Can Ethnicity can be a choice? Can race?

[Dr. Zaus]

If we are going to acknowledge that one can fundamentally exist within the narrative of a gender different from the one they were born into; we can also acknowledged that one can fundamental exist within the narrative of an ethnicity other than the one they were born into.

However; this does not mean that people get to choose their race. Race is a horrible construct that's done a great deal of damage; However, since it's a living horrible thing, killing it by ignoring it will not work. Until race becomes as meaningless as eye-color we must acknowledge the effect that skin-color has on an individual's life world.

As such I would say ethnicity can be a choice, but race is something society thrusts upon you.

 

[Dessicant]

Except that not everyone acknowledges your first premise. It could be argued that you are born with your biological gender and that denying it is a mental disease or illness. If not a form of insanity. If a person is born black but claims to be white, he is clearly suffering from an hallucination. Perhaps if one is born a boy, then to claim that he is somehow a girl is equally absurd.

 

[Charmonium]

I was born a poor black child.

Spoiler

Navin R. Johnson: Huh? I am *not* a bum. I'm a jerk. I once had wealth, power, and the love of a beautiful woman. Now I only have two things: my friends, and... uh... my thermos. Huh? My story? Okay. It was never easy for me. I was born a poor black child. I remember the days, sittin' on the porch with my family, singin' and dancin' down in Mississippi...

 

[pauldun170]

I was born a poor black child.

Spoiler

Navin R. Johnson: Huh? I am *not* a bum. I'm a jerk. I once had wealth, power, and the love of a beautiful woman. Now I only have two things: my friends, and... uh... my thermos. Huh? My story? Okay. It was never easy for me. I was born a poor black child. I remember the days, sittin' on the porch with my family, singin' and dancin' down in Mississippi...

Awesome reference

 

[pauldun170]

HR departments around the country are prepping for when average, straight white men declare themselves as strong, gay black females.

 

[Rebel_L]

If we are going to acknowledge that one can fundamentally exist within the narrative of a gender different from the one they were born into; we can also acknowledged that one can fundamental exist within the narrative of an ethnicity other than the one they were born into.

However; this does not mean that people get to choose their race. Race is a horrible construct that's done a great deal of damage; However, since it's a living horrible thing, killing it by ignoring it will not work. Until race becomes as meaningless as eye-color we must acknowledge the effect that skin-color has on an individual's life world.

As such I would say ethnicity can be a choice, but race is something society thrusts upon you.

For me I have a hard time understanding why people have such a need of other peoples labels to define themselves. When you talk for instance about a gender narrative I think of how broad that category is. I have gotten to know both men and women that have faced pain and struggles in life that I can relate too. I don't actually know what a male or a female narrative might actually be. No single narrative can possibly capture all women or men. The challenges that women face more often than men are still challenges that some men face. I think with the exception of having a baby growing in them which is certainly not the all defining piece of the word female, men can experience the same thing that women can. Everyone's unique life experiences shape how they see the world and how they define the world around them, you can not force your perspective on others. The best you can do is to share your perspective with someone so they can, if they choose too, include some of your life experiences into their view of the world.

To me words like gender/race/ethnicity are words that I use internally to categorize and sort things. I work with gender as to which set of reproductive organs you have, race being a genetic history and ethnicity as being your cultural history. Really all words are defined for ourselves by ourselves. We try to keep common definitions so that we can communicate effectively but most people have their own nuances in the definitions. Having people tell me where I need to categorize them always strikes me as silly as my categorizing is my own. If I have talked with someone for a while and categorized them as a jerk, that person simply saying "I'm not a jerk" certainly wont change that, and other people may not have that person in their jerk category, we get to internally categorize as we see fit with the definitions we attach to words.

Now when it comes to legal matters we obviously need a clear and well defined definition. These are often arbitrary in many ways and do not include the nuances that people have for themselves. Legal definitions do no have to conform to the general population defined definition either, they have to work with the intent behind the law. Legal definitions are only required when there is some part of the legal system interacting with it and your categorizations have a real impact on you. Here we see people seeking out labels that give them advantages and avoiding ones that harm them. Your labels here get worked out with judges and lawyers and may or may not have anything to do with the labels everyone else assigns to you or that you assign to yourself.

