NAACP spokesperson pretends to be black.

[TimG]

I think one has to consider the historical context of white people dressing up as black (blackface) and white cultural appropriation of blackness here. Historically, light-skinned black people have passed as white to escape oppression while white people dress as black to mock black people. I know some people like to think these things happen in a vacuum, but they don't.

So you are now arguing that transgender people should be attacked because some people are offended by them? Seems to me you have no business complaining about something just because you are personally offended. Edited June 17, 2015 by TimG

[Black Dog]

Why? That is a completely arbitrary assertion. Logically one's biological sex is equivalent to one's racial make up,

Nope. It makes total sense. If you were blind and didn't know what colour your skin was, you'd still understand that you were a man.

however, if you want to define a concept called 'gender' that is independent of one's biology then there is no reason to say that one's 'internal race' can't different than one's actual racial make up.

No one says gender is independent of biology. That's a strawman.

The hypocrisy here comes from people who think that others must blindly accept claims someone makes about their gender that are at odds with their biology but it is fine to attack someone who makes claims about race which are at odds with their biology. Some who demands the former has no business doing the latter.

Again: it's only hypocrisy if you think race and gender are interchangeable.

[TimG]

Nope. It makes total sense. If you were blind and didn't know what colour your skin was, you'd still understand that you were a man.

One's race is more than skin colour. It includes hair, nose, eyes and even body size/shape. Many of these attributes could be detected by a blind person.

No one says gender is independent of biology. That's a strawman.

BS. The entire concept of transgender is built on the premise that gender is independent of biological sex. But you know that - this is just a rhetorical game you like to play. Edited June 17, 2015 by TimG

[Black Dog]

One's race is more than skin colour. It includes hair, nose, eyes and even body size/shape. Many of these attributes could be detected by a blind person.

Ok now we're getting into silly territory.

BS. The entire concept of transgender is built on the premise that gender is independent of biological sex. But you know that - this is just a rhetorical game you like to play.

As I keep pointing out and as you keeping ignoring, there's a growing body of evidence to suggest that transgenderism has a biological component, just as homosexuality has a biological component. So, a transgender person would not in fact be making claims about their gender that are at odds with their biology at all. As to whether gender as a social concept is completely independent of biology: that's highly debatable. Most would suggest biological differences are at work in the formation of gender roles to some extent. If you actually think gender is a completely arbitrary construct, you are on the side of the radfems (and also a hypocrite).

[TimG]

As I keep pointing out and as you keeping ignoring, there's a growing body of evidence to suggest that transgenderism has a biological component

Stop the presses: every mental illness imaginable has a biological component so such arguments are irrelevant. e.g. schizophrenia has a biological component but that does not mean the voices schizophrenics hear must be real and schizophrenia should not be treated as an illness in need of correction.

The question here is where the biological sex, as determined by the reproductive organs, is different from ones perceived gender and who gets to decide that. The argument being frequently advanced is that the only person entitled to decide that a mismatch exists is the person affected. i.e. no one else has any business telling someone else what their gender is and once the person declares a mismatch then others and government institutions are expected to treat the person as if their biological sex matched their self defined gender. The same argument should apply to race. i.e. if someone thinks they are black then they should be entitled to be treated as black by others and government institutions. This is no different from the argument used for transgender.

A consistent argument would be that people can define their own gender/race but governments and others are free treat the person with a gender/race that matches their biological sex/biological race.

Edited June 18, 2015 by TimG

[kimmy]

This whole thing is quite bizarre. I don't pretend to understand any of it.

However, does any of it actually matter? I don't think the NAACP actually has any policy forbidding white employees, do they?

With enough exposure to sun (natural or artificial) some white people become extremely brown. You can go down to the salon and get any color of hair you like. You can have your naturally straight hair curled or frizzed. You can have your naturally frizzy hair straightened. You can get corn-rows or dreadlocks-- many female professional fighters of all skin tones get their hair in corn-rows before fights. Is what Rachel Dolezal did particularly worse than somebody who goes to the fake-and-bake for a super-dark tan, then gets their hair colored and styled?

Anyway, the premise kind of reminds me of Tropic Thunder:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1iV24hL8Rk#t=8s

-k

[Black Dog]

So you are now arguing that transgender people should be attacked because some people are offended by them? Seems to me you have no business complaining about something just because you are personally offended.

WTF is this?

Stop the presses: every mental illness imaginable has a biological component so such arguments are irrelevant. e.g. schizophrenia has a biological component but that does not mean the voices schizophrenics hear must be real and schizophrenia should not be treated as an illness in need of correction.

