Trans / race?

[Prudence V]

I’m not sure if this is the best forum to post this in, as it’s a “political” issue but not party political… but I’m sure the mods will move it if it’s in the wrong place. 
 

People who don’t live under rocks will no doubt have been exposed to the debates raging everywhere on SM about transgender people (usually trans women), and some public figures who’ve spoken out one way or another being “cancelled” by one group or the other. That’s not the focus of this thread. 
 

Rather, this thread is about something that cropped up a few years back, and has been mentioned lightly in passing again recently, that I’d be interested to hear views on beyond my own immediate “echo chamber”. Does anyone remember Rachel Dolezal? The white woman who basically opted to live in blackface, to pass for being black, in order to access grants and support available to black artists. When she was exposed as being white, she claimed she was “trans black” - a claim that was roundly shot down by everyone who was close enough to a microphone / blog / tweet where they could express their views. “Trans race” is not a thing, everyone agreed at the time. 
 

Recently I saw a tweet from someone claiming that, if transgender is a thing, then so should trans race be, since both gender and race are social constructions rather than biological ones. The tweet kind of lay there, untouched, not getting any responses… and the next day it was deleted. It struck me that it was such a radioactive topic that nobody even wanted to engage, to support or refute, or even just attract attention to it. 
 

Good people of LS, do you: think that “trans race” is a thing, as valid as transgender? Why? 

[Wiseman2]

Hopefully people can just be themselves one day without pretending to be anything other than what they are...Human race. 

[elaine567]

When you put it like that yes, but OMG... hence why few wanted to get stuck into that one.

If one day I can state I am a man and want to live my life as a man, then surely I can one day state I am black and live my life as a black person.
But I don't look black, they will say, no, but I don't look like a man either...

[Wiseman2]

6 hours ago, Prudence V said:

Does anyone remember Rachel Dolezal? The white woman who basically opted to live in blackface, to pass for being black, in order to access grants and support available to black artists. When she was exposed as being white, she claimed she was “trans black”

This woman doesn't know when to quit.  She's a fraud and it's insulting to the black and trans communities to try to hide behind that label.

[lana-banana]

No, there is no such thing as being "trans racial", and it's unbelievably insulting to trans people. Rachel Dolezal is nothing but a grifter and a fraud in the very, very long history of comfortable white people who get online or adopt a pseudo-personality that's black/gay/disabled/cancer-stricken/etc for excitement.

Edited October 28, 2021 by lana-banana

[Prudence V]

11 hours ago, Wiseman2 said:

it's insulting to the black and trans communities to try to hide behind that label.

That’s my gut response, too. But I’m struggling to understand why I feel that way about the construct (not about Rachel Dolezal herself, who seems an objectionable person in all kinds of ways) when transgender is something that just seems so obviously real to me. I can’t articulate why my head just refuses to accept that such a thing is anything other than blackface.  I was hoping someone here might have a more reasoned response than mine, which is just visceral. 
 

I have friends who are trans - ranging from surgically transitioned decades back, to just starting out by changing their pronouns and presentation - and others who are NB. I get that. There is something really core at a basic level of identity that is a fundamental mismatch to the outward markers of gender, that they’re attempting to resolve. 

I also know several people who got racially reclassified (under apartheid) because they wanted to marry / live / work amongst a different “race” group, and a couple of people who didn’t reclassify but who “passed” as a different “race” group (usually black to white) or just moved into townships and adopted an umXhosa or umZulu way of life despite being white… but the lived experience of those people wasn’t the same as that identity mismatch struggle I see with my trans friends. They yearned to have been born into a different “race” but didn’t fundamentally believe that they were, in the same way. 
 

Is it perhaps because there is biology behind sex (in a complicated, rather than binary, way, but still…) which has some relation to gender, while race is purely a social construct, and what people are seeking in racial reclassification relates to access (privilege, culture, etc) rather than identity? 
 

[Wiseman2]

6 minutes ago, Prudence V said:

  race is purely a social construct, and what people are seeking in racial reclassification relates to access (privilege, culture, etc) rather than identity? 

