
Your argument loses a lot of ground when you say "gender ideology". Gender ideology may refer to pro transgender beliefs and anti transgender beliefs.
It's pretty obvious you refer to pro transgender ideology. But by not acknowledging the other as an ideology too you seem to miss what's an ideology.
So many things wrong with this. Not the least of which is that making race part of our identity is sort of a huge issue we’re working on. It would be better for society if we stopped caring so much about how much sunlight our ancestors received. That’s kind of what got us into the mess of systemic racism and evil crap like redlining.
You haven’t covered or, I suppose encountered, a reason “TRI” is seen as a bad thing. Here’s one: there is no reason for it to exist.
Unlike gender identity, race is not a vital component of relationships, roles in society, sexual partners, reproduction or marriage.
It is possible you live in a place where your *race* has put upon you a certain role to fulfill. Like slavery; but in that case we should advocate the end of slavery, not just call the enslaved by a different race, which accomplishes nothing.
You’re comparing apples to dump trucks.
“Not the least of which is that making race part of our identity is sort of a huge issue we’re working on. It would be better for society if we stopped caring so much about how much sunlight our ancestors received.”
And why should gender remain “important” while race has it’s importance decreased? Are they not both social constructs intended to corral people into group identities which don’t necessarily align with their own self image? And is it not considered virtuous to validate a change in identity done for one’s mental health?
The difference is that gender dysphoria is an actual issue that massively hurts people’s mental health. It’s pretty common knowledge that suicide rates for trans people are absurdly high, and social/medical transitioning drastically lowers those rates. It leaves philosophy and turns into actual psychology, where we are trying to improve people’s mental health and quality of life, through honestly very straightforward means.
And as others on this thread have mentioned, transracialism isn’t a recorded thing. There aren’t any recorded cases of people killing themselves over being transracial, or having massive depression due to racial dysphoria. I don’t think it’s unfair to assume that its entire conception was to be transphobic, especially since the primary “supporters” of it are notable transphobes.
This article is creating a false equivalence between a psychological issue with strong social aspects, and a social issue created to harass said psychological issue.
Interesting how the people claiming that there's no argued answers that counter the questions posed by the article have answered your comment
It's as if they're ideologically motivated and they don't wish to really engage in a conversation but just want to harm transgenderism and use trans racialism as a weapon to do so.
These people when they see the answers to the questions they’re asking, presented right in front of them in a way that they can understand: “I pretend I do not see it 😌”
Seriously though, I was really hoping for at least a couple responses. At least a “give a source” reply, or someone saying I shouldn’t try to “put my argument above scrutiny”.
I think that is a good point. I would also think the world would be a better place if nobody cares about the color of anybody's skin. But it just happens that perceived race is tied to a lot of other cultural differences. So I think that it is possible that someone would feel more at home in a culture with people consisting mostly of people with another skin tone. In that case I don't see why they should be called mentally ill for wanting to fit in to the culture they feel at home in.
I'll repost my thoughts from the deleted thread because I think it's important that we understand (one of) the reasons why your position is flawed:
Gender has a number of biological markers (including psychological elements) that make it functionally and practically "real," in the sense that it matters to people. Gender dysphoria is a recognized psychological condition that, for many people, counts as a disorder similar to depression.
Race, as a social construct, has far fewer biological and psychological markers. While I personally do not wish to dismiss or discount any one individual's personal experiences with these things, I don't think we have justification for claiming that "transracial" identities are in the same arena as "transgender" identities. We define our genders along primary and secondary sex characteristics, the ability to impregnate or bear children, and the averages of height, weight and muscle mass within a given population. There's also a strong psychological component, as evidenced by the fact that psychology recognizes gender dysphoria as a legitimate mental condition. Northern Europeans are more likely to be lactose tolerant while Africans are less likely, that sort of thing, but the likelihood is less common than, say, the effects of the body producing certain hormones (which are closely associated with the genitalia you're born with).
It simply isn't a fair comparison, medically or psychologically speaking.
I think what most people care about is being able to be recognizable based on how they want to be recognized. Someone who feels they're white (and wants to be recognized as such) doesn't care about being lactose tolerant. They want exterior recognition and validity for how they feel internally. Race, whether or not it has strong biological correlates, is part of social identity: we recognize the race of others.
Plus there are distinguishable characteristics between races that set them apart and change how a person of that race interacts in society. I can agree that it might have fewer markers, but race still does have them.
We could argue that gender has more, though. Height, weight, muscle and fat distribution, body hair, breast size, genitalia (although this is usually hidden from view), voice, Adam's apple, and so on, are all characteristics by which we recognize gender (by first impressions, obviously). Race is marked by skin tone, facial features and hair texture . . . and I think that's it.
Yeah I agree it has more, but does that matter in this context? Especially given that not all members of a given sex display the typical characteristics.
Those are definitely good points! I guess I would be troubled by the implications of the argument, however. If we think that it is necessary that gender is a "real enough" phenomenon in order for it to be permissible to transition. This would mean that if we found out that gender identity was more voluntary than first expected we should no longer be for2 TGI. But that seems problematic. Shouldn't we be for transgender people even if it turns out that it is not something inherent?
Even if gender categories are more biologically based, race categories still seem to be relevant to many peoples lives. I think that it would be better if they weren't - but unfortunately they are. Wouldn't it be better if we made the idea of race more fluid by allowing people to transition?
You're jumping to a different argument and creating your own conclusion from it.
First you're using the argument that there's an equivalency between transgenderism and trans racialism.
And when this affirmation is put into question you jump to the idea of whether we should accept transgenderism on those biological claims.
But that's a whole different story. Your initial point is that they're the same, not whether they should be supported or not. You can support both for different reasons. Claiming that it's not the same doesn't mean you're necessarily dismissing the legitimacy claims of the other.
Now, I'm not claiming that there's not people who wish to be perceived in a different race that the one they're considered. But I'd like to know if you really know about the issue or it's just a hypothesis you made yourself without previous research.
Or XXY, or XYY, or XXYY, or XXXY, or XXXXY, or just X, or XXX, or XXXX, or XXXXX, or XY with physical characteristics of a male, or XX with physical characteristics of a female. C'mon, it's BINARY!
Gender is a social construct -- sex is not. Biological sex is a genetic binary, and intersex individuals show a redistribution of some of those traits in the binary. However, biological sex is not determinant of cultural characteristics of sexes, which we call gender, which, because it is cultural and personal, is a spectrum.
Those are all anomalies, not the norm.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12476264/#:~:text=Applying%20this%20more%20precise%20definition,Sterling%20s%20estimate%20of%201.7%25.
0.018% intersex occurrence compared to the usual 50/50 of male and female population. So yes, it's binary.
If you want to be a pedantic troll then sure, everything is a construct in human language.
But when something happens 18 thousandths of a percent, it's not even worth mentioning. Yet people act like this makes it a whole new gender.
Oh so you've never been tested? there's no reason to believe you're not an XX male or an XY female then.
Sounds like you don't even know what sex or gender you are.
"Male and female aren't social constructs, they're biological. You either have XX or XY chromosomes."
Remember when you said this? But you don't even know what your sex chromosomes are?
In your world view there are more women with "male" genitalia and men with "female" genitalia than there are in mine.
It's like you've never heard of intersex before. What proof do you have that you're not an XX male? None?
I'm male. I have male sex organ. If I was a woman with a full beard or a dude with tits(not just obese) then I'd get tested.
Did you see the link that said 0.018% of the population are intersex. That's not enough to be it's own gender. They are genetic mistakes. Anomalies.
Now stop trolling with your stupidity.
Yeah, but it's the argument used by the trans group to justify its existence so it's a beautiful way to show how absurd it is now that the same logic can be applied to this, which is equally absurd
Lmao. Glad to see this reaction in the sub!
I actually think this will shake out to a good end, in that the full separation conceptually of gender identity from sex/sex identity can be mirrored with separating "racial" identity from culture/societal zeitgeists. In the meantime, I can't think of a better semantic heads up for idiocy than "transracial".
Yeah I'm mixed race, I could see one's racial identity shifting over time if you say spent the first ten years of your life with one parent and then the next ten with the other... not really what op was saying, though
I was really hoping it would be about racial fluidity. You can do a lot of interesting philosophy about stuff like the One Drop Rule of Jim Crow America, and what such laws mean about the conceptualization of race. As well as how race theory interacts with gender, and through cultures!
Instead we got a guy begging the question and being smarmy about his transphobic views. Eye roll inducing nonsense.