In the end, no one chooses their labels, they are assigned to them, and only have meaning in the context of the person or system who did the assigning. To change labels to accommodate people who want to be under that label regardless of if they fit the current systems definition only serves to broaden categories to be less specific.... which runs counter to the whole purpose of creating categories in the first place, which is to help us deal with large sets of information quickly by placing them into categories for easier internal processing and recalling. Something like racism can not be fixed by trying to tell people that there are no separate races, it can only be fixed by convincing people that race can not make someone an superior or inferior person.

 

[SMOGZINN]

For me I have a hard time understanding why people have such a need of other peoples labels to define themselves.

Because our understanding of ourselves is derived by the way other people interact with us, from the first time a parent smiles at us to the last breath we take, our self image strongly shaped by how other people view us.

I don't actually know what a male or a female narrative might actually be.

To see what a male or female narrative might be all one has to do is step in the toy aisle of any Walmart. Look past the simple pink/blue dichotomy to the actual toys being proffered and how strongly they set up a narrative of what a 'girl' or a 'boy' is supposed to imagine being.

To me words like gender/race/ethnicity are words that I use internally to categorize and sort things.

And that means that you treat those people differently based on those internal categorizations, because isn't that the entire point of the label?

I work with gender as to which set of reproductive organs you have,

Why would the reproductive organs a person has be so important that if forms the primary label for them? Your concept of gender deals with a lot more information than what reproductive organs they have. It includes an entire set of behaviors, attitudes, and expected norms that person should follow. It in fact has little to do with the organs in question.

Most people handle departures from those norms very poorly. If you don't believe me, you or a guy friend, try putting on a bright flowery sundress and go grocery shopping.

Having people tell me where I need to categorize them always strikes me as silly as my categorizing is my own. If I have talked with someone for a while and categorized them as a jerk, that person simply saying "I'm not a jerk" certainly wont change that, and other people may not have that person in their jerk category, we get to internally categorize as we see fit with the definitions we attach to words.

If that was true you would be able to just barely function in society. Your categorizations are mostly in line with the rest of society. You label most people the same way that 99% of the people label them. You might add a few additional optional labels like 'jerk' on to those labels, but you mostly correctly identify and assign the correct label to people. That tells me that those categorizations are not just some internal thing. Labels are a societal thing that you have learned.

In the past when the role that a person plays in society did not match the label that society has given them society stated that it was that person's responsibility to change to better fit that role. Today we are saying that those categories are not as important as a person's happiness and that it is the person's right to change their label to better fit their role.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Except that not everyone acknowledges your first premise. It could be argued that you are born with your biological gender and that denying it is a mental disease or illness. If not a form of insanity. If a person is born black but claims to be white, he is clearly suffering from an hallucination. Perhaps if one is born a boy, then to claim that he is somehow a girl is equally absurd.

It could also be said that the people that think that way are the ones with a problem. That we have outgrown such biological limitations. That your genetics does not have to dictate your destiny.

 

[Dessicant]

It could also be said that the people that think that way are the ones with a problem. That we have outgrown such biological limitations. That your genetics does not have to dictate your destiny.

That could be said, if identification of reality were to be considered a problem.

 

[Rebel_L]

Because our understanding of ourselves is derived by the way other people interact with us, from the first time a parent smiles at us to the last breath we take, our self image strongly shaped by how other people view us.

If your sense of self is limited to what others say about you, your sense of self is incredibly fragile and fickle. While other people's opinions about us do have an impact, part of growing up is learning to develop an identity independent of others.

To see what a male or female narrative might be all one has to do is step in the toy aisle of any Walmart. Look past the simple pink/blue dichotomy to the actual toys being proffered and how strongly they set up a narrative of what a 'girl' or a 'boy' is supposed to imagine being.

You are talking about a stereotype, it is but one possible narrative. There are boys who never played with the blue toys and girls who did. Neither ceased being a boy or girl because of it. A broad category has few defining features and thus allows for many narratives, a really specific label allows for just one. Male and female are such broad categories that the possible narratives are virtually endless. The definition defines the possible narratives, not the other way around.

And that means that you treat those people differently based on those internal categorizations, because isn't that the entire point of the label?

It means that I recognize there is a difference, if there is a time where the differences require different treatment then I would. Really broad categories do not often require different treatment.

