Transgender athletes (and related stuff)

[mercalia]

LBC has started a debate today given that story of that American professor who self identified as black

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8695559/George-Washington-University-professor-says-lied-black.html

( finaly the BBC gets there https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-54008495)

The LBC guy (MAAJID NAWAZ) was maintaining that if you can self identify as a woman then you should be able to self indentify as black, both or neither, BUT what you CANT do is appropriate the growing up experiences of being black

NOW I think this provides the missing link in the argument that I have been maintaining that eg a TRANS-WOMAN isnt a WOMAN - that tempting syntactical inference ( a black cat is still a cat ) is a mistake. Since being a woman is just as much about the experience of growing up as a woman not just simply some thing biological but growing up experiences because of biology A trans-woman claiming to be a woman undermines this? The trouble with informal non-technical concepts like the man-woman distinction is that problems like the trans debate forces us to identify the crucial aspects which we may not in the first instance understand

So we have atleast 4 genders? Men, Women, Trans-Men, Trans-Women? just as men are not women, trans-men ( hyphenated) are not men; but just 2 sexes, Men and Women? so the terms have a dual use. Every one should be happy including Hogwarts.

(I just heard that Maajid has recently become an ambassador for Rowling to locate and identify unrepresented talent)

[thelawnet]

The LBC guy (MAAJID NAWAZ) was maintaining that if you can self identify as a woman then you should be able to self indentify as black, both or neither, BUT what you CANT do is appropriate the growing up experiences of being black

NOW I think this provides the missing link in the argument that I have been maintaining that eg a TRANS-WOMAN isnt a WOMAN - that tempting syntactical inference ( a black cat is still a cat ) is a mistake. Since being a woman is just as much about the experience of growing up as a woman not just simply some thing biological but growing up experiences because of biology A trans-woman claiming to be a woman undermines this? The trouble with informal non-technical concepts like the man-woman distinction is that problems like the trans debate forces us to identify the crucial aspects which we may not in the first instance understand

They've thought of this already and have some transgender metaphysics to solve it.

Basically the idea is they appropriate people's genetic disorders, so let's say you have someone who is born with ambiguous genitalia, and is raised as a girl. But it turns out they have internal testes, and go on to live as a man and father children with their own sperm.

This person one would argue was 'incorrectly assigned female at birth'. In other words they were never in any sense female, they were always male.

Now there is a bit of a problem with this argument because as we've discussed being female or male is before puberty in large part about nurture, although it does seem to be nature as well, as we know lots of differences between boys and girls before puberty. So a male child raised as female is in some sense female.

Anyway, if we ignore this last paragraph, we can see that some people who are in a very real sense male, were incorrectly judged (assigned) female at birth.

So the transgender version of this is to say 'actually we were never male, we were born female, but the silly doctor said we were male'. Hence the language used is 'a transgender woman is a woman who was assigned male at birth'.

There's a lot of assumption going on here, but the biggest one is that there was some error in that 'assignment', and that the current gender is more correct. In particular, people will claim that they 'always knew they were a girl', and there are parents claiming that their 3 or 4 year child is transgender, and seeking from a very early age to have them on a pathway towards medical and surgical transition.

The problem with all of this is that none of this is testable biologically. A psychologist can say 'yes, that child is upset when female toys such as dolls are taken away, and that means they are a transgender girl'. But that's not objective in the way we can test for covid-19 antibodies in blood, which are either there or they are not. It's all wishy-washy interpretation.

So anyway, transgender people will claim that they grew up as female (if biologically male), and hence they did experience that, and were bullied for being effeminate or whatever else....

[Vorpal]

While I can see some similarities; in particular, growing up with race/gender privilege, I don't think that the two are directly comparable.

Firstly, I don't think it undermines gender experience to grow up in the wrong body. Trans folks have their own experience, and to suggest that it somehow undermines feminine experience undervalues trans experience.