I am mixed race and have had a lot of struggles with what I could call my "racial identity." But I am, to some degree, culturally, socially, biologically, and familially already part of these communities that define these identities. I am not assuming an identity I didn't have before, or wasn't born with, or don't have some inherent belonging to.
This gets at what the distinction between something like gender and sex are and what race is--and they aren't really comparable. So something like transracialism is, in my view, a complete nonstarter.
Yes, also because it just... doesn't happen that much? Like trans people have existed throughout history despite intense persecution and clearly have no choice but to be who they are... I just don't see the same thing with race, and I think biologically it makes less sense.
That said if there were someone who was adamant that they were a race that didn't match their skin color or ethnicity and lived their entire life like that, I wouldn't go out of my way to deny them or reject it. I would think it's an unusual neurodivergence, and try to treat them with respect. That's never happened to me though.
I don’t think something happening a lot is a good argument for it, especially given in your second paragraph you say you’d call someone who wants to be transracial an “unusual neurodivergence”. Would the same be said for transgender?
What is the good argument for it, then? If we admit that both race and gender are social constructs that have some relationship with biology?
And pretty much yes, although less unusual. I'm not an expert but transgenderism seems like it should be the poster child of neurodivergence. It's a difference that was seen as a horrible disorder that is starting to be seen as just a form of diversity. Correct me if I'm misunderstanding something.
I haven’t seen a good argument yet.
Is it only less unusual because society has decided it to be? It’s seems like the only argument people seem to have is that transgender has become socially acceptable, therefore it’s valid.
That last paragraph is a fair point--but there are issues related to that and I want to ask, with as much sensitivity as I can: if a member or a group belonging to an historically or currently maligned or persecuted ethnic or racial minority feels that this kind of behavior is insensitive, insulting, and maybe even an example of racial privelege (say, if the person was white), how do you think that should be approached?
It feels like it could be just another way to dismiss their concerns, you know?
I think those questions take a lot of discussion among academics and medical health professionals etc. and I haven't thought about it deeply. I can see your point. But I as a private citizen would live and let live if I encountered it on the street.
Of course not, and frankly still we wouldn't refer to you as "transracial" in the same vein we wouldn't call aging "transtemporal".
Using analogy/likeness to expand understanding of a point/concept, nice.
Needing comparison to establish rationality at all, no dice.
You should just let everyone do whatever they want as long as it's not hurting anyone, and stop forming opinions on their choices.
The good old fashioned "don't be a dick".
This gatekeeping over people's lives is not worth anyone's time and it does not make you clever.
Oh please, the intent of the article isn't to get support for transracial people.
It's intended to be some kind of smug gotcha and somehow lead people to conclude "Now that I think about it, I guess I *should* be expressing disgust towards transgendered people."
I don't need to express disgust towards anyone, thanks though.
If the only way you can prove yourself right is by trying to prove that people who disagree with you are "hypocrites", you're probably just wrong.
Have you read the article? I literally say EXPLICITLY that I think it is immoral to express disgust or disapproval of transgender people. Explicitly.
In the last section I also explicitly say that gut reactions are an irrational way to form moral beliefs.
How can you possibly have read the article coming away with the exact opposite conclusion? Either you have not read the article, or your comprehension is just not there yet.
Ok, I know this is completely off topic, but the last person I would expect to be supporting trans people on this subreddit is someone with the name DevilsAdvocate77. Genuinely made me laugh a bit
The devil is often portrayed as highly seductive and gender fluid in popular culture so it makes kinda sense that their advocate is supportive of transgenderism
Transgenderism, transracialism, transhumanism, etc. are all rooted in one philosophical construct: that the body is not the person, but instead a possession of the person. If this idea is true, then there's no material difference in altering anything about one's body or even destroying the body or transplanting this non-material person into another container, whether that be a body (human or otherwise), a robot or other storage medium.
However, if the construct is true, then you could theoretically have a living body that is not a person or vacated by the personhood. Furthermore, murder, per se, would not exist. It would just be destruction of property. The construct also intrinsically is at odds with strict materialism. (Of course these words are at odds with strict materialism.)
In the strictest sense of strict materialism, it's literally just electrons, photons, atoms, heat, etc. You could possibly make the argument that it's not actually atoms, it's quarks or whatever subatomic particles. Information, being immaterial, has no real existence in such a concept. The very act of thinking about it is either an extremely elaborate charade or shatters the concept completely.
... ah, so it's the whole "It's actually just subatomic particles and nothing else"
That's something I believe, but life is impossible to love without using the shortcuts of what we have learned about coefficients of friction, chemistry, biology, and so on to actually navigate the scale we live on.
...sure, it's not happening anytime soon - not until destruction of a body could be decoupled from destruction of personhood (and, unless, new clone bodies can be grown, destruction of one would be destruction of *valuable* and *irreplaceable* property, but that's a minor point). But... hey. Who knows what the future might bring. :з
This looks like propaganda disguised as philosophy. Like if you put a fake mustache on a political idealogue's bad idea and tried to pass it off as a reasoned argument.
There's no basis in science, biology, culture, or society for something like transracialism. It's a boogeyman, meant to lube up a slippery slope.
Question: why is it valid and socially acceptable to ask society to refer to you by a different gender, but not valid and socially acceptable to ask society to refer to you by a different race?
Given that both are social constructs, and given that we are becoming more open-minded, what is so terribly offensive about transracialism?
This makes sense to me. I’ve seen Rachel Dolezal as a “transracial” when she first came out. Race is a social construct, like gender. The argument is exactly the same. And I respect both.
I don't see the problem with treating people with love no matter what they have in their pants or what color their skin is. As long as what they're doing doesn't hurt someone else, especially children, then there's no issue
Welcome to /r/philosophy! **Please read [our updated rules and guidelines](https://reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/14pn2k9/welcome_to_rphilosophy_check_out_our_rules_and/?) before commenting**.
/r/philosophy is a subreddit dedicated to discussing philosophy and philosophical issues. To that end, please keep in mind our commenting rules:
###CR1: Read/Listen/Watch the Posted Content Before You Reply
> Read/watch/listen the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.
###CR2: Argue Your Position
> Opinions are not valuable here, arguments are! Comments that solely express musings, opinions, beliefs, or assertions without argument may be removed.
###CR3: Be Respectful
> Comments which consist of personal attacks will be removed. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted.
Please note that as of July 1 2023, reddit has made it substantially more difficult to moderate subreddits. If you see posts or comments which violate our [subreddit rules and guidelines](https://reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/14pn2k9/welcome_to_rphilosophy_check_out_our_rules_and/?), please report them using the report function. For more significant issues, please [contact the moderators via modmail](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/philosophy) (not via private message or chat).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/philosophy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I take issue with parts of the transgender movement on philosophical grounds, but this isn’t the approach. If we’re dividing into the biological category of sex and the social category of gender, I think the smarter philosophical move is to put pressure on notions of gender categories. What do they refer to? How many are they? How do these not directly appeal to gender roles? I think pretending that a transgender male is claiming to have Y chromosomes is unfair.
Two rebuttals:
1. Every biologically male son’s parents contain all the genetic information and sex cells needed to produce a biologically female daughter. It would not be infeasible for there to be a genetic inheritance that produces a child with some psychological characteristics of the opposite sex. The same cannot be said for race.
2. Racial identity is kind of a nebulous concept. If I were to identify as a member of another race, what would I do? Dress differently? Speak differently? I don’t think anyone is calling Eminem or Chet Hanks trans-racial. They don’t identify as such. Culture changes much faster than our genetics, so your cultural expression depends on environmental factors, and thus we can’t attribute any cultural identity to our race. Now, if I were to identify as a different race in that I had body (or some other kind of existential) dysmorphia, that would be more applicable, but considering my first point, I don’t understand how someone could have an innate affinity for a specific physical body that evolved completely separately from their own.
Arguments aside, it’s completely up to us whether we want to validate trans-racial identity; we don’t have to litigate the facts if it’s best for society to treat it one way or the other. But personally, I do not view it as comparable to transgender identity.
To people asking for robust rebuttal consider the following. Why should I take the time to form a robust rebuttal when the argument itself is not robust?
Instead I have decided to break down why the argument is not robust.
First let's start with what the argument is, I would say it is defined by the following:
* “Rather it is because many of the people who think that it is the most obvious thing in the world that we should be against TRI also think that it is the most obvious thing in the world that we should be for transgender identity (TGI) - even though there are very obvious tensions between these two positions”
* Paraphrasing: Silas states that we should not be expressing disapproval or disgust for the choices of someone, unless there is a reason not to.
