Rachel Dolezal & Transracialism - Page 2 - OG Myth-Weavers

Notices


Worldly Talk

Civil discussion and debate on real world events and issues.


Rachel Dolezal & Transracialism

 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim Wise
Hah, now for an extra special kicker...turns out I've just been informed by a friend and ally at Eastern Washington U. (who was involved in bringing me to campus to speak there last semester), that it was Rachel Dolezal who had objected to me coming, because I, as a white man, can't speak to race issues involving black people. First, they got a dictionary at EWU where she can look up "irony?" And second, her objection is perfectly indicative of her problem. She thinks I seek to speak from authority on blackness. No, that's not me, that's YOU Rachel. I only seek to speak about whiteness. Her confusion on that point is the source of pretty much all this bullshit: not knowing the difference between confronting whiteness and seeking to speak for blackness.
Tim Wise is an author and anti-racism activist.

This is pretty damning in my eyes - she's not simply trying to experience being black, she's trying to appropriate being black. And while she may have experienced some of the systemic racism black Americans face by "passing" as black, she still has a well of white experiences and privilege to fall back on should things go wrong. Black people don't have that. This is increasingly looking like racial appropriation to me, and I'm not ok with that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wyrm View Post
Isn't that what this new chapter of self-identifying is all about?
In the British student world, "Black" is self-identification based, but if you're White English and you tried to do that, you'd be basically accused of making a mockery of the whole thing.

Well if one were to check her twitter (link below) one can find that she is not only insisting that she is black, but also that any black people who call her out on her lies are racists and 'uncle toms'.

https://twitter.com/_RachelDolezal/s...11106378252289

Just as a point, this raises the question of just how far self-determinism goes. Is it all for nothing, where biology determines all? Is it absolute, where if someone says that they ARE a woman or man, or they ARE black, white, or any other, than they actually are by social (convention? allowances?)

Well, speaking again from my perspective as a biologist, even 'woman' and 'man' are themselves socially constructed. Consider that while the vast majority of individuals have one of two genital/chromosomal/gender configurations (female gender identity, XX, developed fatty breasts and a vagina, ovaries producing ova OR male gender identity, XY, a penis, testes producing sperm), there are a number of exceptions to these general patterns (excerpt taken from an essay on why these kinds of biological things are a mess to deal with legally and why they're bad standards for things like marriage and bathroom laws):

Quote:
Only maybe one live birth in 100 has some non-standard sex anatomy, and genetic anomalies are slightly rarer than that. However, let's talk about those 1-in-100 or 1-in-1000 cases — because those could be you, or your aunt, or your best friend — and because our system of law has to deal with 1-in-1000 situations, too.

An illustrative example: Let's say you're an adult woman. You were always female; you never had any doubts about this. You have all the right parts and none of the wrong ones; you think of yourself as a gal. You get married. (Yes, I do mean to a man.) Somewhere down the road, your genes get tested: To your astonishment, it says you're not only not XX (double-X being the classic female chromosome pairing), but in fact XY (classic male chromosomes). Testing shows your blood to be loaded with testosterone and other classic androgens (male hormones). Ultrasound locates an undescended set of testes in your abdomen. What's going on? (Note that all women do produce androgens, normally, but at much lower levels than in men.)

What's going on is called Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (AIS, found in both "Partial" = PAIS and "Complete" = CAIS sub-variants), where, at a critical early stage of development, because of a structural variation on your X chromosome, your cells' androgen receptors became unable to respond to those hormones. The hormones were there, but had no effect. Your entire subsequent development was thus into a woman. You're a gal — one with no ovaries / )womb and thus infertile, and with vestigial testes somewhere inside, but every other inch a woman.

Laws like Proposition 8 might very well cause such a woman's marriage to be retroactively annulled — or prohibited in the first place. Furthermore, if the law decides that this particular citizen is male on account of the Y chromosome, testosterone, and testes, then she would be permitted to marry... guess who?... another woman. So, courtesy of Prop. 8, we are likely to suddenly have court-mandated same-sex marriages.

Let's say you're an adult male. You've always been male; you seem to have exactly the right parts, and so on. Your genes get checked one day, and they come up "XX" — the classic chromosome pair of a genetic female. Yet, you're a 230-lb. guy with facial hair who was a high school running back. What's going on?