Why would the reproductive organs a person has be so important that if forms the primary label for them? Your concept of gender deals with a lot more information than what reproductive organs they have. It includes an entire set of behaviors, attitudes, and expected norms that person should follow. It in fact has little to do with the organs in question.

Now your trying to put words in my mouth. My concept of gender is very simple. It sounds like yours is not. I have no idea what a gender category based on all those other things you mention would be useful for. Trying to group the world's population into roughly two categories based on those other things tells me nothing of value in even a semi reliable way. Knowing which reproductive organs someone has gives me some insight into their likelihood of being a good baby making partner for me. If that sort of thing is not important to you then I can see how you would think my definition is useless as well.

Most people handle departures from those norms very poorly. If you don't believe me, you or a guy friend, try putting on a bright flowery sundress and go grocery shopping.

Your right most people find it hard to work with other people's definitions. We also tend to have biases built in from our life experiences that we are unaware of that can cause issues when dealing with other people. The solution to getting along is not to try and force your way on someone else, rather to try and understand their way first so you can clearly communicate to start with. Only after you start communicating effectively can you establish if there is a disagreement vs misunderstanding, what that disagreement actually is, and work on a solution to the disagreement.

If that was true you would be able to just barely function in society. Your categorizations are mostly in line with the rest of society. You label most people the same way that 99% of the people label them. You might add a few additional optional labels like 'jerk' on to those labels, but you mostly correctly identify and assign the correct label to people. That tells me that those categorizations are not just some internal thing. Labels are a societal thing that you have learned.

In the past when the role that a person plays in society did not match the label that society has given them society stated that it was that person's responsibility to change to better fit that role. Today we are saying that those categories are not as important as a person's happiness and that it is the person's right to change their label to better fit their role.

I can actually get along better than most because I know to look out for the differences. I can head off many misunderstandings that come up from people having conflicting definitions by making sure I find out what the other persons definitions are and not assume that theirs matches mine. Not demanding that they change their definitions to match mine is also helpful. When I find that the difference in definitions is significant to the conversation at hand, I actually find different words to use instead so that I don't have a misunderstanding.

If your solution to the problem of society trying to force the individual to change to suit a role is to have the individual try and force society to change its definition of that role you don't have a solution, just another problem.

 

[finglobes]

Historically, there are times societies go crazy and America is in such a period (Weimar Germany was another). The gender insanity issue is a prime example. There is no such thing as a "sex change" (chromosomes etc stay the same) - just mutilation.

There are girls who weigh 65 lbs who really really really think they are fat. Should insurance companies be forced to pay for liposuction? GID (Gender Identity Disorder) has long been recognized but for reasons of political subversion its being made into something "better than normal". Don't kid yourself we live in a "scientific age" because lots of people will fall for the most preposterous ideas once the media and a few Ivy League kooks start to push them.

Now you see all women failing the military tests for special forces but there are crazy people who still want to insist there are no differences between men and woman and its all just a "social construct". Actually its their warped perceptions that are the constructs. You see them now causing havoc on college campuses with their man hating "tribunals" and sex crime hysterias

 

[Caravaggio]

Historically, there are times societies go crazy and America is in such a period (Weimar Germany was another). The gender insanity issue is a prime example. There is no such thing as a "sex change" (chromosomes etc stay the same) - just mutilation.

Firstly, the posts on this thread are exceptionally well-argued and informative.
Thanks to Rebel, Smog, Desicant and others. I'll return to Dixycrat's OP in a moment.

Finglobes, relax, this is not a new era of meaning inversion, like Weimar.
Words change their meanings all the time. This is really irritating but has happened for centuries. Some examples:

Toilet,
Gay,
Marriage,
Lavatory.

The Oxford English Dictionary (the ultimate authority here) shows how these words once meant something but have now morphed into something else.
Toilet, was once a protective device during shaving or a haircut. It now means lavatory, somewhere to have a dump, which once meant somewhere to ablute or wash,which now means toilet.
Marriage used to be a recognition of intended fidelity between a man and a woman. The meaning is currently changing as we write. Gay was once light-hearted and happy. It now describes, inter alia, a type of same-sex activity or disposition for same. Very annoying, but nothing new.

Dixycrat's OP asks specifically about ethnicity and that is obviously related to the Spokane case.