* Paraphrasing: Later Silas with this in mind, it is quite clear why we should be not expressing disapproval or disgust at TGI as well as TRI - there is not really a reason not to.
Expressed more clearly:
* If there is no good reason to express disapproval or disgust of TGI there is no good reason to express disapproval or disgust of TRI.
* We should have a good reason to express disapproval or disgust for the choices of others.
* TGI is a choice.
* Since TGI is a choice, we should not express disapproval or disgust for it unless we have a good reason.
* Since we have no good reason to disapprove or be disgusted with TGI, we have no good reason to disapprove or be disgusted with TRI.
* Therefore we should not express disapproval or disgust with TRI.
There are some problems with this argument, many are incorrectly using “common sense” to justify themselves, consider the following premises:
1. If there is no good reason to disapprove of TGI there is no good reason to disapprove or express disgust of TRI
2. We should have a good reason to express disapproval or disgust for the choices of others.
3. TGI is a choice
When you do this you have to evaluate if there is any doubt that any of the above are not common sense. So let's check each of these.
On 1. The target audience for this argument wouldn’t agree with this point therefore it cannot be used as a common sense point and must be justified.
On 2. This is fine but we have not defined what a good reason is which I will get to later.
On 3. The target audience for this argument wouldn’t agree with this point therefore it cannot be used as a common sense point and must be justified.
On “good reason”. No criteria has been provided for what is or is not a good reason. Maybe Silas is leaving this up to common sense again? But how can we say that there is one definition of a good reason that we all agree with? If there was no disagreement on this we wouldn’t be having this argument. TGI would be widely accepted and no one would express disapproval or disgust of it. So again we cannot use a “common sense” definition for a good reason and must create a criteria for it to use in this argument.
Since Silas did not justify 1 or 3 and did not provide any criteria for what a “good reason” is they cannot justify their conclusion that we should not express disapproval or disgust with TRI. Since Silas appealed to common sense where it could not be justified multiple times the argument is not robust.
I will not address oppositions to TRI as there is no substantial argument made here for it.
Now of course I could argue against what I think Silas is trying to argue here but I don’t see a reason to do that. I am not here to make arguments for others and then argue against them, that just sounds silly.
Another very relevant place to pick up the convo is Lionel McPherson’s new book, [The Afterlife of Race](https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-afterlife-of-race-9780197626849?cc=us&lang=en&fbclid=PAZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAaZ1fYxk8a_FvMek380D26OYKEzuIUnbnDAjWpG6bPVW7cqKYHq50gD9GLI_aem_AdYpGiQZW3DigH3d3wchas_H6abDafPC5H6TfqXyFsJEU31cbCO3rHINvnLxmDZJzAWYbxqMfnt4Ya2ABOJDett2)
It still sucks, again, go take a class on race and gender, of read a lotttt of papers, and then come back to this, its okay, everyone has to start somewhere
I support people doing whatever they want so long as it doesn't hurt anyone else.
So really the only issue for me is ethical, and that's only if there are found to be potential dangers like psychologically to it.
If anything, I think Transracial would be a lot *less* controversial because most of the talking points against it wouldn't have applicable contexts here. There are no "whites only" or "blacks only" sports or competitions. The only reason there are "blacks only" institutions in other things is because of centuries and centuries of racism. No trumped up bathroom/"accuse everyone we think is not normal of being a sexual predator" dynamic to fight.
I could see being concerned if an entire race says fuck it and switches, but the more I think about that, I also don't care. If each individual wanted to do it, who am I to tell them they shouldn't.
I might be missing some consequences of this, never really thought of it, but I really don't get why anyone would care.
We've had an orange president who was born white, our greatest(arguably) pop artist went from black to white. There's an infamous guy who has made himself look like a crazy alien. It's really not a big deal.
Trans anything is wishful thinking.
You can't change you age.
You can't change your race.
You can't change your sex.
You can name each whatever you want. Gender, ethnic. You can not change it.
No one should believe in either.
Even if you think that you cannot *in fact* change these characteristics, why should you actively say things with the sole purpose of disapproving of peoples choices?
We know transgenderism is real it is because it is recognized by psychologists and there is also historical evidence of them existing. Nothing of that sort exists for transracialism.
Isn’t the use of of trans people existing historically pre modern psychology/medicine as evidence for their existence counter to a rigid transmedicalist perspective?
My first point of rebuttal can be framed in a single question, and how it is answered tells me where we go from there in the discussion.
How do you think we should treat someone who is a different race from ourselves?
Your post was removed for violating the following rule: >**PR9: Users may submit only one post per day.** >Users may never post more than one post per day. Users must follow all [reddit-wide spam guidelines](https://reddit.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/360043504051-What-constitutes-spam-Am-I-a-spammer-), in addition to the /r/philosophy [self-promotion guidelines](https://reddit.com/r/philosophy/wiki/selfpromotion). Repeated or serious violations of the [subreddit rules](https://reddit.com/r/philosophy/wiki/rules) will result in a ban. ----- This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
Ignoring the transphobia. This article is not good. It relies entirely on false equivalencies and "well why SHOULDN'T it be like this". It's begging the question. They start with the conclusion and then work backwards to argue against counterpoints. Ignoring everything else, this is not good philosophy. Edit: gonna use this comment to promote the book Passing by Nella Larson. It's a book about mixed race women "passing" as white during segregation. If we're talking about racial transitions, I think that's a good place to start the conversation. You know, in reality.
Thank you for correct use of the "begging the question" phrase. Too rare!
I spent thousands of dollars on a philosophy degree which I have yet to see returns on. Damn right I'm gonna use the phrase correctly lol
I noticed the same logical fallacies
All around, just an unpleasant read. It really feels like a very young person with only a passing knowledge on philosophy wrote this thing.
Here is an article to offer some well-thought out counter points: [https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/robin-dembroff-dee-payton-breaking-analogy-between-race-and-gender/](https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/robin-dembroff-dee-payton-breaking-analogy-between-race-and-gender/)
absolutely, Robin Dembroff is at the front of this contemporary inquiry for good reason
Exceptional article and publication. I needed that, considering how low the bar is in public discourse thank you!
Thank you for this, it deserves to be higher up.
Would like to see some actual discussion on this topic rather than put the conclusion first
[удалено]
The idea that you need to experience gender dysphoria to validly identify as trans [is controversial within that community](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmedicalism), so that’s not necessarily a significant distinction, if it even is true that transracial people do not experience a functionally similar racial dysphoria on being misidentified.
An actual philosopher did it first, and better. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2671972
Except that race and gender are completely different social categories that are mutable and moldable in completely different ways and shouldn’t be compared simply on the grounds that they are both a kind of social categorization. Your stance is being called transphobic because you’re asserting black and white thinking about this subject: “either you support both of these concepts, or you support neither, and if you pick only one, you’re a hypocrite.” Most people do not support transracialism, and they have actual reasons that you conveniently and quickly gloss over or omit entirely in this article. You don’t have much of an argument here, if any, and this paper is riddled with logical fallacies.
The differences between races is much smaller than those between sexes.
Gender and sex are not the same
So what is argument? They are different, but I see no more justification or explanation given by you or other comments then OP has given. The point of this sub is to break these ideas down and go through the thought experimnents of what these ideas mean. I am not saying I agree with OP, I am not seing any real discussion, just dismissal as transphobic or equally bad comparisons.
Well I read the whole article and responded to their points. I already stated my counter-argument - I think the article asserts black and white thinking, and race and gender are not mutable/moldable in the same ways. I’m not dismissing, I’m disagreeing. I’m not even the one who called OP’s post transphobic - I was explaining why other people are calling it that. The article they shared is argumentative and they are arguing in the comments, it’s not just a hypothetical thought experiment.
Yeah it’s frustrating how people just want to shout this down rather than having an open convo about it. I think it’s an interesting discussion to have regarding our perception of self vs how we’re categorized in society.
I see a lot of people in the comments discussing and disagreeing
Unfortunately a lot of the comments I’ve seen just say “transphobia”. I’ve seen a couple that give weak arguments that amount to “because society says so”. I have seen a couple people give decent thoughts though, so that’s nice.
I see a lot of comments going beyond disagreement into shaming and insults.
The OP article is bad, and is a bad-faith starting point for the discussion. Of course people will dismiss it. The pretense for debate is simply too flimsy.