Yes it's artificial and sadly, real at the same time. People "passing" has long history, often to evade persecution, slavery, death, etc.

[Prudence V]

Just now, Wiseman2 said:

Yes it's artificial and sadly, real at the same time. People "passing" has long history, often to evade persecution, slavery, death, etc.

Yep. The structuring effects are real, even if the thing itself isn’t. 
 

 

[Pumpernickel]

18 hours ago, Wiseman2 said:

This woman doesn't know when to quit.  She's a fraud and it's insulting to the black and trans communities to try to hide behind that label.

Yes, even Dave Chapelle picked up on that one a few years back.

[basil67]

On 10/28/2021 at 9:45 PM, Taramere said:

If society can depart from the notion that biology matters in terms of determining who's a woman and who isn't, then I can certainly foresee a future where activists would push for a departure from the notion that skin colour/physical appearance matters in determining people's race.  The difference, I think,  will be that mainstream society will push back far more aggressively on that issue.

When it comes to race, it's more than feeling like you relate to and fit in to that culture.  The history of that culture and how it affects you (via your family history) is also vital part of identity.   Now, that's not to mean that you can't be an ally to another race.   Of course you can fit in and be accepted as part of the crowd.  But that does not make you of that culture. 

But when it comes to being 'white' but identifying as black: In Australia, the genes of our indigenous people are recessive. Meaning that if you have one black grandparent and the rest of your ancestors post that are white, your skin will be white.  However, this person who is objectively white can still be considered indigenous because the cultural history, injustices, beliefs of their kin will likely still be part of your life  Especially if you are connected via cousins, aunts, uncles.   Heck, if your half black parent was torn away from their family as part of cultural cleansing, this will have a lasting impact on you,.   Further, when it comes to our indigenous culture, a person who is objectively white cannot legally claim to be black (for applying for grants, etc)  without the elders agreeing that there are the relevant cultural connections for you to claim that you are an indigenous person.    

My thoughts are inspired from this piece https://bostonreview.net/race-philosophy-religion-gender-sexuality/robin-dembroff-dee-payton-why-we-shouldnt-compare

Edited October 29, 2021 by basil67

[basil67]

On 10/27/2021 at 11:56 PM, Prudence V said:

Recently I saw a tweet from someone claiming that, if transgender is a thing, then so should trans race be, since both gender and race are social constructions rather than biological ones. The tweet kind of lay there, untouched, not getting any responses… and the next day it was deleted. It struck me that it was such a radioactive topic that nobody even wanted to engage, to support or refute, or even just attract attention to it. 

What was the agenda of the person who tweeted this?   What lived experience do they have/relevant research had they done?   

Perhaps the lack of responses indicated that this person was a nobody trying to create a stir and their opinion wasn't worthy of comment.  Did you comment on the tweet?

 

Edited October 29, 2021 by basil67

[Prudence V]

10 hours ago, basil67 said:

What was the agenda of the person who tweeted this?   What lived experience do they have/relevant research had they done?   

I have no idea - it wasn’t anyone I know / know of. It was on a thread about Kathleen Stock (who has now resigned from Sussex). I recognised a couple of the early commentators on the thread as academics I’d heard of, but didn’t know most of the others especially the later commentators. 
 

10 hours ago, basil67 said:

Perhaps the lack of responses indicated that this person was a nobody trying to create a stir and their opinion wasn't worthy of comment.

Quite possibly. But the thread had become a bit of a free for all at that point, anyway.

10 hours ago, basil67 said:

Did you comment on the tweet?

No. I have a strong visceral response to such claims, but don’t really have a reasoned argument as to why, which I’m trying to unpack. 

[Prudence V]

10 hours ago, basil67 said:

In Australia, the genes of our indigenous people are recessive. 

I didn’t know that. So in addition to losing numbers through settler colonialism, they become “invisible” through genetic mixing, too? Has this led to greater cultural investment in “traditional” culture, or a weakening of cultural identity? Many of our “first peoples” (khoe, “San”, etc) were hunted almost to extinction, and subjected to cultural assimilation and later classification into a category together with “mixed race” peoples so that their identity was all but erased. There has recently been some revival - mostly in the wake of decolonisation movements - but some cultures and languages have been lost forever. 