To self identify as black, for someone who is not; does not have black parents, and grew up in white culture, is generally going to be appropriation. I guess there could be exceptions, but I also think that most white folks, fully accepted into black culture wouldn't identify as black, even if they (and their black friends) might joke about it.

[mercalia]

While I can see some similarities; in particular, growing up with race/gender privilege, I don't think that the two are directly comparable.

Firstly, I don't think it undermines gender experience to grow up in the wrong body. Trans folks have their own experience, and to suggest that it somehow undermines feminine experience undervalues trans experience.

To self identify as black, for someone who is not; does not have black parents, and grew up in white culture, is generally going to be appropriation. I guess there could be exceptions, but I also think that most white folks, fully accepted into black culture wouldn't identify as black, even if they (and their black friends) might joke about it.

Thats the point that claiming that trans-women are women ,so the activists are claiming, does, . They are what they are not some thing else. They seem to think that the only way to get legitimacy is to eg claim to be women, to subsume under a preexisting category, rather than stand on their own two feet. It seems to be a western hangup. I mentioned a bbc article that detailed other cultures eg in India there is a 3rd gender recognised in law and amongst some native north amercian indians I think it was 6 genders.

As for the bit in red, you would be the race equivalent of a transphobe for saying that, since once you self identify as black you ARE black. end of story. Thats the force of self-indentification and MAAJID NAWAZ's point its either both or none. Once you rely on some introspective self knowledge over which you cannot be mistaken, external facts are irelevent. Maybe such people could claim to be trans black and therefore black

I'll comment thelawnets points after I have thought more

[thelawnet]

While I can see some similarities; in particular, growing up with race/gender privilege, I don't think that the two are directly comparable.

Firstly, I don't think it undermines gender experience to grow up in the wrong body. Trans folks have their own experience, and to suggest that it somehow undermines feminine experience undervalues trans experience.

To self identify as black, for someone who is not; does not have black parents, and grew up in white culture, is generally going to be appropriation. I guess there could be exceptions, but I also think that most white folks, fully accepted into black culture wouldn't identify as black, even if they (and their black friends) might joke about it.

This is off-topic, but as I understand it the Associated Press have decreed that to be black is something overarching, and hence we should capitalise 'black', so Black people, because we are supposed to somehow hold that someone who is say 1/4 Nigerian has something fundamentally in common with someone who is, say, 100% Somalian, so 'Black people' in the same way as 'British people', but not 'White people', because white people have nothing in common, except perhaps when we need to deride them with terms such as 'white privilege'.

Anyway this is a problem in that here in SE Asia people generally hold lots of negative stereotypical views about black people, but what would be understood as 'black' is someone 100% sub-Saharan African, i.e. very dark skin, not merely 'one drop'.

HOWEVER, someone who in Indonesia might be deemed white/foreign, through being half-white and half-Indonesian, could quite easily if they grew up in London be assumed to be 'black', where 'black' in fact likely more often means 'mixed race white and black'. Except of course they aren't black in any way at all, they are mixed Asian/white, but if they grew up somewhere where there were lots of black/mixed black&white people then they'd likely pas as 'black'.

This is despite being highly privileged in Indonesia, as such people are generally deemed attractive. But a few years at school in London and they'd easily be 'black'. It's not as if being black can be said to be about something consistent in terms of culture, religion, etc - plenty of black children grow up with white single mothers.

It's a constructed identity in many ways, just as for example Indonesian identity was constructed, in that not very long in the past there was no Indonesia, and often a bunch of different tribes, and not much obviously in common between people several thousand miles away.

However we have decreed that a shared black identity is important even if it isn't necessarily real - a Berber slaver in North Africa is 'black' in the very vague Western sense, even though he's enslaving people who are unambiguously dark skinned and understood as black everywhere.

If said slaver came to the UK he could talk about his blackness and his perspective would be quite correct and valid in that he is black, even though he was enslaving people on the basis of them being darker skinned. Likewise there are plenty of children of African politicians & rich businessmen who go off to study in the West and may talk about their perspective as black men, but in reality don't necessarily have a shared experience.