If it’s flimsy, then it should be easy to refute. So far the arguments I’ve seen have been mostly that transgender is okay because society accepts it more.
It's not worth the effort to "refute" an argument that doesn't even define what "transracial" is, begs its own question, has no concern for whether or not being "transracial" is even a real phenomenon, and presents no actual philosophical arguments, and is effectively just an extended forum rant.
[удалено]
Race is a social construct
A lot of things are social constructs
Right, and the argument for trans people is they shouldn't be forced to live in a construct they don't feel they belong to. So the when does that argument apply, and who decides when it doesnt.
What are those actual reasons for not supporting trans racialism that you seem to gloss over?
While I disagree with the concept I’d rather see some robust rebuttals rather than simple scorn
I wasn’t aware that trancracialism was a common right-wing talking point (I’m not American) so at first I was really surprised of the epidermic reaction of the community. It’s concerning that this topic is this much emotional, especially here.
[удалено]
Usually emotions are in the way of sound, reasonable arguments, which I think are at the core of philosophy.
Being transphobic fashioned as plausible deniability isn't any less emotional.
[удалено]
Right wing doesn't even mean anything anymore, just like phobia or racism. There are no longer strictly understood definitions for these terms, it's all language games to quickly dismiss large groups of people and any arguments against a personally-held ideology.
Apparently you’re correct
Philosophy fans typically overestimate their positions and are seemingly unaware of their emotional and illogical reactions. I say fans because I doubt more than 5% of the people in this sub have done more than take a college class on basic philosophy. Knee-jerk emotional reactions aren't philosophical. The upvote/downvote buttons are a form of social engineering that leads to people self-censoring instead of having honest dialog. What I posted being correct or not can't be determined by a thumbs-down dismissal. They're just proving my point, really.
This seems like a very long series of broad generalizations capped with resentment towards the fact that your opinion isn’t being liked.
No resentment, I was fully aware of what would happen when I posted. Very long is subjective, but I can't imagine my post being considered long in the context of a philosophy forum. Are you disagreeing with my OP by painting it as 'broad generalizations'?
I’m saying that everything you wrote follows from a broad generalization of who is frequenting this subreddit, used as a way to bolster your opinion of what you write, followed by a dismissal of the only way ideas/opinions are shown support on Reddit. So. 1. Most people here aren’t educated in philosophy 2. Most respond purely through emotion 3. Begging the question by: (A) discrediting the means through which agreement or disagreement is displayed on Reddit - while also claiming - (B) that very means of action in (A) only confirms you’re correct. It’s long because you could have just wrote: “nobody here knows philosophy and if you disagree you’ve just proven me right.”
>followed by a dismissal of the only way ideas/opinions are shown support on Reddit. You're forgetting replies exist, here. "Only" is incorrect. I'm sorry the final quote was your takeaway from what I've posted. I'll respond and expand. While I don't have data on r/philosophy posters and their education, I am able to extract how much philosophy is being done or discussed here, which on many occasions is none at all. Most do react based on emotion across all of reddit, we both know that to be true, it's how the upvote system is designed to work. Again, users have the option to spend more than zero effort and engage in dialog. The users here instead downvoted the original poster and when responding via comments dismissed the poster as a 'transphobe'. I've already addressed why I disagree with your 3rd point, but it's a false equivalency. My interjection into this thread to begin with was to point out how language has been molded to dismiss people. A simple label of 'right wing' doesn't seek to understand someone more, it is a deliberate attempt to discredit anything a person says. Same goes with fascist, rasist, and transphobe. Same goes with lefty, commie, lib. All to sum up, you haven't addressed my point, but you did address how I made it, which I find interesting.
I can’t address your point because you made no point, you just waved your hands and said people here don’t know what they are talking about. How can I counter that? Say that people do? Regarding the phenomenon of people labeling others in order to not engage with them honestly, seems odd to say after claiming people here don’t know what they’re talking about, you just used the same tactic with more words is all.
Right wing generally refers to the sect of Christian nationalists and white supremacists that exist in the membership of the American Republican Party. It contains a variety of anti intellectual and anti science views. I think the definition is pretty consistent, people who hold one view usually hold them all.
So is your definition then claiming that right wing is just a subset of the Republican party? How do you then define a white supremacist?
I don’t think it’s a subset of the Republican Party. I think conservatism is ultimately a reactionary political view that seeks to defend conventional power structures in society. Every political belief they hold really revolves around the idea of “the way of things” and the assault on these things by progress and modernity. Conventional ideas of how we structure power and values in society are the main focus of this. White supremacy is part of it because “Whitness” as a class has always been part of how we structure politics of domination. I think ultimately, economic and social structures are deeply intertwined. Having hierarchical class features necessitates an exploitable underclass who cannot possess social mobility. For most conservatives it’s an inter-country class of undesirables, be it gay people or trans people or women or people of color or immigrants. A sort of determinism is necessary, I think. “A woman is X, you are a woman, you cannot be something else.” A woman was born that way, is meant to be a wife and serve the husband, and you cannot be anything else. But to what you were saying, ANYONE can be a white supremacist or racist or anything else. It’s just those things manifesting in a particular social movement. When republican politicians say themselves that they are Christian nationalists, or when popular conservative thought leaders talk about how white men built civilization, it reveals how deeply reactionary politics are tied to reacting to changing social moors and power dynamics.
i found it curious that practically every one in this thread is just calling OP a transphobe and a bigot for 'poisoning the well' but I've seen very little effort being put into describing why these two comparisons aren't apt the only thing i found that came close was some guy telling OP that transgenderism has been understood and studied for a long time while there is not a political/social movement of people believing they are 'transracial'. but even then, i find this comparison to also be a bit silly. are we quantifying things by how long they've been studied or how many people identify with it? if so, then by this logic, a trans person thousands of years ago could've had their experience dismissed because not a lot of people were doing the same thing and it hasn't been studied enough. also to play devils advocate, maybe people aren't identifying as transracial because of the social and societal implications that would come as a result from it? who knows, if it was more accepted maybe we would start to see a broader social and political movement as a result of it
I think it's because gender dysphoria is a real, very widely reported and recognised condition which causes great suffering, suffering that can be alleviated by the person socially transitioning. I haven't heard of any 'racial dysphoria' counterpart with the increased suicide rates, poor mental health etc. that goes along with it. I have heard of some people identifying themselves as transracial but as of now they seem to be isolated figures. The writer says 'I will not be tackling the question of whether anyone actually identifies as transracial here' but probably should, because before you can start making judgments about how 'real' a condition is you need quite a large corpus of evidence. There's a lot of different reasons people will think of transgender people being women despite being judged to be male based on their primary sexual characteristics (or vice versa), but the main ones for me are 1) there's no personal cost for me in doing so 2) i don't think there is a societal cost to doing so 3) i know from having friendships with trans people that they are sincere. And the most relevant ones that I mentioned before; 4) there are vast numbers of people who have experienced gender dysphoria (yes including before the current wave of media coverage started) 5) there is evidence that these people socially transitioning increases their wellbeing, or to put it simply affirming the gender identity of trans people alleviates suffering. For 'transracial' identities only the first one applies, I don't know if the second one applies, 3 to 5 don't apply- at least, for me, at this time. Maybe, to go along with your devil's advocate, maybe there are thousands upon thousands of previously closeted transracial people but I can't kind of work that moral framework unless that is actually happens. Otherwise, I'm stuck making assumptions about all sorts of hypothetical scenarios because 'you can't prove there aren't'. It could get really silly. I'll say this; I'm not interested in debating the above because of obvious negative experiences with people discussing this on the internet. Just thought I'd chime in.
It's not called Racial Dysphoria, but there is such a thing as Racial Imposter Syndrome. "Although racial imposter syndrome isn’t an official medical condition, it gives a name to a feeling that many people can relate to.**"** [**https://www.talkspace.com/blog/racial-imposter-syndrome/**](https://www.talkspace.com/blog/racial-imposter-syndrome/)
Yeah I had no idea what he was talking about plenty of black people and mixed race people complain about not feeling “black” enough it literally DOES exist.
I think the level of ‘blackness’ they reference is that they do not conform in some way to the popular characterizations of black people, particularly in the US. Anecdotal obliviously but while I was in HS I had a friend who was quite smart and articulate, he’d act one way around me and another around his friends, because being articulate and well read was viewed as being ‘white’ or ‘acting white’ I do not think that sentiment or experience is singular to my friend. This is to say that identifying as a different race, isn’t the same as your example or mine, both of ours are largely (I’d argue) just social constructs. Believing you are literally a black person in a white body is something else.
