So Dianna E. Anderson (whoever that is), is going to whitesplain to other "ignorant whites" (nevermind that others might have this question "Why can't you be transracial if you can be transgender?"
It's not an OBVIOUS matter.
Let's see how she does.
It's not an OBVIOUS matter.
Let's see how she does.
First, if you want some orientation, you can watch @BenjaminABoyce's video on this thread:
You can also have a look at philosopher Rebecca Tuvel's infamous "In Defense of Transracialism."
sites.middlebury.edu/sexandsociety/… (Excerpt below).
You can also have a look at philosopher Rebecca Tuvel's infamous "In Defense of Transracialism."
sites.middlebury.edu/sexandsociety/… (Excerpt below).
Tuvel's case is straightforward: almost all arguments that justify transgenderism seem to also justify transracialism, so, since we accept transgenderism, we should accept transracialism.
That we do not is irrational, and must be a prejudice.
Let's see if Dianna can sort it.
That we do not is irrational, and must be a prejudice.
Let's see if Dianna can sort it.
Side note: Tuvel got VICIOUSLY attacked for this article. The whole incident was a disgrace to the field of philosophy.
Here are a couple articles about it, and an excerpt from a blog post by Nora Berenstain, one of the most noxious of the witch-hunt leaders.
Here are a couple articles about it, and an excerpt from a blog post by Nora Berenstain, one of the most noxious of the witch-hunt leaders.
"This is What a Modern-Day Witch Hunt Looks Like"
nymag.com/intelligencer/…
"In Defense of Rebecca Tuvel"
medium.com/@robimbeault/i…
nymag.com/intelligencer/…
"In Defense of Rebecca Tuvel"
medium.com/@robimbeault/i…
Let's get back to Dianna. It has to do with the different ways our bodies are "constructed" and our brains "map" onto those bodies.
So here we see Dianna's strategy. She probably THINKS she is being a good progressive trans ally here, but she is in fact a TRANSMEDICALIST or TRUSCUM (like e.g. @MsBlaireWhite) who holds that transgenderism is rooted in a medical condition.
This is a Woke heresy, and Dianna is a TRUSCUM, which is a kind of TERF, and therefore a TRANSMISOGYNIST.
Her use of "tend to" gave a bit of wiggle room, but that gets dropped immediately.
Her use of "tend to" gave a bit of wiggle room, but that gets dropped immediately.
Here is the TRUSCUM heresy clearly stated: our gender identity has at least SOME ROOT IN REALITY, that is NATURE, that is OUR GENITALS/NATURAL SEX and a condition of GENDER DYSPHORIA.
Dianna is not defending trans people. She is a transphobic TRUSCUM.
Dianna is not defending trans people. She is a transphobic TRUSCUM.
So besides the TRUSCUM case that trans involves GD or GID, Dianna adds that transracialists do not experience DYSPHORIA in the same way transgenders do. Again, this necessarily requires that trans folks experience dysphoria (TRUSCUMISM)—but also, she doesn't KNOW THIS.
Rachel Dolezal has made claim of this sort. Just because the woman who provoked this was pretend to be a different race doesn't mean that EVERYONE is pretending. After all, there are people who change sex without being trans—it is the only way to be gay and not killed in Iran.
Gay men pretend to be women and adopt women's gender identities is Iran in order to be able to have male partners. Does this mean either that there are no real trans persons in Iran or that all trans persons are "gays pretending to be the opposite sex"?
No.
No.
The plural of anecdote is not "data." That some people have passed themselves off as another race or sex for OTHER motives than a deeply felt sense of BEING that race or sex does not mean there aren't case where people DO have such a sense.
In other words, if the "bad" motives of some transracial persons discredits transracialism as such, then the "bad" motives of some transgenders discredits transgenderism as such.
And of course Dianna, truscum though she may be, doesn't WANT to discredit BOTH. Just the one.
And of course Dianna, truscum though she may be, doesn't WANT to discredit BOTH. Just the one.
So far, it's not going well. Let's move on.
She can't back up the "very often" here.
I comment: "Very often, a person, a straight white male for example, chooses to be perceived as a trans woman because it is advantageous for them to do so."
She can't back up the "very often" here.
I comment: "Very often, a person, a straight white male for example, chooses to be perceived as a trans woman because it is advantageous for them to do so."
