“If someone has a brain telling them that they are certain sex, that's what they are, end of story." Anybody

So, If someone has a brain telling them that they are certain race, is that what they are, end of story?

Take Rachel Dolezal, who identifies as black, for instance.
Is she as black as Caitlyn Jenner is female? She has a brain that’s telling her she’s a certain race, black, when her DNA is European. Caitlyn Jenner has a brain that’s telling her she’s a certain sex, female, when her XY chromosomes say otherwise.

What’s the difference?

Rachel Dolezal’s DNA is 99.9% identical to an African’s DNA, when Caitlyn Jenner’s Chromosomes are 100% XY.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Dolezal

In broad general terms, body gender dysphoria is not about DNA or chromosomes, but quite chemical all the same.

To the extent racial body dysphoria might exist, it's not shown to be chemical, but mental so far. Nor is it establishes that Dolezal has body dysphoria.

As Ben shapiro said "you can choose your sexual identity, but don't even think for a minute that your free to choose your race."

Obama and Hallie Berry are both half black and half white, yet they both choose to identify as black.
If someone chooses to identify as a different race than the one they were born as, how is that more of a moral problem than somebody who chooses to identify as the opposite sex they were born as?

Perhaps you should read up on "passing" as it applies to black appearing blacks, white appearing blacks,their history, and trans people.

Perhaps. But who’s the authority on the subject?
Caitlyn Jenner? I’ve listened to her. I think she’s wrong on most social issues, but I tend to agree with her about trans athletes.
It’s not fair for a man to tee off from women’s tees. But if a woman wants to tee off from the mens tees, you go girl!
Same principle applies to sports. It’s not fair for men to fight women, which is why nobody would ever sponsor that. But if a woman wants to try out for a men’s sport, like football, there are no rules against her doing so. Having a male swimmer transition to a female and compete against women, doesn’t seem right to me for the same reasons, male swimmers are faster than female swimmers, generally, every swimming record is held by men. But somehow it’s the patriarchy that keeps women from breaking records held by men in sports?
I don’t think so.

People I listen to the most are on race are very pragmatic, let’s do what works and destroy what doesn’t. People like John McWhorter, Coleman Hughes, Glenn Lowry, all of whom are old school progressives, who still believe in MLK’s Dream and want real equality, social justice and freedom.
People I listen to on Trans issues are people I know in real life, who are trans, friends of mine. I empathize with them, but I also have experienced military guys who go to bars, dressed up like women and sexually assault drunk women and beat up any dude who objects. So I try to avoid judging people based upon their appearance, but more by their behavior.
Perhaps we can have a logical discussion about how we see it right now with our own eyes.

I would love for somebody to explain the difference, morally, ethically, between Rachel Dolezal identifying as black (when there’s no such thing as race, according to most scientists) and swimmer, Lia Thomas identifying as female (when there is, obviously, a scientific basis for determining sex.)

Did they really choose to identify as black? Or did that "one drop of black blood" socially and culturally force them into that identity?

Richard the Bad Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Did they really choose to identify as black? Or
> did that "one drop of black blood" socially and
> culturally force them into that identity?

When I was growing up in Los Angeles, my Mom (born and largely raised in Oklahoma; her nuclear family moved to Los Angeles when my Mom was in high school) used to give me actual lessons in how important it was, among my Los Angeles friends, to determine whether they, and their families, were trying to "pass as white."

With any new friends (new kids in school, parents or other relatives of kids I went to school with, neighbors, etc.), I was instructed to study the flesh underneath their fingernails to see if it had a purple-ish tint, which my Mom told me was a sure sign that they were actually [black; though she didn't use this word]. In other words: the "one drop rule."

Even at that time (I was pretty little) I thought this was--most probably--a crock. From my Mom's perspective: she was, from my early elementary school years on, petrified that I might possibly, one day in the future, marry "a black man" and have black children. [This was the western San Fernando Valley, which--outside of the random historical celebrity who was "allowed" to pass as white--has always been overwhelmingly white and Latino.]

My answer to your question is that, at that time in American history, anyone with ANY black ancestry would have been forced by social pressure into accepting the "one drop" rule, regardless of their own personal preferences.

I am in total agreement.

A: Skin vs. Brain.


"Racial" classification is not innate to the individual, but externally imposed. How would you know what "race" you were if no one ever told you? Peter Ustinov used to tell a joke about his first trip to America and didn't know what was meant when the customs officer asked him what "colour" he was, and he replied "pink" as it was a question he was not familiar with. You can imagine how well that went over back in the 1950s.


Many people are unaware that a time existed when the racial hierarchy and classifications that we are familiar with did not exist. They did not in Ancient Rome. They were created centuries later.


If you went back to the Middle Ages and asked Europeans what "race" they were, they wouldn't know what you were talking about. They would describe themselves as belonging to the "race of men" or in terms of religion -- "Christian" -- or nationality -- Europeans or Ethiopians or Indians (Hindus).


If I were to ask you if you were right or left-handed and had never heard those terms, you would still know what was your dominant hand because that is innate to you. You just know it by instinct because that's how your brain is wired. It's the same with sexual identity. Now imagine that you had that same sense, but with a body of the different or indeterminate biological sex -- like a computer that didn't have hardware that worked with the operating system. Most people also don't know that a medical professional like an OB/GYN has to examine an infant at birth and make a medical determination as to what sex it is. For 99% of the human race, sexual identity, sexual orientation, anatomical sex, and biological sex are in parallel, so it's simple. They are not always, and then it's not so simple and a lot more complicated. Only recently in history has it been possible to examine a human brain minutely in a living person without dissection.


Some people want to impose status on other people for various different reasons -- power, insecurity, etc. In most places, this is done by social class, in others, it's ethnicity. Why would you even care what "race" someone was if you did not intend to separate or differentiate yourself from them?


This is probably the best answer you are going to get -- if you really want one and are not just trolling.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 03/23/2022 11:05PM by anybody.