 

10 hours ago, basil67 said:

when it comes to our indigenous culture, a person who is objectively white cannot legally claim to be black (for applying for grants, etc)  without the elders agreeing that there are the relevant cultural connections for you to claim that you are an indigenous person.

This makes a lot of sense, thank you. Back home, there is huge disagreement over who can call themselves African - is it a political (project) identity, a genetic (essentialist) identity, a “tribal” identity or an apartheid classification? Because access to restorative justice (like BBBEE) is often tied to such descriptors, it can matter in very material ways. This mechanism would solve a great many of those ambiguities, IMO. 

[Acacia98]

On 10/27/2021 at 3:56 PM, Prudence V said:

Good people of LS, do you: think that “trans race” is a thing, as valid as transgender? Why? 

Good luck with this one.

Truth is, if you take theory to its logical conclusion, you will end up in a place that's politically problematic and where anything can mean anything or nothing at all. Some of us steer clear of those kinds of discussions because we don't want to constantly experience angst and existential crises.

Typically, I can see the inherent contradictions and inconsistencies from a distance. But I don't have the strength to wade into the debate.

I suspect your visceral reaction has a lot to do with the fact that you are ideologically invested (as we all are). And I think that, in an alternate universe, trans-race would be a thing.

Edited October 30, 2021 by Acacia98

[Taramere]

7 hours ago, basil67 said:

When it comes to race, it's more than feeling like you relate to and fit in to that culture.  The history of that culture and how it affects you (via your family history) is also vital part of identity.   Now, that's not to mean that you can't be an ally to another race.   Of course you can fit in and be accepted as part of the crowd.  But that does not make you of that culture. 

But when it comes to being 'white' but identifying as black: In Australia, the genes of our indigenous people are recessive. Meaning that if you have one black grandparent and the rest of your ancestors post that are white, your skin will be white.  However, this person who is objectively white can still be considered indigenous because the cultural history, injustices, beliefs of their kin will likely still be part of your life  Especially if you are connected via cousins, aunts, uncles.   Heck, if your half black parent was torn away from their family as part of cultural cleansing, this will have a lasting impact on you,.   Further, when it comes to our indigenous culture, a person who is objectively white cannot legally claim to be black (for applying for grants, etc)  without the elders agreeing that there are the relevant cultural connections for you to claim that you are an indigenous person.    

My thoughts are inspired from this piece https://bostonreview.net/race-philosophy-religion-gender-sexuality/robin-dembroff-dee-payton-why-we-shouldnt-compare

I read the link.  There are obviously masses of issues to discuss in a wide ranging subject like this, so it's hard to focus on one - but if I can just take this part:

Quote

Let us make one methodological comment at the start...  In cases where revising a classification would have a negative sociopolitical impact that outweighs the good of respecting how an individual identifies, we think that the classification should not be revised. 

 

I quoted the above part from your article, because it strikes me as being very much in the flavour of applied sociology.  Pure sociologists helps people get a sense of understanding the society around them and the problems preventing it from functioning in a way that they believe would be better.  Applied sociology is like the business of rolling up sleeves and solving these problems.  Unfortunately I think this is sometimes done without much consultation, consent or input from the people living in that society. 

When that happens divisions and tribal fights are going to start breaking out.  Especially if people feel that they're being denied a voice.  Told "this won't impact on you" (when they're certain that it will in fact impact on them) or told in any other way that they're not important or educated enough to play a role in discussions that will change the society they live in. I think social media is often a terribly detrimental thing, because while superficiallyt it gives everybody a platform to present their perspective, often in reality it only emphasises power differences between the influencers and the "haves", and the nobodies whose views are discounted or ignored.

You wondered about the person who wrote the tweet Prudence referred to.  What their agenda is.  How educated (or ignorant) they are, whether they have relevant knowledge and expertise etc.  But does any of that really matter?  Do we dismiss a proposition because we don't feel like the person making it has earned our respect?  Or might it be helpful to say "this is something that a lot of people out there probably think, so why don't we discuss it?  And not only in academic environments, but in situations where anybody who's interested can have their say.  