A straight white man who becomes at trans woman INSTANTLY teleports form the very BOTTOM of the "progressive stack" to the VERY TOP.
That's no small incentive for low status men, since men are naturally driven to SEEK STATUS.
That's no small incentive for low status men, since men are naturally driven to SEEK STATUS.
Only in our time could the natural male desire to achieve high status be accomplished by becoming a woman, but here we are. 🤷🏻♀️
We all know we live in 🤡🌎.
We all know we live in 🤡🌎.
Dianna again. Anecdotes again, two and one suspect. Means nothing to the phenomenon of transracialism.
The question ISN'T whether it was "their place" but that they did it for motives that Dianna disapproves of. Since she's a TRUSCUM, she would only approve (presumably) of a medical diagnosis of "racial dysphoria" as motive. Could there not be such a thing?
Dianna is WEASELING again, trying to backpedal after having gone full TRUSCUM. Now trans people "frequently" have dysphoric experiences. Oh, so NOW they ARE NOT NECESSARY TO BE "REAL" TRANS?
Then they aren't NECESSARY to be transracial either.
Then they aren't NECESSARY to be transracial either.
Note also that Dianna once again generalizes from TWO case that "these women who 'became black' did so simply because they felt it advantageous to do so."
1 So? That doesn't mean it's the case for ALL transracial folks, and
2 Dolezal at least CLAIMS true racial dysphoria.
1 So? That doesn't mean it's the case for ALL transracial folks, and
2 Dolezal at least CLAIMS true racial dysphoria.
Krug admits guilt in the matter, but SHE TOO claims a MENTAL CONDITION drove her to do what she did.
If BOTH Krug and Dolezal CLAIM a MENTAL CONDITION led them to identify as black—isn't that RACIAL DYSPHORIA? Dolezal says it is. Who is Dianna to question HER lived experience?
If BOTH Krug and Dolezal CLAIM a MENTAL CONDITION led them to identify as black—isn't that RACIAL DYSPHORIA? Dolezal says it is. Who is Dianna to question HER lived experience?
Yes, Krug (now) feels she was deceiving people. Again, so what? This is one person. A gay man who pretends to be trans in Iran, since trans is accepted but gays are killed is also PRETENDING to be TRANS.
So all trans people are pretending? NON SEQUITUR.
So all trans people are pretending? NON SEQUITUR.
This conclusion is reached by TRUSCUMISM + the generalization of ALL transracial folks from two cases, one of which is not even honestly represented.
And "people will adjust their skin color and other bodily racial markers to accommodate their experienced race."
Tuvel's "if it works for one, it works for the other" applies.
Tuvel's "if it works for one, it works for the other" applies.
It seems to be that Tuvel's Principle (let's call it) that "if it goes for transgenderism, it goes for transracialism" will necessarily hold UNLESS one goes FULL TRUSCUM and maintains that transgenderism is a medical condition rooted in gender dysphoria and transracialism is not.
And Dianna tried to make her case by invoking TRUSCUMISM and then having used it to make her case, TRIED TO BACK OUT OF IT.
But then her case doesn't WORK.
You if you are going to appear to a condition of dysphoria as THE basis for transgenderism, then you're TRUSCUM.
But then her case doesn't WORK.
You if you are going to appear to a condition of dysphoria as THE basis for transgenderism, then you're TRUSCUM.
If you aren't TRUSCUM, then you have to admit that a medical condition of gender dysphoria isn't NECESSARY for being trans, and if that is so, then racial dysphoria isn't NECESSARY for being transracial either.
"There's still a lot of work needed to be done to make this clearer."
In other words, she knows she failed in her object. She has done NOTHING to say why transgenderism is okay and transracialism is not.
In other words, she knows she failed in her object. She has done NOTHING to say why transgenderism is okay and transracialism is not.
ALL she managed to say is that SOME cases of transracialism are not okay because they are fundamentally rooted in PRETENDING TO BE WHAT YOU ARE NOT.
But of course that would apply to at least some seeming cases of TRANSGENDERISM.
But of course that would apply to at least some seeming cases of TRANSGENDERISM.
And it is not even clear that "pretending to be what you are not" isn't sometimes justified. I again bring up the case of gay men in Iran who PRETEND to be trans, because trans is accepted in Iran and gays are killed. Is their "pretense" UNJUSTIFIED?
I conclude that Dianna E. Anderson's attempt to justify transgenderism while rejecting transracialism is a complete failure.