Can a white woman pass as black? Apparently 'Yes', with great conviction.
Just as 'black' women have passed as 'white' for hundreds of years, to gain status in a racist society.
This is a truly fascinating case as the person attempting to deceive might well have actually even deceived herself. This asks some very deep questions about personal identity and whether it has validity and authenticity, and where does that validity come from?

But someone with a pair of XY chromosomes in every cell of their body is still biologically male, even if they have cut off their penis. The law now denies that fact and that makes this debate so interesting and important.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

But someone with a pair of XY chromosomes in every cell of their body is still biologically male, even if they have cut off their penis. The law now denies that fact and that makes this debate so interesting and important.

I think you are missing a distinction: Male vs. Female (XY vs. XX as properly expressed) is something quite different from masculinity vs. femininity (social constructs defined by the central-mode of typical biological predispositions as interacting with social institutions and their histories).

The problem occurs in numerous ways.
1) XY vs. XX chromosomes, even properly expressed, are no guarantee of biological alignment with modal biological predispositions

2) XY vs XX are often mis-expressed; most typically with an XY not receiving the proper chemical bath to express male organs. But also with micro-genitalia and other inter-sex outcomes.

3) Everything is on a continuum. Life is much easier when you think in black and white terms. And as Douglass Adams pointed out, The good old days when " spirits were brave, the stakes were high, men were real men, women were real women and small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri were real small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri" Is just nonsense.

My take is that the problem is not that people have a psychological disorder where in they are more feminine or masculine in their minds: The problem is society (and head shrinkers) disordering those who exist at extreme masculine or feminine ends of the spectrum to the point where self-mudilation is the expression they feel they need for their feminine or masculine traits to be properly expressed.

We really need to be more accepting of differing expressions of one's masculinity and femininity; no matter the persons natural sex.

Ascription to one's character of a particular ethnicity seems to be even more socially constructed and less biologically influenced; and thus choosing it should be even more acceptable.

Now you see all women failing the military tests for special forces

Absolutely false; not all anything is anything, and denying a person's right to try because of gendered-norms is bigotry.

 

[finglobes]

Finglobes, relax, this is not a new era of meaning inversion, like Weimar.
Words change their meanings all the time. This is really irritating but has happened for centuries. Some examples:

.

I'm not writing about "word changes". I'm talking about reality changes. Nazis turned Jews into subhumans. They took sound eugenics science and perverted it into "master race".

We see the same things now as science is politicized. There's a Dem senator from Rhode Island who wants to use RICO statutes to prosecute "climate deniers". There are witchunts and tribnals popping up on campuses to hunt down "rapists" (and military advisors are telling women they were "raped" if they had sex after one drink becuase they weren't able to "consent' soundly).

White people are bing criminalized everywhere ("white privilege" shamming at schools - feds hijacking local codes to break up any mostly white areas etc). White police are being defamed as main cause of crime.

Ms blackface is obvioulsy white, and has long habit of lying about everything not to mention casaully engaging in all manner of slander and defamation. Some peoplek are just crazy, wicked etc and this chick is one of them.

Technically, someone could make elaborate arguments that a blue sky isn't really blue, and that it only seems that way due to some spectral idiosyncrasies, and human eye "weaknesses" that cant make distinctions. That's all fine and good unti people want to criminalize, penalize others who quite rightly call sky blue

 

[Dr. Zaus]

I'm not writing about "word changes". I'm talking about reality changes. Nazis turned Jews into subhumans. They took sound eugenics science and perverted it into "master race".

So word-changes.

We see the same things now as science is politicized. There's a Dem senator from Rhode Island who wants to use RICO statutes to prosecute "climate deniers". There are witchunts and tribnals popping up on campuses to hunt down "rapists" (and military advisors are telling women they were "raped" if they had sex after one drink becuase they weren't able to "consent' soundly).

Citation needed. Specifics are likely much more reasonable than you make them sound.

White people are bing criminalized everywhere ("white privilege" shamming at schools - feds hijacking local codes to break up any mostly white areas etc). White police are being defamed as main cause of crime.