When your mother and father's genes fused, the key part of Dad's Y chromosome (the "SRY" = Sex-determining Region Y bloc) got translocated to somewhere other than chromosome 46. Are you an XY, a genetic male? Well, no, you're not — even though you think you're a guy, you look like a guy, and so on. Your marriage might end up getting annulled, too — and you might end up being permitted to marry only men.

It turns out, those two cases — AIS and transported SRY blocs — are only the beginning of the troubles we're facing. Here's a litany of other ways people can end up biologically difficult to classify, through no fault of their own. I'll keep the jargon factor low, but you can certainly skip this list if not interested:


You're a girl with female sex organs — but, at puberty, your voice deepens and some testes descend out of your lower abdomen. (I'm steering clear of some of the more graphic details, here.) It turns out you have XY chromosomes (male), but you look like a young woman. You might or might not be fertile, but it would (if so) be as a male. This is a recessive genetic condition called "5-alpha-steroid reductase deficiency", that causes testosterone to be chemically transformed in peripheral tissues before it can have its usual effect.

You're a man with all of the apparent parts, facial hair and all. One day, during unrelated abdominal surgery, doctors are surprised to find inside a full set of normal female parts (ovaries, Fallopian tubes, womb, etc.). Genetic typing shows you to be XX, but something called "Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia", starting early in life, caused your adrenal glands (near your kidneys) to induce production of an unusual mix of sex hormones, changing your entire course of post-natal development, leading you to appear, and believe yourself to be, male.

You're a gal: All the gal parts. None of the others. Yet, you're XY. It turns out that, during development, you ended up short of a hormone called "Müllerian Inhibiting Factor". That factor would have let your Müllerian ducts develop into testes, which would have given you more androgens. Its absence means you end up looking, seeming, and believing yourself female. (This pattern of early development is called "gonadal dysgenesis".)

You're a girl — but you don't seem to be entering puberty. Genetic testing shows you're XY, although in all other respects apparently completely female. What's happened is that the sex-determining "SRY" region of the Y chromosome didn't trigger the development of testes, with resulting female development. This is called "Swyer syndrome", or "XY gonadal dysgenesis".

You're a man, albeit somewhat on the tall and thin side. You and your wife are having fertility problems. You're both checked: It turns out you, the husband, have "XXY" or "XXXY" or "XXYY" chromosomes. (There's also been one reported case of "XYYY".) You might be borderline fertile (as a man), or you might be out of luck. This is called "Klinefelter's syndrome". There's also a variant "mosaic" form of Klinefelter's where some of your body's cells have XY chromosomes and others are XXY.

Speaking of mosaicism: You're a male with all the fixings, but also female equivalents — and raised as a boy. You then get the worst parts of both types of puberty, with both menstruation and your voice cracking, and so on. This is an incredibly rare but documented "cellular mosaic" condition where you have some XY cells and some XX ones, the only known way of generating true (bi-fertile) hermaphrodism, which is otherwise impossible and a medical myth. (There can be diverse combinations of mosaicism: XY with XXY, XX, XXXY, and so on.)

You're a man with all the normal parts. You and your wife are having fertility problems. Genetic testing shows you to be "XX", but with the sex-determining "SRY" genetic bloc also present on some non-standard chromosome, and thus producing male development anyway.

You're an apparently normal man, with fertility problems. Genetic testing reveals "XX" genes, and no SRY block can be found anywhere. This "SRY-negative XX male syndrome" is observed but so far not fully understood.

You're a gal. You're late entering puberty. The doctors find no womb or a partial one. Otherwise, you're an (infertile, except via surrogacy) XX woman with absolutely nothing wrong with you. The causes are not really understood, but it's called Mayer Rokitansky Küster Hauser (MRKH) syndrome.

You're a gal, but your secondary sex characteristics at puberty seem underdeveloped, relatively speaking. You turn out not to be XX, but rather have a single, unpaired X chromosome (also called either "XO" or "45,X" as opposed to "46,XX") — or a second X is present but abnormal, or some single-X cells are mosaiced among XX ones. In any of those cases, you might be fertile, or maybe not, and it's called Turner (or Ullrich-Turner) syndrome.