She attempts the only method that could work, TRUSCUMISM, but then distances herself from, undermining her only real argument.
She attempts the only method that could work, TRUSCUMISM, but then distances herself from, undermining her only real argument.
Let us return to Rebecca Tuvel, who is a young philosopher, but a professionally trained one, and so provides a substantially higher quality of argumentation.
This seems quite reasonable.
Is the oddity of transracial claims any more odd than transgender claims in the past?
This seems quite reasonable.
Is the oddity of transracial claims any more odd than transgender claims in the past?
Note in passing and on passing: many light skinned blacks in American history who could pass as white, DID SO.
Would Anderson regard these as "bad motives"? They were "pretending to be something they were not" because it was "advantageous". Was that "not their place"?
Would Anderson regard these as "bad motives"? They were "pretending to be something they were not" because it was "advantageous". Was that "not their place"?
Tuvel puts it STARKLY: how can one ACCEPT transgenderism and DENY transracialism?
Naturally, her first suggestion is the kind of TRANSMEDICALISM Anderson endorses and then unendorses once it has done its job.
Naturally, her first suggestion is the kind of TRANSMEDICALISM Anderson endorses and then unendorses once it has done its job.
As Tuvel notes, it would be "problematic" (don't you love progressive newspeak?) to chain transgenderism to biology. (Although trans folks are not likely to want to UNCHAIN it so long as extensive body modification can be at least partially covered by medical insurance).
Tuvel correctly notes that "even if there is some biological basis for 'being a woman' that would not entail that one's SENSE OF BEING A WOMAN is biologically rooted."
This could even open the door for, horrors!, saying that sex is biological and "feeling" is pathological.
This could even open the door for, horrors!, saying that sex is biological and "feeling" is pathological.
If you cannot be (genotypically and phenotypcially) white and yet FEEL or IDENTIFY as black, how can you be (genotypically and phenotypically) male and yet FEEL or IDENTIFY as female?
This is of course, Tuvel's question, and the question Anderson totally failed to answer.
This is of course, Tuvel's question, and the question Anderson totally failed to answer.
Indeed, as Tuvel notes, "race" is a MUCH STRONGER candidate for being a social construction than is sex. Anyone who is not an idiot understands that sex is natural; the usual strategy is to claim "gender" is something different.
But "race" is ALWAYS an arbitrary grouping.
But "race" is ALWAYS an arbitrary grouping.
It is literally impossible to set forth the necessary and sufficient biological conditions of being "white" or "black" or "Asian" or however many races you want to claim there are. There is as much genetic diversity WITHIN "races" as between "races."
Sex appears to be a true binary, which is Black or White, with some rare genetic disorders that add some white to the Black basis (females who are masculinized) or some black to the White basis (males who are feminized).
Black is female and White male because Yin-Yang says so.
Black is female and White male because Yin-Yang says so.
But human genetic space seems (to me) a lot like color space—red is not green is not blue, but no one can really draw any non-arbitrary borders within color space and say "THIS is true red."
The whole thing is a continuum on many axes.
The whole thing is a continuum on many axes.
Let me use at least one tweet in this thread to note HOW OFTEN we mixed race people are TOTALLY LEFT OUT of conversations about race. It's like we DON'T FUCKING EXIST, because we don't fit in the neat little categories.
And I thought 'progressives' DECONSTRUCTED CATEGORIES.
And I thought 'progressives' DECONSTRUCTED CATEGORIES.
Only the ones they don't like, it seems.
Back to Tuvel: if there JUST IS no "fact of the matter" of what race a person is, transracialism is POSSIBLE.
It would be a matter of society acceptance. This WOULD BE a case of "something assigned, at birth or later."
And assignments can be reassigned.
It would be a matter of society acceptance. This WOULD BE a case of "something assigned, at birth or later."
And assignments can be reassigned.
We are ALREADY partially prepared to do this. I have filled out innumerable forms that ask my race, and they often rather explicitly ask how you IDENTIFY.
Why would they do that, rather than what you ARE?
Why would they do that, rather than what you ARE?
"Add the text, Eve."
Yes, I forgot.
Yes, I forgot.
Tuvel next treats "You can't BE black because you didn't GROW UP black."
If it works, so does the TERF's "You can't BE a woman because you didn't GROW UP a woman."
Again, either this object goes in both cases or neither. It can't go in just one.