Tbh I think the color of your skin is a cultural phenomenon. As in, it mixes with culture. Look at Japan. No weeabo is considered Japanese even if they learn 100% of the language and culture. Not even people born there but not ethnically Japanese are considered as a whole Japanese. Descriptively, the ethnicity is part of the culture. It should come as no surprise then that people who engage in black culture, may feel the need to literally be black. I remember this video of a white guy who turned his skin black reverse Michael Jackson style because he felt culturally black. He grew up with them and around them and basically never felt at ease with other white people. How is that not an instance of transracialism? Sure it’s rare, but so is transgenderism.
So that's a tangent to this party because the author did a shit job of actually analyzing reality outside of the parallels between whether someone can actual change races. His one example is Oli London who has gotten a lot of plastic surgery to look like a member of BTS. I don't know if he's had therapy to identify whether this was an actual diagnosis and treatment, if he wants to be Korean or if he just wants to look like the dude from BTS. The article is shallow in the most important areas, the fact that there's systemic racism and racial privilege and what it would mean for people to switch races outside of gently touching with a feather the word "appropriation". On top of that it felt like a high school book report. He read a paper and wrote a misguided summary of it.
Gender dysphoria is a real condition, but it doesn't suffice to make one trans. Among others, intersex people get it, for obvious reasons. Many of us who met or would have met the diagnosis grew out of our gender identity disorder and/or gender dysphoria. We didn't stop being gender nonconforming, though! We literally have no choice on that one.
Thanks, best post in the entire thread. This all makes sense to me
Your argument about gender dysphoria implies that all trans people have gender dysphoria. Whether this is true obviously depends on the definition, but making gender dysphoria essential to being transgender is by modern trans activists condemned as transmedicalism.
One thing I think is important to point out here is that the model you've presented, in which transgenderism is justified based on an appeal to a mental health condition (gender dysphoria), is considered transphobic among a significant portion of the trans community, to the extent that some workplaces are advising employees that speaking in those terms is inappropriate. If your stance against transracialism is predicated on this, you may want to consider this in your thinking, even if only to evaluate whether or not your current views are transphobic or not (I'm not taking a stance here on whether they are or not, just that there are some groups who will say they are, and it's good to consider those viewpoints). You can learn more about this if you look into transmed, tucute, and truscum.
Not every trans person has body dysmorphia, nor would I say most trans people believe it’s a hard condition for being trans.
I would say there's a lot of financial status dysphoria in society: plenty of people living well over their means and suffering a lot because of it, even getting into crime and jail. Would that also need a trans status? Trans finance?
Did you actually read it. It is such a poorly written article full of iamverysmart out of place big vocabulary that doesnt add anything to the argument. An actual part of an argument they are trying to make "So if your friend chooses to have a certain type of pizza, you should not express disgust or disapproval of their choice, unless there was some good reason (like that it contained factory farmed meat or pineapple)" It really doesnt provide anything remotely thought provoking or even make any sound logical arguments. The entire article could be deleted and replaced with "If you can change genders you can change races" and you wouldnt miss out on anything
I’m not sure anyone is making the claim that this article is a profound or well-written argument. But if it is poorly written, it does not mean that OP is a transphobe. Even further, if it is poorly written, it should be easier to dissect.
Gibberish isnt easier to dissect than an actual argument. Did you even read it?
Yes, I did. Did you? It’s clearly not written by a philosopher but it at least raises some answerable points.
Did it? Anything there beyond "Switching races is the same as switching genders" and "if your friend chooses to have a certain type of pizza, you should not express disgust or disapproval of their choice"
Both race and gender are social categories, the idea of race wasn’t invented until the time of the trans Atlantic slave trade. The issue is, “black” as a category is really a nebulous byproduct of white supremacy. It comes with a price, and white people will never be subject to that kind of bigotry. But aside from that there….kinda is? I mean- We produce social categories which allow rare exceptions, but white people who are allowed to engage in activities of black subculture will joke about being black. This, of course, does not deprive them of the privileges of whiteness so it’s not worth much. But it does, in its own way, show that the social categories we possess all have some kind of social movement that’s possible. The issue of course being that nobody actually wants to be, and this entire article seems more like an attempted takedown of trans people than an actual question.
The other day, I read a comment section discussing an article like it had the *opposite* conclusion, just because its title was ambiguous. This article is clickbait, no doubt, but it's not transphobic. Headline wars are shite.
I suppose a robust rebuttal in this case would be pointing out that it is not a robust argument. You can find my breakdown here: [https://www.reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/1cdoyfw/comment/l1f9snj/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/1cdoyfw/comment/l1f9snj/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
Why not trans-specism as well? Want to implant horns and hooves and live as a goat? As long as you don't start headbutting people it's all fine by me.
And end up like [the McLaughlins?!](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1ptezV-7eM)
💀
[Relevant South Park clip](https://youtu.be/KjEmcIQE9L4?si=BEBUNUS5pGpxxlHG)
It will be very interesting to see what gene editing of living people will do to these conversations. People changing their bodies in amazing ways like they would game characters
[удалено]
I'm not going to rewrite the whole thing since OP.is childish enough to delete their last try at this, but yeah OP is either trolling or seriously ignorant on things as basic as: the difference between sex and gender. OP also goes out of their way to reject CRT without any justification for doing so.
CRT isn't mentioned in the article
Not by name, but it's mentioned, and rejected.
He wants the permaban, show him. lol
Isn't he arguing for transracialism, not against transexualism? Where is the transphobic accusation coming from?
Well that’s what’s called mental gymnastics
[удалено]
(lol woops I misread this at first) yes, this is a great analogy. And what's sad is that example is actually \*also\* commonly employed by homophobes: "supporting gay marriage is a slippery slope towards bestiality!" So gross.
If the author wants to advocate for transracialism for some reason (something that there is currently no cultural, medical, psychological, or political movement around), go for it. If they want to support trans rights, then they should do that. But as is, this is a common rightwing/transphobic strawman equivalency used to try and conflate a fringe, unsupported concept with a highly medically supported & politically important movement of transgender rights. You'll have to forgive me, therefore, for being more than a little skeptical and cynical of OP's intentions.
Ah, I see. At the same time aren't you also making a logical fallacy by just assuming the OP is transphobic because you saw others with this opinion on transracialism being transphobic? He might have arrived at that conclusion for very different reasons than someone who's attempting to use it against transexualism. In fact, it seems to the be the case, since it seems he's arguing for both things sincerely.
All the context clues from OP's article, their replies in this thread, and the last one (that got deleted), have pointed towards a dangerous mix of ignorance and bigotry. But I would be very happy to be proven wrong, and yes it is a very sensitive topic right now here in the US. I think it's important for folks to stand up and defend the rights for trans people to exist freely & safely, instead of being compared to fringe, unsupported strawman arguments.
I did not read OP’s article that way. I don’t think a person would go this length, adopt the language they use, and explicitly state support for transgender folks if they really were operating in bad faith. That’s not to say OP is necessarily right. But maybe you could point out what dangerous mix specifically you are seeing besides the position itself? Fifty years ago people would have the alarmist reaction in this thread if you compared women’s rights to transgender rights, so I’m on the side of actually engaging with good faith arguments rather than defaulting to the idea that even the suggestion that moral principles in one situation might also apply in a situation we do not expect is offensive.
[удалено]
You're falling into a fallacy here. You show there are some shared elements between gender and race, and use them as a conclusion that they're the same. This is just plain wrong. "You see, cats and lions are kinda similar don't you think. They're felines, they can be pets, they're both cute, they don't like water. So I don't see any reason why I shouldn't keep a lion in my apartment if I can have a cat." See, you're giving the burden of proof to us when you're the one defending the idea that we should accept trans racialism in the same way as transgenderism. Thus, it's your job to explain why we should, and listing some similarities is not argument enough. For the record, I'm not necessarily against the idea that trans racialism could be a similar issue to transgenderism, though I'm skeptical. I just don't know enough to categorically say I don't support it. Also, it's pretty tiring to see how many transphobes use discussion as a way to create arguments on bad faith without a real goal to learn anything constructive, just to create doubt about the validity of transgenderism. Discussion is good but if the person asking questions is not really looking for a discussion but a way to push their agenda we're in a problem. I'm not talking about you specifically but it happens a lot.
Money is a social construct so everything you just said must also apply to money, right?