There's an example here:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-53180073


from rich family in Guinea, school in Saudi Arabia and France, makes a living talking about being black in software in California, which is indeed rare, but his background has literally nothing to do with the average black person in the US, but more in common with say, the son of a billionaire, who is likely to be Chinese, Arab, or white.

A lot of identity politics is about providing an identity for the already privileged to exploit to make themselves even wealthier. The opportunities go to people like this https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-46950952 who go to posh schools in leafy Kent, and are children of two wealthy professionals, one already employed by the BBC, but recognise that their very vague connection to Africa provides them with a competitive advantage in modern Britain over fellow privileged young people.

I think it's this identity politics that arises with transgender issues also in that there isn't really anything like being raped and murdered on the way to school, or being put in a menstruation hut, or some of the other things that women experience around the world, but it's more about wanting to identify as female in the same way the girl above wants to identify as African, because it's convenient to do so.

[Jdsk]

This is off-topic, but as I understand it the Associated Press have decreed that to be black is something overarching, and hence we should capitalise 'black', so Black people, because we are supposed to somehow hold that someone who is say 1/4 Nigerian has something fundamentally in common with someone who is, say, 100% Somalian, so 'Black people' in the same way as 'British people', but not 'White people', because white people have nothing in common, except perhaps when we need to deride them with terms such as 'white privilege'.

That haven't that you should capitalise "black", only that they will.

https://apnews.com/71386b46dbff8190e71493a763e8f45a

Jonathan

[Carlton green]

I don’t follow this thread but hope that the following might bring a smile to somebody’s face, I certainly laughed.

A husband and wife who are avid golfers have been happily married for 30 years, and on the day of their 30th anniversary they enjoy a wonderful day together. They have a delicious breakfast in bed, then proceed to one of their favourite golf courses. They play through to the 9th hole, both having an amazing game. The husband watches his beautiful wife tee off and feels a rush of emotion and guilt. "Honey, I have to tell you something. At the very beginning of our marriage, I slept with another woman. It only happened once and I've been faithful ever since. It was a mistake and I hope you can forgive me." The wife looks fondly at him. "I forgive you. We've had a very happy life together. I love you.”

The husband is so relieved, feeling light as a feather. They play a few more holes in bliss when suddenly the wife turns to her husband. "Honey, I too have something to confess." The husband smiles and says, "Anything dear - you were so gracious to me, and we can make it through anything." "Before we met, I had a sex change. I used to be a man." The husband throws his club down and starts swearing and kicking up turf. The wife is in shock. "But I forgave you for your secret!" The husband, red faced, turns to her. "All these years! All these years you've been teeing off from the ladies tee box you damned cheater!"

[thelawnet]

This is off-topic, but as I understand it the Associated Press have decreed that to be black is something overarching, and hence we should capitalise 'black', so Black people, because we are supposed to somehow hold that someone who is say 1/4 Nigerian has something fundamentally in common with someone who is, say, 100% Somalian, so 'Black people' in the same way as 'British people', but not 'White people', because white people have nothing in common, except perhaps when we need to deride them with terms such as 'white privilege'.

That haven't that you should capitalise "black", only that they will.

https://apnews.com/71386b46dbff8190e71493a763e8f45a

Jonathan

Obviously they can't force me to capitalise 'black'. My point was regarding the concept behind their decision, not whether or not I am compelled to follow it.

[Jdsk]

... and hence we should capitalise 'black'

They're not saying that you "should". They're not only not compelling you not to, they aren't even recommending or suggesting that you "should".

Jonathan

[windmiller]

While I can see some similarities; in particular, growing up with race/gender privilege, I don't think that the two are directly comparable.

Firstly, I don't think it undermines gender experience to grow up in the wrong body. Trans folks have their own experience, and to suggest that it somehow undermines feminine experience undervalues trans experience.