JK Rowling and Dave Chappelle are (still) tremendously well liked and successful.  They've been challenging certain new norms.  For instance "Trans women are women".  I can understand why that's upsetting to trans people and their loved ones, but nonetheless I think there's a dishonest narrative that "the majority of people, and all reasonable people, now accept that trans women are women."  I think that narrative is part of activism.  Part of encouraging majority acceptance of new norms by telling people "the majority accept this, and if you don't then you're a bigoted dinosaur."  

But people talk to eachother offline as well as online.  The more people talk to eachother, the more they'll discover disconnects between what we're told "we" (as a society) think, and what everyday people in that society actually think.  And if it turns out that plenty of people who are well educated, have good careers, happy family lives etc question have not in fact fully embraced these new norms then questions are raised.  Dave Chappelle is raising questions that lots of people are asking, getting slated in the media for it - but his shows are selling out.  The more the media criticise him, the more people tune in to the Closer to find out what it's all about.  And in doing so they discover that he gave a voice to a trans woman.  Invited her to be his opening act.  Used his own act to have a conversation with the audience, in which she could participate.  They hear that shortly before her  suicide, this woman was dragged on Twitter for defending Dave Chappelle.  He quotes her as having told him "just believe that I'm having a human experience".   Dave Chappelle is being portrayed as a problematic bigot, but I think the people who like him see a talented, funny, empathic man who in his own way is trying to make the world a better place.  And doing so by raising these questions and issues openly, , with empathy and with humour.

But I'm going off on a rant of my own there, none of which is relevant to your post.  I did read the article you linked.  There's a lot in it to digest, so I will probably have to return to it a few times.  I think there are interesting propositions in there, and I recognise the complexity involved in discussing these topics.  However I also think there is room for a lot of different voices in discussing these topics.  That they should not be the preserve of small minority of people deemed to have the knowledge, qualifications or personal experience to discuss them.  Being a member of society is, I think, sufficient qualification to participate in discussion about challenges to the norms and values within that society.

[Prudence V]

3 hours ago, Taramere said:

Pure sociologists helps people get a sense of understanding the society around them and the problems preventing it from functioning in a way that they believe would be better.  Applied sociology is like the business of rolling up sleeves and solving these problems. 

As a sociologist, I (and all the others of my discipline I know personally or professionally) reject such a distinction. It might exist in some recherché niche of liberal sociology, but for the rest of us, it’s all one thing, which is sociology. We don’t distinguish between “pure” and “applied” forms of knowledge, because - as Marx so cogently stated - the purpose is not merely to understand the world, but to change it. Research may be “pure” or “applied”, depending on design, but knowledge is knowledge. 

 

3 hours ago, Taramere said:

But does any of that really matter?

As covid has proven, it matters very much. A tweet from a virologist about the virus, vs a tweet from some rando who heard something from a friend who saw something on FB, have very different value, IMV. Even on a site like this, claims need to be evidenced, because they can lead to people behaving in ways that may be detrimental. 

[Prudence V]

15 hours ago, basil67 said:

My thoughts are inspired from this piece https://bostonreview.net/race-philosophy-religion-gender-sexuality/robin-dembroff-dee-payton-why-we-shouldnt-compare

Thank you for this link. I found it resonated very strongly for me. I’ve long been in favour of increasing inheritance tax to 100%, to address transgenerational injustice and I’m also in favour of radical reparations for colonialism (not just giving back the Benin bronzes…) so the focus in the article on these matters really hit home. 

[mark clemson]

Hmm. Modern thinking is that race is primarily a social construct.

From that perspective in theory one should be able to "declare oneself" a specific race. However since it's socially determined, it's probably more important that others actually agree with you.

One could almost say that the professor woman in a sense "successfully transitioned" in that others around her agreed with her self-assessment. But her "transition" was reversed (by external factors) when others stopped agreeing.

I think to a (gender) trans person, their physical/birth gender can be thought of a sort of external factor that they feel a need to overcome. The structure of their body versus what their (internal) brain is telling them they "are".

It's my understanding that children of black families that "pass" as white due to the particulars of their gene expression are not unheard of, and I believe that some sometimes "join" the "white race". Did they transition? Were they ever black in the first place if others perceive them as white? "Philosophical questions" perhaps that there is no easy answer to.

Edited October 30, 2021 by mark clemson

[Taramere]

18 minutes ago, Prudence V said:

As covid has proven, it matters very much. A tweet from a virologist about the virus, vs a tweet from some rando who heard something from a friend who saw something on FB, have very different value, IMV. Even on a site like this, claims need to be evidenced, because they can lead to people behaving in ways that may be detrimental. 

If a virologist were to usher average Joe in off the street and tell them "look through the microscope and tell me your conclusions about the colourful blobs you  see moving around..."  Joe's probably going to readily admit that they haven't a clue and that the work the virologist undertakes in the lab is not something they can begin to relate to (unless they have a particular layperson's interest in that area, in which case they might be able to make an intelligent sounding comment or two).  They're scientists in the sense of working daily with concepts that are impenetrable to an observer who has no grounding in that discipline.  So yeah, if somebody tweeted something like 

The presently identified causative agent for COVID-19, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), has shared 82% genome sequence similarity to previously identified SARS-CoV-1, which also originated in China in 2002.3 4 The structure of the enveloped single-stranded RNA virus consists of spike protein, which is mainly responsible for the pathogenesis in the human species. The spike protein of the virus, through its receptor binding domain (RBD) gets attached to a human cell surface receptor

(taken from a recent BMJ article), I think the vast majority of people would not really understand what's being said, but be able to acknowledge that it's an expert narrative gleaned from observing physical phenomena through microscopes.  A journalist might have some clue of intelligent questions to ask, but nobody other than experts in the field (and maybe the odd conspiracy theorist who's convinced themselves that they can become an expert in virology courtesy of the university of wikipedia) is going to seriously attempt to contribute to that discussion. There wouldn't be a point in anybody posting something like the italicised paragraph above on Twitter (unless it was some special twitter group for virologists) or a forum like this. 

The very fact that you've started this thread on Loveshack demonstrates that the issues raised in your opening post are issues that people should be able to venture an opinion on without obtaining a thorough academic grounding in a relevant discipline first.  It's just not an impenetrable subject area in the way that a virologist's lab findings are.  And that's not to undermine sociology.  I'd say the same about legal theory.  If I were to say "hey everybody, let's have a discussion about Hohfeld's theory of rights" I'm sure people would be like....no, really. Let's not.  If I wanted to discuss that, I'd need to broach a discussion about the nature of rights in an enjoyable, accessible way that people might want to participate in. 

A person doesn't need to be a lawyer to have an interesting perspective about legal issues and rights, or a virologist to have an opinion about vaccinations or a sociologist to participate in a conversation about why transracialism lacks the social validation that being transgender has.  Everybody who lives in a society has a stake in that society's legal system, its values and the manner in which sociological findings are implemented into society (through policies in schools, hospitals, government agencies etc).  Everybody in society has a right to have their say on these matters.  If we take the view that discussion of these issues lacks interest or relevance unless it's undertaken by academics, then that's very direct exclusion of people in deciding on matters which might affect their lives in very direct, significant ways.

[mark clemson]

To follow up a bit. If race is a social construct then it's possible for people (probably some but not all people, based on things like gene expression/appearance) to transition. "Transitioning" would seem to primarily be based on convincing others that one is of a particular race (presumably the person also believes it themselves, but if/since race is socially determined I don't think that's actually a requirement). 

So it's possible (for some) to transition. Whether others feel the practice has "validity" is (IMO) irrelevant. If those around you accept you as race X and you can mark it e.g. on government forms without issue, I think the question of whether other people think you "can" do it or not is essentially irrelevant.