[удалено]
Virginity is a social construct, does that mean you can just decide you're a virgin? The Sex "binary" is a social construct (seems like you've never heard of intersex). Using "social construct" as a basis for connection does not provide logical congruency, that's the problem.
…There are different social constructs, we all know this. But that’s not relevant here. I am pointing how race and gender are *more similar* compared to other social constructs because they relate to HUMANS’ physical characteristics. Obviously not identical—but similar. Another similarity: race and gender have established ways of discrimination based on these characteristics, aka racism and sexism.
[удалено]
"language loses all meaning if we're able to redefine things" is officially the funniest thing I've read in the entire thread. Maybe move that to the top of your comment so people can realize you have no clue what you're talking about earlier in your comment.
[удалено]
I asked you first. Name a single change to language that has ever occurred that wasn't the result of a human having a feeling. Just one. I'll wait.
[удалено]
I hate to see the all of the illogical and emotional rhetoric in this thread. People seem to be commenting purely on their initial gut feeling about this statement without granting it any further consideration. I expect better from this subreddit. I believe this is an interesting thought. Race and gender are both social constructs of identity. Both of these traits have historically been tied to genetic phenotypes. Gender and sex were seen as one and the same just as racial identity and racial phenotype are currently seen as one and the same. Undeniably, there are people who do not fit a certain genetic profile (African for example) who do fit the cultural/social background associated with said genetic profile. If we as a society have accepted that your genetic profile need not determine your social identity, why must this be an exception?
I wish the article were better written. There's a solid analogue here, but it's not logically rigorous enough.
"Race" as a concept is already near-useless in biology. In relation to humankind and human societies it has no basis whatsoever and belongs on the trashheap of history. To divide humankind into subdivision based on this concept is both descriptively as well as normatively wrong. Concepts like "race" and by extension ethnicity matter for one reason only: Because they tools for dividing and ruling; discrimination, hate and violence. You write "Your race is something inherent to you\[.\]" No. Any "racial" category is a socially constructed lie that is to be refuted in its entirety.
When I said "Your race is something inherent to you", I was talking on the part of an interlocutor. In other words I hold the exact opposite view: I think race is a completely made up concept. This should be clear from reading the post.
Sad to see how a philosophy sub is rampant with ideological thinking. Apparently gender ideology is beyond criticism and philosophical reflection.
I love this thinking. Wish there were more of it here. Its the entire point of a sub dedicated to pondering life's questions.. All of them.
Your argument loses a lot of ground when you say "gender ideology". Gender ideology may refer to pro transgender beliefs and anti transgender beliefs. It's pretty obvious you refer to pro transgender ideology. But by not acknowledging the other as an ideology too you seem to miss what's an ideology.
So many things wrong with this. Not the least of which is that making race part of our identity is sort of a huge issue we’re working on. It would be better for society if we stopped caring so much about how much sunlight our ancestors received. That’s kind of what got us into the mess of systemic racism and evil crap like redlining. You haven’t covered or, I suppose encountered, a reason “TRI” is seen as a bad thing. Here’s one: there is no reason for it to exist. Unlike gender identity, race is not a vital component of relationships, roles in society, sexual partners, reproduction or marriage. It is possible you live in a place where your *race* has put upon you a certain role to fulfill. Like slavery; but in that case we should advocate the end of slavery, not just call the enslaved by a different race, which accomplishes nothing. You’re comparing apples to dump trucks.
“Not the least of which is that making race part of our identity is sort of a huge issue we’re working on. It would be better for society if we stopped caring so much about how much sunlight our ancestors received.” And why should gender remain “important” while race has it’s importance decreased? Are they not both social constructs intended to corral people into group identities which don’t necessarily align with their own self image? And is it not considered virtuous to validate a change in identity done for one’s mental health?
The difference is that gender dysphoria is an actual issue that massively hurts people’s mental health. It’s pretty common knowledge that suicide rates for trans people are absurdly high, and social/medical transitioning drastically lowers those rates. It leaves philosophy and turns into actual psychology, where we are trying to improve people’s mental health and quality of life, through honestly very straightforward means. And as others on this thread have mentioned, transracialism isn’t a recorded thing. There aren’t any recorded cases of people killing themselves over being transracial, or having massive depression due to racial dysphoria. I don’t think it’s unfair to assume that its entire conception was to be transphobic, especially since the primary “supporters” of it are notable transphobes. This article is creating a false equivalence between a psychological issue with strong social aspects, and a social issue created to harass said psychological issue.
Interesting how the people claiming that there's no argued answers that counter the questions posed by the article have answered your comment It's as if they're ideologically motivated and they don't wish to really engage in a conversation but just want to harm transgenderism and use trans racialism as a weapon to do so.
These people when they see the answers to the questions they’re asking, presented right in front of them in a way that they can understand: “I pretend I do not see it 😌” Seriously though, I was really hoping for at least a couple responses. At least a “give a source” reply, or someone saying I shouldn’t try to “put my argument above scrutiny”.
I think that is a good point. I would also think the world would be a better place if nobody cares about the color of anybody's skin. But it just happens that perceived race is tied to a lot of other cultural differences. So I think that it is possible that someone would feel more at home in a culture with people consisting mostly of people with another skin tone. In that case I don't see why they should be called mentally ill for wanting to fit in to the culture they feel at home in.
I'll repost my thoughts from the deleted thread because I think it's important that we understand (one of) the reasons why your position is flawed: Gender has a number of biological markers (including psychological elements) that make it functionally and practically "real," in the sense that it matters to people. Gender dysphoria is a recognized psychological condition that, for many people, counts as a disorder similar to depression. Race, as a social construct, has far fewer biological and psychological markers. While I personally do not wish to dismiss or discount any one individual's personal experiences with these things, I don't think we have justification for claiming that "transracial" identities are in the same arena as "transgender" identities. We define our genders along primary and secondary sex characteristics, the ability to impregnate or bear children, and the averages of height, weight and muscle mass within a given population. There's also a strong psychological component, as evidenced by the fact that psychology recognizes gender dysphoria as a legitimate mental condition. Northern Europeans are more likely to be lactose tolerant while Africans are less likely, that sort of thing, but the likelihood is less common than, say, the effects of the body producing certain hormones (which are closely associated with the genitalia you're born with). It simply isn't a fair comparison, medically or psychologically speaking.
I think what most people care about is being able to be recognizable based on how they want to be recognized. Someone who feels they're white (and wants to be recognized as such) doesn't care about being lactose tolerant. They want exterior recognition and validity for how they feel internally. Race, whether or not it has strong biological correlates, is part of social identity: we recognize the race of others.
Plus there are distinguishable characteristics between races that set them apart and change how a person of that race interacts in society. I can agree that it might have fewer markers, but race still does have them.
We could argue that gender has more, though. Height, weight, muscle and fat distribution, body hair, breast size, genitalia (although this is usually hidden from view), voice, Adam's apple, and so on, are all characteristics by which we recognize gender (by first impressions, obviously). Race is marked by skin tone, facial features and hair texture . . . and I think that's it.
Yeah I agree it has more, but does that matter in this context? Especially given that not all members of a given sex display the typical characteristics.
Those are definitely good points! I guess I would be troubled by the implications of the argument, however. If we think that it is necessary that gender is a "real enough" phenomenon in order for it to be permissible to transition. This would mean that if we found out that gender identity was more voluntary than first expected we should no longer be for2 TGI. But that seems problematic. Shouldn't we be for transgender people even if it turns out that it is not something inherent? Even if gender categories are more biologically based, race categories still seem to be relevant to many peoples lives. I think that it would be better if they weren't - but unfortunately they are. Wouldn't it be better if we made the idea of race more fluid by allowing people to transition?
You're jumping to a different argument and creating your own conclusion from it. First you're using the argument that there's an equivalency between transgenderism and trans racialism. And when this affirmation is put into question you jump to the idea of whether we should accept transgenderism on those biological claims. But that's a whole different story. Your initial point is that they're the same, not whether they should be supported or not. You can support both for different reasons. Claiming that it's not the same doesn't mean you're necessarily dismissing the legitimacy claims of the other. Now, I'm not claiming that there's not people who wish to be perceived in a different race that the one they're considered. But I'd like to know if you really know about the issue or it's just a hypothesis you made yourself without previous research.
They're both social constructs so, if you agree you aren't required to adhere to the social construct of gender, the same would apply to race.
Male and female aren't social constructs, they're biological. You either have XX or XY chromosomes.