So one the one hand, you complain about transgender people on the basis that their gender identity is at odds with their biology. But now their actual biology is irrelevant. You're tying yourself in knots here. At least if you just came out and said you think transgender people are icky (which, let's face it, is really what's going on here) you'd be consistent.

The question here is where the biological sex, as determined by the reproductive organs, is different from ones perceived gender and who gets to decide that. The argument being frequently advanced is that the only person entitled to decide that a mismatch exists is the person affected. i.e. no one else has any business telling someone else what their gender is and once the person declares a mismatch then others and government institutions are expected to treat the person as if their biological sex matched their self defined gender. The same argument should apply to race. i.e. if someone thinks they are black then they should be entitled to be treated as black by others and government institutions. This is no different from the argument used for transgender.

Annnnnd we're back to the false equivalencies.

[TimG]

WTF is this?

You are the one who made the argument that "impersonating a black person is bad because some people find it offensive". I am simply taking the principle that you defined and applying it consistently. The point is to illustrate how irrational your arguments are.

So one the one hand, you complain about transgender people on the basis that their gender identity is at odds with their biology. But now their actual biology is irrelevant.

When I talk about biology I am talking about reproductive organs - not some hypothetical hormonal imbalances that result in feelings of gender/body mismatch. It is a tautology to argue that that some mental states are special because they have biological link when all mental states have a similar link to biology.

Annnnnd we're back to the false equivalencies.

Sorry. simply asserting that an obvious equivalency is "false" does not make it true. I think the core of the issue is your "victim based ideology". i.e. in any situation you designate a victim and decide what is best based on your perception on what is good for your "designated victims". For reason you see no inconsistency between arguing that transgender should be defined by their self-perception but race should be defined by other peoples perceptions. I don't share you obsession with victims and think principles should be applied consistently. Edited June 18, 2015 by TimG

[Black Dog]

You are the one who made the argument that "impersonating a black person is bad because some people find it offensive". I am simply taking the principle that you defined and applying it consistently. The point is to illustrate how irrational your arguments are.

That wasn't the argument. You just see people get offended and,for some reason, that offends you.

When I talk about biology I am talking about reproductive organs - not some hypothetical hormonal imbalances that result in feelings of gender/body mismatch.

Lol ok. Just arbitrarily decide what biological traits are relevant. Why the hell not.

It is a tautology to argue that that some mental states are special because they have biological link when all mental states have a similar link to biology.

It's a false equivalency to suggest that because mental states have a link to biology, then all mental states are the same.

Sorry. simply asserting that an obvious equivalency is "false" does not make it true.

Sorry you are unfamiliar with the term. Maybe that's why you use it so often.

I think the core of the issue is your "victim based ideology". i.e. in any situation you designate a victim and decide what is bets based on your perception on what is good for your "designated victims". For reason you see no inconsistency between arguing that transgender should be defined by their self-perception but race should be defined by other peoples perceptions.

I never argued that.

I don't share you obsession with victims and think principles should be applied consistently.

Except you don't (see your twisting when your logic on transgendered people is applied to gays)

Edited June 18, 2015 by Black Dog

[TimG]

That wasn't the argument.

You make not have believed you were making that argument but it is logical consequence of it. You need to stop assuming that everyone views the world with your victim ideology and will make the same assumptions.

I never argued that.

Do you really fail to understand that arguing "false equivalency" is making that argument?

Except you don't (see your twisting when your logic on transgendered people is applied to gays)

I realize that you like to project opinions on me that fit with your prejudices instead of trying to understand the nuance of my argument. I have made it clear in the past my objection to transgender is with SRS and not with the idea that some people may have a self-perception that does not match their biology. I also think it is absurd to claim that transgender identity is not a problem in need of treatment and then argue that SRS are medically necessary services.

IOW, my consistent view is gays and transgender should be accepted as is and should not require treatment of any sort. If a transgender needs treatment then surgical treatments should be considered as a treatment failure much like prescribing heroine to addicts is a treatment failure for addictions.

Edited June 18, 2015 by TimG

[Boges]

LOL

http://www.salon.com/2015/06/13/amy_schumers_one_tweet_that_captures_the_rachel_dolezal_controversy/

https://twitter.com/amyschumer/status/609605973280428032

Edited June 18, 2015 by Boges

[cybercoma]

Is what Rachel Dolezal did particularly worse than somebody who goes to the fake-and-bake for a super-dark tan, then gets their hair colored and styled?

-k

It's more about her lying and intentionally deceiving people than her fashion choices.

[Black Dog]

You make not have believed you were making that argument but it is logical consequence of it. You need to stop assuming that everyone views the world with your victim ideology and will make the same assumptions.