This is entirely false. I'm not sure you meant to use criminalize... because if you did then it would have to be in the same context as the fact that being black is a criminal state of being (i.e. presumption of innocence does not fundamentally drive attitudes of the cops/jury dealing with you). No one said white police are the main cause of crimes, this is a ridiculous straw man; you should live life honestly instead of defending your ego with impossibly incorrect straw men.

... That's all fine and good unti people want to criminalize, penalize others who quite rightly call sky blue

First: conflating criminalization and social penalization has lead to your bombastic rhetoric.

Second: It is a very good idea to 'penalize' people socially for being abhorrently ignorant and attempting use that ignorance in a way that is detrimental to others. Anti-Vaxers, climate change deniers, and religious fanatics that seek to perpetuate bigotry are all in need of the penalty of social stigmatization.

Please, Sr. Wake up. You are no "champion for the truth" nor do you "fight for what's right", but rather your extremist straw man world-view leads you to sad and harmful conclusions:

Just watch this video and ask "where am I in this conversation"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLNhPMQnWu4


ps

I am NOT a SJW by any stretch of the imagination; i'm just intentional in what I believe.

 

[Rebel_L]

I think you are missing a distinction: Male vs. Female (XY vs. XX as properly expressed) is something quite different from masculinity vs. femininity (social constructs defined by the central-mode of typical biological predispositions as interacting with social institutions and their histories).

The problem occurs in numerous ways.
1) XY vs. XX chromosomes, even properly expressed, are no guarantee of biological alignment with modal biological predispositions

2) XY vs XX are often mis-expressed; most typically with an XY not receiving the proper chemical bath to express male organs. But also with micro-genitalia and other inter-sex outcomes.

So what is a male and a female to you? What is an ethnicity? What is a race?

It seems like so far there are already several different definitions, let's hear yours.

 

[Caravaggio]

I think you are missing a distinction: Male vs. Female (XY vs. XX as properly expressed) is something quite different from masculinity vs. femininity (social constructs defined by the central-mode of typical biological predispositions as interacting with social institutions and their histories).

I agree that we need to distinguish sex (a biological condition) from gender identity (a psychological state).
In most people there is a positive correlation but sometimes there is a discrepancy, whereby a biological, morphological, cytological male, say, believes himself to be at his core, a woman. This state of gender/biological dysphoria has been recognised in young children and in some states this is recognised by medical ethics committees as a reason to "sexually reassign" (poor term, but the one used) that person. I am a little queasy about early gender reassignment operations. Even decisions to reassign in adulthood are far from straightforward and not all transitions are successful.

My take is that the problem is not that people have a psychological disorder where in they are more feminine or masculine in their minds: The problem is society (and head shrinkers) disordering those who exist at extreme masculine or feminine ends of the spectrum to the point where self-mudilation is the expression they feel they need for their feminine or masculine traits to be properly expressed.

We really need to be more accepting of differing expressions of one's masculinity and femininity; no matter the persons natural sex.

I applaud your enlightened approach but I think you might be slightly over-estimating the social/societal component.

As I understand the science, recent work on the interstitial areas of the anterior hypothalamus (INAH areas 3&4) show that our gender identity is still strongly affected by biological facts, within the mammalian brain. (Full references on request)

Ascription to one's character of a particular ethnicity seems to be even more socially constructed and less biologically influenced; and thus choosing it should be even more acceptable.

In that case I believe that you are right. Few of us are 'pure-bred' black or white. Most of us here have between 2 to 4% Neanderthal DNA. Franz Fanon's book "Black skin, white Masks", makes precisely your point, from an historical perspective.

 

[pcgeek11]

For the OP Question.

No and No. How in the heck can race be a choice. or Ethnicity. That is just crazy talk.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

For the OP Question.

No and No. How in the heck can race be a choice. or Ethnicity. That is just crazy talk.

For example:
If you move to France as an 19 year old and live as frenchman for the next 50 years; you're a frenchman ethnically.

Franz Fanon's book "Black skin, white Masks", makes precisely your point, from an historical perspective

Thank you for the suggestion; I just ordered the book. It looks like there's a little action on the subject in my field; perhaps I'll pursue it.

 

[Railgun]

Wait for it. At some point, there will be medical claims as someone will see these issues as birth defects.

Born as a "man" but identify as a "woman?" Your genes must've mutated or something. That pesky SRY gene.

The genes that show family history? Must have mutated and you're no longer (__________).