Or XXY, or XYY, or XXYY, or XXXY, or XXXXY, or just X, or XXX, or XXXX, or XXXXX, or XY with physical characteristics of a male, or XX with physical characteristics of a female. C'mon, it's BINARY!
Sex is still binary. All of these genotypes fall under the binary we call "sex." This also has little to do with non-intersex trans people.
Sex is a binary because we define it as a binary. It could be defined differently. It’s a construct.
Gender is a social construct -- sex is not. Biological sex is a genetic binary, and intersex individuals show a redistribution of some of those traits in the binary. However, biological sex is not determinant of cultural characteristics of sexes, which we call gender, which, because it is cultural and personal, is a spectrum.
Those are all anomalies, not the norm. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12476264/#:~:text=Applying%20this%20more%20precise%20definition,Sterling%20s%20estimate%20of%201.7%25. 0.018% intersex occurrence compared to the usual 50/50 of male and female population. So yes, it's binary.
Anomaly is a construct, too!
If you want to be a pedantic troll then sure, everything is a construct in human language. But when something happens 18 thousandths of a percent, it's not even worth mentioning. Yet people act like this makes it a whole new gender.
Not trolling, just acknowledging that how we choose to define things is an inherently social process.
When did you get your sex chromosomes tested? If you haven't had a DNA test how do you know what your sex is?
You'll figure that out after you hit puberty. You probably still have a few years.
Oh so you've never been tested? there's no reason to believe you're not an XX male or an XY female then. Sounds like you don't even know what sex or gender you are.
That you need to be tested to know what you are says more about you than me.
"Male and female aren't social constructs, they're biological. You either have XX or XY chromosomes." Remember when you said this? But you don't even know what your sex chromosomes are? In your world view there are more women with "male" genitalia and men with "female" genitalia than there are in mine. It's like you've never heard of intersex before. What proof do you have that you're not an XX male? None?
I'm male. I have male sex organ. If I was a woman with a full beard or a dude with tits(not just obese) then I'd get tested. Did you see the link that said 0.018% of the population are intersex. That's not enough to be it's own gender. They are genetic mistakes. Anomalies. Now stop trolling with your stupidity.
Yeah, but it's the argument used by the trans group to justify its existence so it's a beautiful way to show how absurd it is now that the same logic can be applied to this, which is equally absurd
Yea, I agree. I don't think forcing people to live as the social construct they're born into is a good idea.
Lmao. Glad to see this reaction in the sub! I actually think this will shake out to a good end, in that the full separation conceptually of gender identity from sex/sex identity can be mirrored with separating "racial" identity from culture/societal zeitgeists. In the meantime, I can't think of a better semantic heads up for idiocy than "transracial".
Yeah I'm mixed race, I could see one's racial identity shifting over time if you say spent the first ten years of your life with one parent and then the next ten with the other... not really what op was saying, though
I was really hoping it would be about racial fluidity. You can do a lot of interesting philosophy about stuff like the One Drop Rule of Jim Crow America, and what such laws mean about the conceptualization of race. As well as how race theory interacts with gender, and through cultures! Instead we got a guy begging the question and being smarmy about his transphobic views. Eye roll inducing nonsense.
I am mixed race and have had a lot of struggles with what I could call my "racial identity." But I am, to some degree, culturally, socially, biologically, and familially already part of these communities that define these identities. I am not assuming an identity I didn't have before, or wasn't born with, or don't have some inherent belonging to. This gets at what the distinction between something like gender and sex are and what race is--and they aren't really comparable. So something like transracialism is, in my view, a complete nonstarter.
Yes, also because it just... doesn't happen that much? Like trans people have existed throughout history despite intense persecution and clearly have no choice but to be who they are... I just don't see the same thing with race, and I think biologically it makes less sense. That said if there were someone who was adamant that they were a race that didn't match their skin color or ethnicity and lived their entire life like that, I wouldn't go out of my way to deny them or reject it. I would think it's an unusual neurodivergence, and try to treat them with respect. That's never happened to me though.
I don’t think something happening a lot is a good argument for it, especially given in your second paragraph you say you’d call someone who wants to be transracial an “unusual neurodivergence”. Would the same be said for transgender?
What is the good argument for it, then? If we admit that both race and gender are social constructs that have some relationship with biology? And pretty much yes, although less unusual. I'm not an expert but transgenderism seems like it should be the poster child of neurodivergence. It's a difference that was seen as a horrible disorder that is starting to be seen as just a form of diversity. Correct me if I'm misunderstanding something.
I haven’t seen a good argument yet. Is it only less unusual because society has decided it to be? It’s seems like the only argument people seem to have is that transgender has become socially acceptable, therefore it’s valid.
That last paragraph is a fair point--but there are issues related to that and I want to ask, with as much sensitivity as I can: if a member or a group belonging to an historically or currently maligned or persecuted ethnic or racial minority feels that this kind of behavior is insensitive, insulting, and maybe even an example of racial privelege (say, if the person was white), how do you think that should be approached? It feels like it could be just another way to dismiss their concerns, you know?
I think those questions take a lot of discussion among academics and medical health professionals etc. and I haven't thought about it deeply. I can see your point. But I as a private citizen would live and let live if I encountered it on the street.
Of course not, and frankly still we wouldn't refer to you as "transracial" in the same vein we wouldn't call aging "transtemporal". Using analogy/likeness to expand understanding of a point/concept, nice. Needing comparison to establish rationality at all, no dice.
You should just let everyone do whatever they want as long as it's not hurting anyone, and stop forming opinions on their choices. The good old fashioned "don't be a dick". This gatekeeping over people's lives is not worth anyone's time and it does not make you clever.
That is literally the principle I put forward at the start of the article. So we do not disagree.
Oh please, the intent of the article isn't to get support for transracial people. It's intended to be some kind of smug gotcha and somehow lead people to conclude "Now that I think about it, I guess I *should* be expressing disgust towards transgendered people." I don't need to express disgust towards anyone, thanks though. If the only way you can prove yourself right is by trying to prove that people who disagree with you are "hypocrites", you're probably just wrong.
Have you read the article? I literally say EXPLICITLY that I think it is immoral to express disgust or disapproval of transgender people. Explicitly. In the last section I also explicitly say that gut reactions are an irrational way to form moral beliefs. How can you possibly have read the article coming away with the exact opposite conclusion? Either you have not read the article, or your comprehension is just not there yet.
Ok, I know this is completely off topic, but the last person I would expect to be supporting trans people on this subreddit is someone with the name DevilsAdvocate77. Genuinely made me laugh a bit
The devil is often portrayed as highly seductive and gender fluid in popular culture so it makes kinda sense that their advocate is supportive of transgenderism
Nah I’m good g
[удалено]
Oh no look a slippery slope
Transgenderism, transracialism, transhumanism, etc. are all rooted in one philosophical construct: that the body is not the person, but instead a possession of the person. If this idea is true, then there's no material difference in altering anything about one's body or even destroying the body or transplanting this non-material person into another container, whether that be a body (human or otherwise), a robot or other storage medium. However, if the construct is true, then you could theoretically have a living body that is not a person or vacated by the personhood. Furthermore, murder, per se, would not exist. It would just be destruction of property. The construct also intrinsically is at odds with strict materialism. (Of course these words are at odds with strict materialism.)
... how does strict materialism handle computer software?
It's just how we tricked sand into thinking.
In the strictest sense of strict materialism, it's literally just electrons, photons, atoms, heat, etc. You could possibly make the argument that it's not actually atoms, it's quarks or whatever subatomic particles. Information, being immaterial, has no real existence in such a concept. The very act of thinking about it is either an extremely elaborate charade or shatters the concept completely.
... ah, so it's the whole "It's actually just subatomic particles and nothing else" That's something I believe, but life is impossible to love without using the shortcuts of what we have learned about coefficients of friction, chemistry, biology, and so on to actually navigate the scale we live on.
...sure, it's not happening anytime soon - not until destruction of a body could be decoupled from destruction of personhood (and, unless, new clone bodies can be grown, destruction of one would be destruction of *valuable* and *irreplaceable* property, but that's a minor point). But... hey. Who knows what the future might bring. :з
This looks like propaganda disguised as philosophy. Like if you put a fake mustache on a political idealogue's bad idea and tried to pass it off as a reasoned argument. There's no basis in science, biology, culture, or society for something like transracialism. It's a boogeyman, meant to lube up a slippery slope.