There's absolutely nothing logical about your interpretation of that, hinging as it does on some bizarre misunderstanding of cause and effect.

Do you really fail to understand that arguing "false equivalency" is making that argument

Oh I get it: you don't what the term means.

I realize that you like to project opinions on me that fit with your prejudices instead of trying to understand the nuance of my argument. I have made it clear in the past my objection to transgender is with SRS and not with the idea that some people may have a self-perception that does not match their biology.

Yes, your obsession with SRS is well documented.

I also think it is absurd to claim that transgender identity is not a problem in need of treatment and then argue that SRS are medically necessary services.

It only hurts your brain because you seem incapable of understanding that SRS isn't a treatment or cure for transgender identity.

IOW, my consistent view is gays and transgender should be accepted as is and should not require treatment of any sort.

Right, that's why you have gone on and on and on about how transgendered people need therapy to accept the gender they have. IOW: you want them to get treatment, it's just a question of what that treatment is.

If a transgender needs treatment then surgical treatments should be considered as a treatment failure much like prescribing heroine to addicts is a treatment failure for addictions.

A treatment can only truly be said to be a failure if it fails to achieve positive outcomes for patients. If prescription heroin enables someone to better manage their addiction and live a productive life and if SRS enable someone to be happier and not kill themselves, then they cannot be said to be failures.

[TimG]

Oh I get it: you don't what the term means.

I know what it means. The problem that you are to dim to understand that it is not a fact - it is merely your opinion and simply stating that something is a "false equivalency" does not make my arguments go away.

It only hurts your brain because you seem incapable of understanding that SRS isn't a treatment or cure for transgender identity.

Right. Next you will be claiming the the sky is purple and the sun rises in the west. I don't understand why you expect anyone to take such completely irrational statements seriously.

A treatment can only truly be said to be a failure if it fails to achieve positive outcomes for patients. If prescription heroin enables someone to better manage their addiction and live a productive life and if SRS enable someone to be happier and not kill themselves, then they cannot be said to be failures.

So SRS stops people from killing themselves but it is not a "treatment" for transgender? In any case, it is a treatment failure because is an extremely undesirable option that is only considered after all other less invasive means have failed. Whether you want to acknowledge it or not there are professionals who seriously talk about putting confused kids on hormones so SRS is an "option". This is gross professional misconduct. Edited June 18, 2015 by TimG

[Black Dog]

I know what it means. The problem that you are to dim to understand that it is not a fact - it is merely your opinion and simply stating that something is a "false equivalency" does not make my arguments go away.

It doesn't make them go away, it just names them for the fallacy they are.

Right. Next you will be claiming the the sky is purple and the sun rises in the west. I don't understand why you expect anyone to take such completely irrational statements seriously.

I'll explain it to you in the simplest terms I can in hopes you will understand: someone who is transgendered who undergoes SRS is still transgendered afterwards anymore than an alcoholic who stops drinking is no longer an alcoholic. SRS and other treatments are designed to correct the distress caused by the disconnect between the assigned sex or gender and the self. It's a subtle distinction, one I know will be lost on you.

So SRS stops people from killing themselves but it is not a "treatment" for transgender?

Transgender isn't the condition. Why are you even bothering with this subject when you can't get the details down?

In any case, it is a treatment failure because is an extremely undesirable option that is only considered after all other less invasive means have failed.

So it's a last resort and if it works it's still a failure. Gotcha.

Oh and I notice you ignored the part where I caught you misrepresenting your position on treatment. How come?

[TimG]

I'll explain it to you in the simplest terms I can in hopes you will understand: someone who is transgendered who undergoes SRS is still transgendered afterwards anymore than an alcoholic who stops drinking is no longer an alcoholic.

Then why to alcoholics go to "treatment centers"? You are playing silly semantic word games. Many conditions cannot be "cured" but are only "treated" to relieve the symptoms associated with the condition. It is still correct to say that you are "treating" the underlying condition.

BTW: as long as you want to argue that SRS is medically necessary they you are asserting that they are necessary to treat a condition. Trying to re-write the English language to satisfy for need for political correctness is pointless.

Oh and I notice you ignored the part where I caught you misrepresenting your position on treatment.

Because I don't have the energy to dissect every false claim you make. Edited June 18, 2015 by TimG

[Bonam]

BTW: as long as you want to argue that SRS is medically necessary they you are asserting that they are necessary to treat a condition. Trying to re-write the English language to satisfy for need for political correctness is pointless.

Rewriting the English language is half the entire industry of the social justice movement, though. (The other half being scapegoating white males for every imaginable problem).

[Guest]

Rewriting the English language is half the entire industry of the social justice movement, though. (The other half being scapegoating white males for every imaginable problem).

