I know its been discussed before, but I need clarification again - why is Transgender so much different than someone saying they are Transracial? I understood before - gender is not biological, etc. but now with the blurring of biology within this ideology I am confused with this argument.

submitted by lunarenergy8 from self.GenderCritical

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]transwoman 11 insightful - 4 fun11 insightful - 3 fun12 insightful - 4 fun -  (5 children)

I'm not GC myself but I am transgender so I suppose I could shed some light on this distinction between being transgender and being transracial. I know this is a space for GC views and people so if I'm overstepping, please remove my post, I don't mean to invade this safe space.

So I think where GC and QT agree is that there is a distinction between the concepts of sex and gender, where sex represents the biological distinction between those who are male and those who are female, and gender is a culturally and societally influenced concept of expectations, roles, and expressions that are arbitrarily forced upon the 2 sexes through socialization and other environmental factors.

I think the same thing applies to skin color vs race. Skin color is a biological reality, and race is a concept that's culturally and societally influenced and is forced upon people usually based on an arbitrary distinction of a person's skin color and other environmental factors.

That being said, I'm not really aware of the surgical or medical processes by which someone can change their skin color, my mind goes to melanin levels but I have no clue if melatonin levels can be influenced forcibly like that. But assuming that it's possible for someone to change their natural skin color, I don't really see an issue with it. It would be like if someone dyed their hair from naturally brunette to blond. Socially speaking, that person might be regarded as white or black or whatever artificial category created around by the concept of race, and I don't particularly see a problem with this either, as race is ambiguous to begin with anyway.

I think the truth is that we are more hesitant to accept the idea of transracial people due to the massive amount of historical oppression that have been placed on people of color for centuries through imperialism, slavery, segregation, and overall, systemtic racism. But in reality, presuming there are ways to change your skin color through some kind of medical process, I don't necessarily see an issue, since skin color should be an inconsequential part of a person; it's just like someone's hair or eye color. It's a part of that person, and in our racist society it may have shaped how they grew up and lived, but ultimately it's something that in an ideal world shouldn't be something used to oppress people.

I don't know, what are everyone else's thoughts? Sorry this is kinda long 😬

[–]Astrid2448 39 insightful - 4 fun39 insightful - 3 fun40 insightful - 4 fun -  (4 children)

First of all, I largely agree with your reasoning. But isn’t it interesting how when it comes to non-white people, we can stop and say “hey, given our racist past and present, shouldn’t we be careful about this?” but even suggesting that we do that for women is unacceptable. Black people were literal slaves, considered 3/5 human, and they still got the right to vote before women did. There is so much sexism in our society even today.

Additionally, there is the issue that “should be” isnt the same as “is”. It would be nice if skin color meant nothing. In reality, racism (both conscious and subconscious) is a serious problem and has been for all of human history. When some white person claims to be black and uses that to, for example, speak on behalf of blacks people, take positions in black organizations, win black scholarships, police the speech of black people, and so on, that seems gross.

[–]transwoman 14 insightful - 4 fun14 insightful - 3 fun15 insightful - 4 fun -  (3 children)

Yeah I definitely think it's problematic (kinda overused word but that pretty much encompasses the issue). Natal women should be able to talk about issues that affect them, and it's extremely messed up that much of the trans movement (especially online) seems to shut down people for talking about the basics of biology and oppression of those who are female. It's understandable that many natal women are hesitant about the idea of trans people (trans women especially), given the history of societal, political, and economic oppression they've faced. Honestly, I think the idea of a transracial person is more convincing than the idea of a transgender person.

But I overall believe that my line of thought for transracial people follows through with transgender people, specifically for those of us who undergo medical treatment or surgical processes. While our natal or "natural" sex might not be the one we wish it was, if socially speaking a trans women is regarded as a woman or a trans man is regarded as a man, I don't see a particular issue with this since gender is largely ambiguous anyway, and a person's sex should be considered an inconsequential part of a person.

Edit: I just noticed you added more to your response, so I'll respond to the second part below:

Yeah I agree that the distinction of "should be" and "is" is very important. I do still stand by my points here however, given the ambiguity of the concepts of race and gender in the social and cultural context.

[–]Astrid2448 24 insightful - 1 fun24 insightful - 0 fun25 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Transracial is more convincing because “race” doesn’t really even exist. Obviously there is a difference between a white person and a Nigerian but there isn’t some moment where a person goes from being say, asian to European, genetically.

Again, should be isnt the same as is. Sex is not treated inconsequentially at all, and it often comes with privilege that is made invisible by transitioning in the same way that Donald trump identifying as a black man would make his privilege invisible. And great, I’m happy that women are allowed to talk about their issues according to (some) trans people, but that doesn’t change that trans women are speaking on behalf of women, taking spots in women’s organizations and leadership, telling women how to speak, and taking awards and scholarships designated for women. All of these things were created in the first place because women (as in the female sex, not trans women) have historically been seen as property for sexual gratification and babymaking.

[–]transwoman 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

From what I understand, the concept of "gender" doesn't really exist either. Both race and gender are ideas only very loosely based on something real (skin color and sex) and then taken to an extreme set of stereotypes that isn't based in reality. I still stand by the points I made here because of this cultural and social ambiguity that exists for both gender and race.

And again, it's truly an unfortunate reality that we live in a world where much of the trans movement has become a problem, and I agree with much of what you are saying. Trans women shouldn't be speaking on behalf of natal women's issues, and it's absolutely fair to be frustrated with the fact that so many of them feel like they are entitled to doing so. I stand by with you on those issues. There is certainly a lot of overlap to our perspectives.

Because this isn't the debate Saidit community, I think I've probably have overstayed my welcome at this point. I appreciate you considering my line of thought in good faith, this was a really good discussion ☺️

[–]Astrid2448 22 insightful - 1 fun22 insightful - 0 fun23 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Gender doesn’t exist, but sex does. Trans people are not just trying to change gender-related conversations. Nearly all sex-based protections, interest groups, scholarships, awards, competitions, and so on have been opened to trans women as well. Even sexualities, doctors, sports, the prison system and biology as a whole are under attack by people who insist there is no meaningful difference, that sex is fluid, or that penises can be female organs. This is absolutely a conversation about both, because the community at large is insisting that gender identity should be the deciding factor on everything. I don’t think many people would have an issue with someone simply saying they’d like to socially addressed as a woman but don’t expect to be included in single-sex spaces, women’s organizations, winni women’s awards, etc.

I appreciate talking to you too, and wish there was more of this kind of discussion going on. I agree that we overlap on several things. Have a good day!