To self identify as black, for someone who is not; does not have black parents, and grew up in white culture, is generally going to be appropriation. I guess there could be exceptions, but I also think that most white folks, fully accepted into black culture wouldn't identify as black, even if they (and their black friends) might joke about it.

at times you post as if this forum is a university campus.

[landsurfer]

Here in the north we are at the cutting edge of LGBTQ support .........

[Vorpal]

While I can see some similarities; in particular, growing up with race/gender privilege, I don't think that the two are directly comparable.

Firstly, I don't think it undermines gender experience to grow up in the wrong body. Trans folks have their own experience, and to suggest that it somehow undermines feminine experience undervalues trans experience.

To self identify as black, for someone who is not; does not have black parents, and grew up in white culture, is generally going to be appropriation. I guess there could be exceptions, but I also think that most white folks, fully accepted into black culture wouldn't identify as black, even if they (and their black friends) might joke about it.

This is off-topic, but as I understand it the Associated Press have decreed that to be black is something overarching, and hence we should capitalise 'black', so Black people, because we are supposed to somehow hold that someone who is say 1/4 Nigerian has something fundamentally in common with someone who is, say, 100% Somalian, so 'Black people' in the same way as 'British people'...

Fair enough. I will try to remember that for the future.

[mercalia]

A BBC report onthe govts decision not to allow self identification as the sole criterion. It also discusses general issues

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-53154286

[sjs]

LBC has started a debate today given that story of that American professor who self identified as black

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8695559/George-Washington-University-professor-says-lied-black.html

( finaly the BBC gets there https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-54008495)

The LBC guy (MAAJID NAWAZ) was maintaining that if you can self identify as a woman then you should be able to self indentify as black, both or neither, BUT what you CANT do is appropriate the growing up experiences of being black

NOW I think this provides the missing link in the argument that I have been maintaining that eg a TRANS-WOMAN isnt a WOMAN - that tempting syntactical inference ( a black cat is still a cat ) is a mistake. Since being a woman is just as much about the experience of growing up as a woman not just simply some thing biological but growing up experiences because of biology A trans-woman claiming to be a woman undermines this? The trouble with informal non-technical concepts like the man-woman distinction is that problems like the trans debate forces us to identify the crucial aspects which we may not in the first instance understand

So we have atleast 4 genders? Men, Women, Trans-Men, Trans-Women? just as men are not women, trans-men ( hyphenated) are not men; but just 2 sexes, Men and Women? so the terms have a dual use. Every one should be happy including Hogwarts.

(I just heard that Maajid has recently become an ambassador for Rowling to locate and identify unrepresented talent)

So you're saying a black cat is not a cat?

[mercalia]

LBC has started a debate today given that story of that American professor who self identified as black

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8695559/George-Washington-University-professor-says-lied-black.html

( finaly the BBC gets there https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-54008495)

The LBC guy (MAAJID NAWAZ) was maintaining that if you can self identify as a woman then you should be able to self indentify as black, both or neither, BUT what you CANT do is appropriate the growing up experiences of being black

NOW I think this provides the missing link in the argument that I have been maintaining that eg a TRANS-WOMAN isnt a WOMAN - that tempting syntactical inference ( a black cat is still a cat ) is a mistake. Since being a woman is just as much about the experience of growing up as a woman not just simply some thing biological but growing up experiences because of biology A trans-woman claiming to be a woman undermines this? The trouble with informal non-technical concepts like the man-woman distinction is that problems like the trans debate forces us to identify the crucial aspects which we may not in the first instance understand

So we have atleast 4 genders? Men, Women, Trans-Men, Trans-Women? just as men are not women, trans-men ( hyphenated) are not men; but just 2 sexes, Men and Women? so the terms have a dual use. Every one should be happy including Hogwarts.

(I just heard that Maajid has recently become an ambassador for Rowling to locate and identify unrepresented talent)

So you're saying a black cat is not a cat?

so a square circle is a circle ?