You can't say scapegoating anymore. It offends garlic loving vegetarians.

[Black Dog]

Rewriting the English language is half the entire industry of the social justice movement, though. (The other half being scapegoating white males for every imaginable problem).

Stay out of the threads when adults are talking 'kay?

[Black Dog]

Then why to alcoholics go to "treatment centers"? You are playing silly semantic word games. Many conditions cannot be "cured" but are only "treated" to relieve the symptoms associated with the condition. It is still correct to say that you are "treating" the underlying condition.

The underlying "condition" being gender dysphoria, for which SRS is an effective treatment.

Because I don't have the energy to dissect every false claim you make.

False claims, in this case, being your own words. El Oh El.

[WIP]

The problem appears to be that many blacks believe that a person who is not black - does not know what it is to be black. For this reason her participation in the NAACP executive is suspect.

It does not bother me because I have been asking for years as to what triggers a genetic association with a group?

I'll use black and white as examples; Mother black, father black - child is black. Mother black, father white - child is ?

Over the years, I have been fascinated at what percentage of one's heritage is required for identification which can be a positive or a negative label - Jews in Germany, Aboriginals in Canada etc. If a Canadian's grandfather was aboriginal ( 1/4 native) do they qualify for a native card (good thing - do not pay taxes)? In Germany, did a person who was 1/16 Jewish (not good for survival) considered for execution?

A person who is 1/16 black and 1/4 oriental is considered ...?

This is old, but it seems that the main reason why African Americans don't have a colour litmus test or some other obvious identifier for being black, is because in US history, after slavery was abolished, the Jim Crow laws labeled anyone with an "ounce of negro blood" to be a negro and therefore 2nd class. This was a different development than other slave-based societies like Brazil, which considered anyone who looked white to be white, and favoured shades of whiteness over darker, with negritoes being the lowest class in their pecking order.

So, so many African Americans have an ancestry of being classified 'negro' for generations, even though a lot of European mixture was added, first when female slaves were raped with great frequency by slaveowners and overseers, and then white bosses had impunity to rape negro housekeepers who worked for them in the decades afterwards.

The majority of the African American community's attitude was to identify everyone thrown into the club as black, although there have been tensions and resentments within between those who are dark and those who can pass for white.

[Big Guy]

I am constantly amused by a persons affiliation with a nationality, colour or culture that seems to change when it becomes an asset. The number of Metis in Canada miraculously exploded when it became a financial asset to have a card. In our area in Southern Ontario, a few locals have had to dig deep and long to apply for and receive accreditation for a "Indian Status Card" and the lucrative tax exemptions and other special support programs that come with it.

Were Adam and Eve aboriginals?

Edited July 14, 2015 by Big Guy

[WIP]

I am constantly amused by a persons affiliation with a nationality, colour or culture that seems to change when it becomes an asset. The number of Metis in Canada miraculously exploded when it became a financial asset to have a card. In our area in Southern Ontario, a few locals have had to dig deep and long to apply for and receive accreditation for a "Indian Status Card" and the lucrative tax exemptions and other special support programs that come with it.

Were Adam and Eve aboriginals?

Think of how many people were denied Treaty status or Metis status because the European patriarchal system of tracing lineage through the father was imposed on the natives of this Continent!

For my part, my grandmother on my father's side was a Mi'kmaq, but I have no status because women who married white men lost native status along with any children born from the marriage.

[Hal 9000]

Think of how many people were denied Treaty status or Metis status because the European patriarchal system of tracing lineage through the father was imposed on the natives of this Continent!

For my part, my grandmother on my father's side was a Mi'kmaq, but I have no status because women who married white men lost native status along with any children born from the marriage.

If you can prove to be 1/4 Mik'maq, i don't see how you can be denied status. Ive seen mik'maq' who were 1/16 in Nova Scotia with full status.

[WIP]

If you can prove to be 1/4 Mik'maq, i don't see how you can be denied status. Ive seen mik'maq' who were 1/16 in Nova Scotia with full status.

I've haven't bothered looking into it, but my point was that it was only relatively recently that children born from a native woman and a white man were considered native. Lineage and inheritance in our society has been traced through the father, while in most of Pre-Columbian North America, people were either moving too frequently to consider inheritance, or those who were settled traced their lineage through the mother's line. Some still do this today, but the Iroquois clan names for example, have no significance in our system of laws and institutions.

But, my main point was that the Euroconquerors imposing their "superior" culture on the natives have never examined the disruption and chaos they created by obliterating existing cultural norms and imposing their own from the outside. Once you break something it's very difficult and takes a long time to put the pieces back together again.