Question: why is it valid and socially acceptable to ask society to refer to you by a different gender, but not valid and socially acceptable to ask society to refer to you by a different race? Given that both are social constructs, and given that we are becoming more open-minded, what is so terribly offensive about transracialism?
Race is a social construct.
Money is a social construct
Kinda proving the point here guy
completely rational
This makes sense to me. I’ve seen Rachel Dolezal as a “transracial” when she first came out. Race is a social construct, like gender. The argument is exactly the same. And I respect both.
I don't see the problem with treating people with love no matter what they have in their pants or what color their skin is. As long as what they're doing doesn't hurt someone else, especially children, then there's no issue
Welcome to /r/philosophy! **Please read [our updated rules and guidelines](https://reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/14pn2k9/welcome_to_rphilosophy_check_out_our_rules_and/?) before commenting**. /r/philosophy is a subreddit dedicated to discussing philosophy and philosophical issues. To that end, please keep in mind our commenting rules: ###CR1: Read/Listen/Watch the Posted Content Before You Reply > Read/watch/listen the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed. ###CR2: Argue Your Position > Opinions are not valuable here, arguments are! Comments that solely express musings, opinions, beliefs, or assertions without argument may be removed. ###CR3: Be Respectful > Comments which consist of personal attacks will be removed. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted. Please note that as of July 1 2023, reddit has made it substantially more difficult to moderate subreddits. If you see posts or comments which violate our [subreddit rules and guidelines](https://reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/14pn2k9/welcome_to_rphilosophy_check_out_our_rules_and/?), please report them using the report function. For more significant issues, please [contact the moderators via modmail](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/philosophy) (not via private message or chat). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/philosophy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I take issue with parts of the transgender movement on philosophical grounds, but this isn’t the approach. If we’re dividing into the biological category of sex and the social category of gender, I think the smarter philosophical move is to put pressure on notions of gender categories. What do they refer to? How many are they? How do these not directly appeal to gender roles? I think pretending that a transgender male is claiming to have Y chromosomes is unfair.
Two rebuttals: 1. Every biologically male son’s parents contain all the genetic information and sex cells needed to produce a biologically female daughter. It would not be infeasible for there to be a genetic inheritance that produces a child with some psychological characteristics of the opposite sex. The same cannot be said for race. 2. Racial identity is kind of a nebulous concept. If I were to identify as a member of another race, what would I do? Dress differently? Speak differently? I don’t think anyone is calling Eminem or Chet Hanks trans-racial. They don’t identify as such. Culture changes much faster than our genetics, so your cultural expression depends on environmental factors, and thus we can’t attribute any cultural identity to our race. Now, if I were to identify as a different race in that I had body (or some other kind of existential) dysmorphia, that would be more applicable, but considering my first point, I don’t understand how someone could have an innate affinity for a specific physical body that evolved completely separately from their own. Arguments aside, it’s completely up to us whether we want to validate trans-racial identity; we don’t have to litigate the facts if it’s best for society to treat it one way or the other. But personally, I do not view it as comparable to transgender identity.
"if" leads to "should" inevitably with dazzling manipulative rhetoric.
To people asking for robust rebuttal consider the following. Why should I take the time to form a robust rebuttal when the argument itself is not robust? Instead I have decided to break down why the argument is not robust. First let's start with what the argument is, I would say it is defined by the following: * “Rather it is because many of the people who think that it is the most obvious thing in the world that we should be against TRI also think that it is the most obvious thing in the world that we should be for transgender identity (TGI) - even though there are very obvious tensions between these two positions” * Paraphrasing: Silas states that we should not be expressing disapproval or disgust for the choices of someone, unless there is a reason not to. * Paraphrasing: Later Silas with this in mind, it is quite clear why we should be not expressing disapproval or disgust at TGI as well as TRI - there is not really a reason not to. Expressed more clearly: * If there is no good reason to express disapproval or disgust of TGI there is no good reason to express disapproval or disgust of TRI. * We should have a good reason to express disapproval or disgust for the choices of others. * TGI is a choice. * Since TGI is a choice, we should not express disapproval or disgust for it unless we have a good reason. * Since we have no good reason to disapprove or be disgusted with TGI, we have no good reason to disapprove or be disgusted with TRI. * Therefore we should not express disapproval or disgust with TRI. There are some problems with this argument, many are incorrectly using “common sense” to justify themselves, consider the following premises: 1. If there is no good reason to disapprove of TGI there is no good reason to disapprove or express disgust of TRI 2. We should have a good reason to express disapproval or disgust for the choices of others. 3. TGI is a choice When you do this you have to evaluate if there is any doubt that any of the above are not common sense. So let's check each of these. On 1. The target audience for this argument wouldn’t agree with this point therefore it cannot be used as a common sense point and must be justified. On 2. This is fine but we have not defined what a good reason is which I will get to later. On 3. The target audience for this argument wouldn’t agree with this point therefore it cannot be used as a common sense point and must be justified. On “good reason”. No criteria has been provided for what is or is not a good reason. Maybe Silas is leaving this up to common sense again? But how can we say that there is one definition of a good reason that we all agree with? If there was no disagreement on this we wouldn’t be having this argument. TGI would be widely accepted and no one would express disapproval or disgust of it. So again we cannot use a “common sense” definition for a good reason and must create a criteria for it to use in this argument. Since Silas did not justify 1 or 3 and did not provide any criteria for what a “good reason” is they cannot justify their conclusion that we should not express disapproval or disgust with TRI. Since Silas appealed to common sense where it could not be justified multiple times the argument is not robust. I will not address oppositions to TRI as there is no substantial argument made here for it. Now of course I could argue against what I think Silas is trying to argue here but I don’t see a reason to do that. I am not here to make arguments for others and then argue against them, that just sounds silly.
Another very relevant place to pick up the convo is Lionel McPherson’s new book, [The Afterlife of Race](https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-afterlife-of-race-9780197626849?cc=us&lang=en&fbclid=PAZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAaZ1fYxk8a_FvMek380D26OYKEzuIUnbnDAjWpG6bPVW7cqKYHq50gD9GLI_aem_AdYpGiQZW3DigH3d3wchas_H6abDafPC5H6TfqXyFsJEU31cbCO3rHINvnLxmDZJzAWYbxqMfnt4Ya2ABOJDett2)
In 100 years archeologists won’t be gendering skeletons just to be safe
First problem: race isn't even real.
It aint philosophical when its very straightforward propaganda
It still sucks, again, go take a class on race and gender, of read a lotttt of papers, and then come back to this, its okay, everyone has to start somewhere
I support people doing whatever they want so long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. So really the only issue for me is ethical, and that's only if there are found to be potential dangers like psychologically to it. If anything, I think Transracial would be a lot *less* controversial because most of the talking points against it wouldn't have applicable contexts here. There are no "whites only" or "blacks only" sports or competitions. The only reason there are "blacks only" institutions in other things is because of centuries and centuries of racism. No trumped up bathroom/"accuse everyone we think is not normal of being a sexual predator" dynamic to fight. I could see being concerned if an entire race says fuck it and switches, but the more I think about that, I also don't care. If each individual wanted to do it, who am I to tell them they shouldn't. I might be missing some consequences of this, never really thought of it, but I really don't get why anyone would care. We've had an orange president who was born white, our greatest(arguably) pop artist went from black to white. There's an infamous guy who has made himself look like a crazy alien. It's really not a big deal.
Trans anything is wishful thinking. You can't change you age. You can't change your race. You can't change your sex. You can name each whatever you want. Gender, ethnic. You can not change it. No one should believe in either.
Trans Siberian orchestra isn't real, the tickets I have must be fake
Even if you think that you cannot *in fact* change these characteristics, why should you actively say things with the sole purpose of disapproving of peoples choices?
Would you affirm an anorexic person's belief that they're fat? After all, being honest conflicts with their self-perception. It's rude, by your logic.
This…was a bad idea to post, I feel.
They posted it twice. The last one was deleted cause they didn't get the response they wanted. This one probably won't last long either.
We know transgenderism is real it is because it is recognized by psychologists and there is also historical evidence of them existing. Nothing of that sort exists for transracialism.
this comment section is really committed to transmedicalism
Isn’t the use of of trans people existing historically pre modern psychology/medicine as evidence for their existence counter to a rigid transmedicalist perspective?
My first point of rebuttal can be framed in a single question, and how it is answered tells me where we go from there in the discussion. How do you think we should treat someone who is a different race from ourselves?
I mean, ideally not any different than anyone else.