[basil67]

11 hours ago, Taramere said:

You wondered about the person who wrote the tweet Prudence referred to.  What their agenda is.  How educated (or ignorant) they are, whether they have relevant knowledge and expertise etc.  But does any of that really matter?  Do we dismiss a proposition because we don't feel like the person making it has earned our respect?  Or might it be helpful to say "this is something that a lot of people out there probably think, so why don't we discuss it?  And not only in academic environments, but in situations where anybody who's interested can have their say.  

And this is the thing:  I hesitated on commenting on this topic because I have no understanding of the issue.  No lived experience, no research, no friends who identify as transrace.  I'm also uneducated, so I lack the skills to dissect an issue. As such, my opinions on the topic have little to no value   That said, the topic piqued my interest so I did some cursory research, looking for sources which I believed to have some merit. 

Asking about the agenda of the author is far more than whether that person is giving an informed opinion.  This is social media after all, so the first question is "are they trolling?"  "is their intention to create division?"  "have they backed their opinion with any research or lived experience?"   In this case, the topic isn't current, so my guess was that their goal was to rehash a pretty much dead topic in order to be divisive.  And if someone's goal is to cause division or harm, their opinion is best ignored.  That said, I will give far more credit to the opinion of someone who's got lived experience or who has done quality research.

Anyway, I've had my brief say,  and I don't want to further debate the topic because I'd basically be talking out my rear end.  After responding to a question to the OP, I will bow out. 

Edited October 30, 2021 by basil67

[basil67]

12 hours ago, Prudence V said:

I didn’t know that. So in addition to losing numbers through settler colonialism, they become “invisible” through genetic mixing, too? Has this led to greater cultural investment in “traditional” culture, or a weakening of cultural identity? Many of our “first peoples” (khoe, “San”, etc) were hunted almost to extinction, and subjected to cultural assimilation and later classification into a category together with “mixed race” peoples so that their identity was all but erased. There has recently been some revival - mostly in the wake of decolonisation movements - but some cultures and languages have been lost forever. 

We're going a little off topic here, so I'll just give a short response and leave it there.

Our indigenous people have much the same history as yours.  It's heartbreaking.  Indigenous people are still largely behind in terms of employment, health, living standards. There is a lot of dysfunction as a direct result of colonialisation.    And there is much division among we white people with colonial roots on how to deal with it.  There's those who are in favour of doing what we can to try and right past wrongs vs those who say "it's all in the past, get over it".   

I believe that some schools in indigenous communities are teaching in (indigenous) language and passing on culture.  But I don't know a lot about it.  However, I do know that the indigenous people are very much behind in terms of education, health, employment, longevity etc.  

[ajequals]

Rachel was just seeking her 15 minutes of fame IMHO. Honestly. all these groups lumped together don't even make 2% of the population , the issue to me is the media has pushed it to the front . Such a small minority does not deserve that height of status. especially since some medical professionals like John Hopkins claim it's a mental condition they can cure.  It was in the news just 5 years ago

[Woggle]

I don't know how to feel about somebody who is honest about being one race but says they identify as another one. There are some people who grew up or are raised around another culture and just adopt some of the traits without even noticing it. We are products of our environment probably even more so than our ethnicity. 

The issue with Rachel Dolezal is that she is a white woman who pretended to be black and made her herself some authority on black issues when it was all a lie. 

[Mrin]

Ok I've been dying to join this conversation but was coming from a place of ingnorance. Tonight I decided to talk it through with my transgender child. I took the role of being pro trans racial and they took the role of being anti trans racial. Note: when I first asked them about it their initial reaction was very anti trans racial.

We kicked it around for a while. A lot of their objections were oppression based. And I get it - if we are talking black and white. The Rachael example for example. But if we are talking Korean -> Indian, the oppression argument doesn't make a lot of sense. Anyhow, we debated it without a lot of traction on either side until they made this point -

They said, "as a transgendered person, I can tell you that I NEVER felt right as my birth gender. You name it. 3 years old. 5 years. 16 years old. Innately I knew I was not a girl. I don't think a 3 year old or 5 year old Korean kid innately knows they are not Korean but instead Indian."

Maybe that's the difference. There is an innate-ness to gender identity that isn't present with race.

Anyhow, hope this helps forward the conversation.