If it works, so does the TERF's "You can't BE a woman because you didn't GROW UP a woman."
Again, either this object goes in both cases or neither. It can't go in just one.
The next objection is "you can't change race because society doesn't treat race that way."
But of course society did not always treat gender as something that could be changed, and it could revert back to not doing so. Then transgenderism would be morally wrong.
But of course society did not always treat gender as something that could be changed, and it could revert back to not doing so. Then transgenderism would be morally wrong.
As with most things, appealing to "how society is now" to justify "how things must always be" is a bad idea, and a bad argument.
Tuvel next considers that transracialism is akin to "blackface." It is insulting/offensive to blacks for a white person to "become black."
Again, "womanface" is insulting and offensive to women, in just the same way. This is EXACTLY the TERF case against trans women.
Again, "womanface" is insulting and offensive to women, in just the same way. This is EXACTLY the TERF case against trans women.
But if it is wrong for whites to "appropriate" blackness, then it is wrong for men to "appropriate" womanhood.
This symmetry is, I assume, why @BenjaminABoyce named his video on Anderson's tweet thread "Blackface & Womanface".
This symmetry is, I assume, why @BenjaminABoyce named his video on Anderson's tweet thread "Blackface & Womanface".
The final agument Tuvel treats is that the objection to transracialism is an exercise of "white privilege." Setting aside that would only apply to white to black transracials, there are problems here too.
Mainly, the two points are
1 If transitioning from what to black is wrong because it is an exercise of "male privilege" then transitioning from male to female is wrong because it is exercising "male privilege."
2 "If GIVING UP whiteness is 'white privilege' what is KEEPING it?"
1 If transitioning from what to black is wrong because it is an exercise of "male privilege" then transitioning from male to female is wrong because it is exercising "male privilege."
2 "If GIVING UP whiteness is 'white privilege' what is KEEPING it?"
Here is how Tuvel ends, with a couple of reasonably reasonable paragraphs, at any rate, sane, measured, and well argued for anyone ALREADY prepared to accept transgenderism.
I am not fully accepting of transgender ideology, but the following SEEMS to me to be true:
IF P is accepts transgenderism in a broad sense (not "truscumistically"), THEN P ought, by parity of reasoning, accept transracialism.
IF P is accepts transgenderism in a broad sense (not "truscumistically"), THEN P ought, by parity of reasoning, accept transracialism.
NOTE: I have used the terms "TRUSCUM" and "TRUSCUMISM" as the radical trans activists do, as smear words for those who believe a distinction can be made between persons who suffer from gender dysphoria and those who do not.
I did so to throw back in Dianna E. Anderson's face that she is a TRUSCUM, something she presumably does not want to be, as it is a Woke heresy.
I, however, give zero fucks about heresy to the Woke. I would destroy their entire cult if I could. I am an ENEMY, not an ALLY.
I, however, give zero fucks about heresy to the Woke. I would destroy their entire cult if I could. I am an ENEMY, not an ALLY.
My own views are that many so-called "trans" persons are, in fact, not "true" trans persons, that they are pretenders, "trans trenders," however you like to name them. I think gender dysphoria is a real condition and in the most extreme cases may be mitigated by sex reassignment.
I do not think that sex reassignment entitles a person to claim fully all the rights and privileges of the sex to which they have been reassigned. Most of them, certainly, and decency requires politeness.
However, I see no INJUSTICE in the TERFs desire to exclude trans women from certain women's spaces (however much I detest TERFs, and I do)—the same argument would apply to other women's spaces, such as an Orthodox Monastery.
There are STRONG spiritual reasons for sex segregated spiritual places, such as monasteries. Unbelievers may scoff, but men and women have different spiritual energies and each generates a kind of background static which you don't notice until you've spent time without it.
I once spent over a month at a monastery, as did the male companion I had been traveling with, and when we returned to mixed-sex society the "static" was like a constant SHOUT. I was used to it in days, but it is a REAL thing.
I do not believe that trans women are women SPIRITUALLY, in other words. So places specifically dedicated to women's spirituality are not places for trans women.
It is perhaps this same energy that the TERFs are aware of. I loathe them, but they aren't wrong. /FIN
It is perhaps this same energy that the TERFs are aware of. I loathe them, but they aren't wrong. /FIN
Going to relink @BenjaminABoyce’s video again here on the same original tweet thread:
