No Stupid Questions
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
view the rest of the comments
I'm no expert on either topic. But I believe humans basically start off as female in the womb, and either become male or don't. And there are many intersex conditions. The body responds to hormones typically associated with either sex. So gender is fluid in a biological sense. If someone transitions to male, female or nonbinary, they already kind of contained that potential.
However, race is a social construct, usually based on heritage as well as biological appearance. So it's hard to say how much biology is really involved. Does the human body contain the ability to be any race? Or to cultivate an appearance that prompts other humans to socially categorize you as one race or the other?
Maybe for people who are mixed race, there is a sort of spectrum available to them. They likely know how to present themselves in a way that gets them categorized as one race or the other.
But otherwise, not really. If you're White, and you say, "I identify as Black," the question might be: do you have Black heritage? If you don't, you can't really create it out of thin air. There wasn't a situation while you were in the womb where various hormones could have influenced you to appear more Black than you do. If your parents are both White, they were going to have a White baby, no matter what. Race is a social construct, but it's based on appearance and heritage. It's about belonging to a group, not about being an individual, the way gender is.
If you're assigned female at birth, and you say, "I identify as male," then cool! Your body already has the capability to become hormonally male. You can socially identify as male. Any human, of any race, has this potential. Any two parents could have a baby that is any sex or gender, depending on various factors.
So, as a white person, I cannot pass as black, so I can never expect people to treat me like I'm black?
Don't get me wrong, I think the idea is silly, but all the arguments I've seen in this thread are a word-swap away from being a bad argument against transgender people.
What's the essential difference?
Assuming race, As a white person you are going to struggle to get others to see you as black. Cause those are social constructs. YOU do not get to decide what others see you as when it comes to a social construct. Because the very point of a social construct is that it's the general social frame work used to see others as.
Ethnicity on the other hand, as a white skin tone person if you grew up in Africa in a tribe of indigenous people then you would be an indigenous person. Ethnicity only cares about the facts.
To mirror that to transgender.
Gender is a social construct, it's what others see you as and how you categorize into a given communities framework. This differs between communities. For example what defines a male gender in ancient Rome is different then ancient Scotland. Both having male genders that quite literally just do not exist in one or the other.
While sex is the physical only caring about the factual biological. The actual flesh and reproductive organs. You either have them, or you don't. Primary or secondary. You can alter them with modern medicine sure, but even after alteration. It still only matters what you have. Are you a male producer or female reproducer. Are you functional or not. Do you have both sets? That's basically it, sex just cares about the facts it's not socially constructed. You can't argue that someone with a penis does not have a penis.
Ethnicity tho, doesn't have a modern medicine equivalent. It just is what it is. You can't change facts, so your rather stuck with it. Unlike a penis.
Some of this makes a bit of sense, but it still leans heavily on perception by others, rather than respecting what people know about themselves. This does not seem to be what many transgender persons want.
I'll think about it.
how is this even close to be about transgender/phobia, were talking about white people trying to pretend to be another race, because they have have x amount of checks on the checklist. race doesnt = gender.
maybe stop comparing race and gender then. trans women only pass because we're women. you can't pass as Black because if you told someone you're Black they'd think you're a dipshit. you can't pass as something you're not.
Isn't the entire premise of the post that someone is seeing parallels here, and would like to understand why the similarities are not meaningful? As I said, I agree that transracial people are being silly, but I haven't seen an argument here that can't be used against transgender people.
But there are plenty of transwomen who don't "pass" despite being women. But they should still be treated as women. Hell, there have been at least a few reports of ciswomen who couldn't pass as women, at least to sufficiently assholish observers. On that basis, I don't think we can use "passing" as a factor to determine people's identity.
race doesn't work that way though, does it? it's impossible for Black people to not pass as Black because it's been proven they experience racism based on an immutable characteristic.
gender identity isn't based on appearance, race is strictly appearance based. the fact you're bringing self-identification into this makes it sound like you're arguing in bad faith and trying to diminish Black people's experiences.
PS: using ciswomen and transwomen makes you sound like a TERF.
What would be a correct way to distinguish between the two?
"Woman" seems like it works refer to both, to be used in the majority of cases when the distinction is irrelevant.
I don't want to say "natural" women, or "real" women, as even someone as thick as me can see that's insulting.
It seems that using the prefix for both makes them equal.
What do you think world be more appropriate?
But they would suggest that as soon as we discover a way to change that characteristic, transrace world be valid.
Further, while gender identity may not be based on appearance, the way one is treated is very much based on appearance. If I look male, I get treated as male. If I look female, I get treated as female. If I look like one, but insist I am the other, people tend to have disagreements between their deliberate and automatic behaviors. (Well, the same people do, anyway.)
I can't think of a good way to prove it, but I am legitimately curious about this topic. I'm never happy with the answer "because this one is right, and that one is wrong." There needs to be reasons why.
I'm uncomfortable with the idea that the only reason that being trans is valid is because of biological factors.
If we could construct a human that came into existence without being Female at some gestational point, you gonna tell them they can't be trans? If someone has a thyroid problem such that they their body CAN'T handle a sex hormone, you gonna tell them they can't be trans?
I feel like we're looking for a 9-D chess play when a 1-D play is sufficient: you say you're trans, you're trans. I'm not the fucking cops
Good points, and I think we generally agree. I definitely didn't mean to exclude anyone in those real or hypothetical situations you mentioned. To me, those examples are more about showing how gender is, or can be, biologically fluid. There are many "odd" situations that aren't binary. So amongst the many unusual ways that sex can occur biologically, "male brain in a female body" or "I reject the concept of gender entirely" are valid and believable.
I agree with your last point as well, but in the context of this post, would you tell Rachel Dolezal that she says she's Black, so she's Black? I guess I was trying to find some sort of difference between gender and race identity, the way the question was posed.
I'm definitely not claiming to have an unassailable argument, so thanks for responding with good points.
They're either trying to get your goat, or it's genuine. Either way, it's not making the world any better by bestowing upon yourself the title of judge and enforcer. You're either taking bait or you're a fucking cop. "Ok" is all you gotta say.