Dammit, I'm half Italian. I was born in Chicago, my family is three generations American, I don't speak a lick of Italian, have no family ties directly to Italy, but I want my Italian passport! Surely, I can claim that and reserve the right to get it, no questions asked.

 

[Caravaggio]

For the OP Question.

No and No. How in the heck can race be a choice. or Ethnicity. That is just crazy talk.

PC Geek,
If scientists still used the term 'race' you would have a point, but the concept has been disreputable in Science since the mid 1970's.
There is a good, brief and accessible review of the current status of the term in American Scientist, March April 2012. Article by Jan Sapp 'Race finished'.

'Race' is a dodgy term, still used by lawyers, because lawyers rarely study much science beyond 18. Alas, lawyers come up with silliness such as the UK 'Race Relations Act'
That leaves 'Ethnicity'. It is not a harsh term but a little more palatable.
What we are often talking about are graded 'clines' like skin colour.
If the woman in Spokane married a 'black' guy and had a child with him, she might well know a great deal about ethnicity, prejudice and ethnic tension. But she has a remarkable gift from which we can learn, she has lived in both 'worlds'. This makes her experience very useful.
That said, I have every sympathy for 'people of colour' (yes, I know, awful phrase) who feel that her role in the NAACP was duplicitous.

 

[HomerJS]

For the OP Question.

No and No. How in the heck can race be a choice. or Ethnicity. That is just crazy talk.

Race is a manmade construct. Humans are part of the same species with characteristics that could be attributed as "tribal"

Once you debunk the "1/8th" rule race construct falls apart.

 

[TeeJay1952]

When Bruce became Kaitlin she was lauded at every level for appearing in her underwear on a magazine. Lady out west Identifies with being black and attempts to rectify perceived injustices (runs NAACP chapter) and is deemed insane. While I think she is somewhat imbalanced as shown by dubious email threat claims, the whole world jumping on her for following her heart seems strange.
Want same sex partner? (Rosie O'Donnell) Hero
Want other sex partner but want the trappings of opposite sex (Bruce Jenner) Hero
Want to be different race? (Rachel Whoever ) You must be crazy. I can't decide if it is racist or sexist?

 

[SlitheryDee]

Changing races through surgery and clothing/lifestyle alterations seems just as valid to me as changing genders. I'm not 100% on board with changing genders in the first place though.

Your life sucks? Fine, so does mine, but I still manage to find happiness in it. Find the happiness in your life and stop whining about it. Make the best of what you have and stop thinking that changing your outward appearance really changes anything about you as a person.

That said, people should do what they want to do so long as their mental state is such that they can make rational decisions. I support them in that fully, even though I will probably always have reservations about the efficacy of gender reassignment.

So with all that, If I can buy into gender reassignment as a real thing, I can also buy into racial reassignment. I think that if you can choose your gender, then it isn't a huge leap to choose your race. I believe the opposite of the OP in terms of ethnicity though. Your ethnicity is defined partially by your race, but also by the cultural influences surrounding you. Usually those would line up with your race due to people typically being primarily exposed to members of their own race throughout the earlier parts of their lives, but in the case of someone who changes their race and certain other cases that can be considered outliers (adopted by other races, raised in areas populated by other races, etc.), the race and ethnicity may not line up.

Say you're a white man who wants to be black. You've been raised and primarily exposed to the white race to the extent that your ethnicity can be solidly considered to be white, but you have the same kind of unreasoning desire to be black that a trans-gendered person might feel about becoming the opposite sex. If you go through with it, and we view your transition with the same kind of progressive attitude that we view transgendered people with, we'd have to call you a black man who is of the white ethnicity. After all we, already have accepted that a man can become a woman and be referred to as a woman, but still identify as a man for sexual purposes. The racial and ethnic transition seem somewhat more clear-cut to me, in fact. The important thing is that you don't get to change your ethnicity just because you changed your skin tone. That was already defined by what you were exposed to in your life.

 

[SMOGZINN]

After all we, already have accepted that a man can become a woman and be referred to as a woman, but still identify as a man for sexual purposes.

A transwoman (That is someone that was born male but transitioned to female) that is sexually attracted to women call themselves lesbians, not male, for sexual purposes. They are functionally homosexual (although many prefer the term queer).