You may be unsurprised to hear that babies also sometimes end up with mixed sexual characteristics caused by fetal conditions (e.g., Mom was prescribed a progestin-based medicine such as Danazol, a testosterone-related hormone once prescribed to treat endometriosis), or for no identifiable reason. Traditionally, obstetricians tend to pick a sex and use neonatal surgery to converge the baby towards it — something more common than people realize, as nobody wants to talk about it — yet another contentious, opinion-soaked issue I'm carefully avoiding. (But, anyway, the point is: Are you sure you're not a man, or a woman, primarily because a scalpel made you that way?)
I put this here to illustrate just how nebulous and poorly-defined even more stable categorizations such as sex are.

Broadly speaking, though, there is not much by which to biologically define belonging to a race. Ethnic groups are one thing, but there are multiple ethnic groups usually subsumed under a socially-defined 'race' - here in the US, for example, our 'black' is African, but in Australia and New Zealand, their 'black' is Indigenous Australian or Maori. 'Asian' encompasses thousands of square miles of area, all with diverse histories of migration and heredity.

It's all very difficult and often defies humans' ability to categorize it.

When I first saw this on Reddit I thought it was an onion article...

But, this is thought provoking. I'm not sure which thoughts were provoked, though. Toss me into the 'confused' pool, please.

Race is socially constructed, but at the same time we *expect* physiological markers, with a number of ways they can be confused. When my father (of Mediterrainian descent, and therefore a bit olive skinned) first met my grandmother he had recently developed a deep tan from working outdoors and met her in the evening under a yellow porch light, leading her to think he was black at first glance. There are albinos who define as black because they are descended from African Americans. I have also had discussions where we decided one particular friend was not black, but mahogany. The whole thing is at its most fundamental level BS, but its effects within society because the BS is so prevalent and has real social effects makes it "sufficiently advanced BS" which in many ways is indistinguishable from reality.

Quote:
Originally Posted by silveroak View Post
Race is socially constructed, but at the same time we *expect* physiological markers, with a number of ways they can be confused. When my father (of Mediterrainian descent, and therefore a bit olive skinned) first met my grandmother he had recently developed a deep tan from working outdoors and met her in the evening under a yellow porch light, leading her to think he was black at first glance. There are albinos who define as black because they are descended from African Americans. I have also had discussions where we decided one particular friend was not black, but mahogany. The whole thing is at its most fundamental level BS, but its effects within society because the BS is so prevalent and has real social effects makes it "sufficiently advanced BS" which in many ways is indistinguishable from reality.
To be fair, it's hard to find an aspect of society which isn't a social construct, that's kinda the whole point, to an extent.

race however is more constructed than say, gender. For 99 to 99.9% of the population what is meant by male or female *can* be defined by the equipment installed between ones legs. There are people who feel they are the 'wrong' gender by birth, and to a certain degree their concerns are addressed through surgery and hormone therapy. My own child is amongst these- I am not trying to trivialize the social aspects, merely to contrast:
race can be defined either by genetic heritage and where one's presumed bloodline came from, which is difficult for anyone to know even provided all your ancestors were being honest about who slept with whom, which apparently was only the case 2/3 of the time by some historical research. The other, which many people use as a faster guide, especially for reasons of prejudice, is skin color.
The fact is, however, is that the two do not always correlate. It sounds like a simple division when you think white implies irish and back implies Denzel Washington, but the fact is there is a continuum of color which does not break at some genetic divide. Mediteranian European groups tend to have darker skin than northern European, and some people considered to be of African American heritage have a "café au lait" skin tone which blends into this middle ground which also tends to include native American phenotypes as well as Hispanic. Where the divide sits between "white" and "black" is more a matter of where the bigots decide it is- if someone has darker than average skin and is harassed using racial epitaphs that describe a black person, doe the fact that their genetic heritage comes from Europe make them somehow "less back" than a "high yellow" African descendant person whose parents "passed" for white and has never been harassed beyond what every other child has?




 

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Last Database Backup 2024-03-28 05:19:56pm local time
Myth-Weavers Status