I usually don't participate in default Reddit bullshit but I really want to make clear the distinction between "transracialism" (unsubstantiated nonsense not supported by anything) and being transgender (an actual disposition recognized by virtually every medical organization).
(Note: I will be using the term "transgenderism" in this comment because it is helpful to have a single-noun way of saying "being trans." I am aware of the understandable negative connotations surrounding the term but I only use it to help illuminate the reality of the situation and to hopefully work toward combating the negative connotation of the term, which in all honestly shouldn't be negative because of its usefulness in scientific discourse.)
It really comes down to this: transgenderism is, by most accounts, accompanied by gender dysphoria. Gender dysphoria is what is recognized by virtually every medical organization to be a legitimate and substantiated disconnect between one's physical body and one's internal sense of what their body should be. It's important to note that simply breaking gender stereotypes does not make one trans; drag queens, for example, often identify as men who simply enjoy the hobby. It's a super common misconception in society today that trans people are just those who wear clothing opposite that of what is expected of their sex assigned at birth. This is simply untrue. Traditionally, "transvestite" is the term uses to describe such individuals, though a better term today is "gender non-conforming." In summation, trans people have tangible symptoms resulting from the disconnect of their physical bodies and their internal expectations of what their bodies should be.
Recognizing that transgenderism is an inherent neurological phenomena is important when comparing it to "transracialism." Once you realize it, it's very easy to shoot down the connection between transgenderism and "transracialism:" in the only notable case of "transracialism," the subject, Rachel Dolezal, made it very clear that her "black identity" was the result of her cultural background. She felt that she was black because she had a background in the black community. It's obviously a load of bullshit and is incredibly demeaning to the black community, but it does raise interesting questions about how society defines race (after all, she was able to get away with it for years). What's important in this discussion, though, is that she never claimed it was anything biological or inherent about her human personhood. Her argument for her "black identity" was purely cultural. This is in contrast to transgenderism, a demonstrably inherent, neurological disposition. This is precisely why I made the earlier distinction of transgenderism and transvestitism; if somebody claimed they were a woman because they had a "background in the female community," and they did stereotypically feminine things without actually displaying any symptoms of gender dysphoria, that would not be a transgender person for the same reason Rachel Dolezal is not a "transracial" person.
"Transracial" is actually a legitimate term that has a helpful use; it is traditionally used to describe to children adopted by parents of a different race. In this sense, transracial issues of adopted children actually do have profound cultural implications regarding how a child in such a position should deal with the culture they're raised in. None of this supports Rachel Dolezal's bullshit, however; she's a fucking hack.
TL;DR: Transgenderism is a widespread neurological phenomenon recognized by virtually every major medical organization to be an inherent disposition; "transracialism," as the term is used in context with individuals like Rachel Dolezal, is a nearly non-existent phenomena that is demonstrably the result of cultural upbringing, social development, and a desire to fit in; there are no psychological or biological roots of "transracialism." Because of this contrast, any comparison between the two concepts is unjustified and insulting to the plight of transgender people.
(So I kind of went overboard on this response; it's not entirely directed at you, I just kind of wanted to get this off my chest because I see these comparisons everywhere. If anything I'll just use this as a copypasta whenever I see anyone making the comparison elsewhere).
6 comments
1 T_Dumbsford-Is-Sexy 2018-01-19
Wtf where's snappy?
1 Stuntman119 2018-01-19
You scared it away, you monster.
1 T_Dumbsford-Is-Sexy 2018-01-19
What did I do?😰
1 Stuntman119 2018-01-19
Snapshill only returns when bussy is posted
1 I_poop_in_The_Dark 2018-01-19
/u/nb4hnp I identify as an asexual, agender atheist from Atlanta so when you tell someone to fuck off you're oppressing me with your sexualizing.
1 nb4hnp 2018-01-19
This is why I don't post in the default subs.
1 Unfunny_Twat 2018-01-19
(Note: I will be using the term "transgenderism" in this comment because it is helpful to have a single-noun way of saying "being trans." I am aware of the understandable negative connotations surrounding the term but I only use it to help illuminate the reality of the situation and to hopefully work toward combating the negative connotation of the term, which in all honestly shouldn't be negative because of its usefulness in scientific discourse.)
It really comes down to this: transgenderism is, by most accounts, accompanied by gender dysphoria. Gender dysphoria is what is recognized by virtually every medical organization to be a legitimate and substantiated disconnect between one's physical body and one's internal sense of what their body should be. It's important to note that simply breaking gender stereotypes does not make one trans; drag queens, for example, often identify as men who simply enjoy the hobby. It's a super common misconception in society today that trans people are just those who wear clothing opposite that of what is expected of their sex assigned at birth. This is simply untrue. Traditionally, "transvestite" is the term uses to describe such individuals, though a better term today is "gender non-conforming." In summation, trans people have tangible symptoms resulting from the disconnect of their physical bodies and their internal expectations of what their bodies should be.
Recognizing that transgenderism is an inherent neurological phenomena is important when comparing it to "transracialism." Once you realize it, it's very easy to shoot down the connection between transgenderism and "transracialism:" in the only notable case of "transracialism," the subject, Rachel Dolezal, made it very clear that her "black identity" was the result of her cultural background. She felt that she was black because she had a background in the black community. It's obviously a load of bullshit and is incredibly demeaning to the black community, but it does raise interesting questions about how society defines race (after all, she was able to get away with it for years). What's important in this discussion, though, is that she never claimed it was anything biological or inherent about her human personhood. Her argument for her "black identity" was purely cultural. This is in contrast to transgenderism, a demonstrably inherent, neurological disposition. This is precisely why I made the earlier distinction of transgenderism and transvestitism; if somebody claimed they were a woman because they had a "background in the female community," and they did stereotypically feminine things without actually displaying any symptoms of gender dysphoria, that would not be a transgender person for the same reason Rachel Dolezal is not a "transracial" person.
"Transracial" is actually a legitimate term that has a helpful use; it is traditionally used to describe to children adopted by parents of a different race. In this sense, transracial issues of adopted children actually do have profound cultural implications regarding how a child in such a position should deal with the culture they're raised in. None of this supports Rachel Dolezal's bullshit, however; she's a fucking hack.
TL;DR: Transgenderism is a widespread neurological phenomenon recognized by virtually every major medical organization to be an inherent disposition; "transracialism," as the term is used in context with individuals like Rachel Dolezal, is a nearly non-existent phenomena that is demonstrably the result of cultural upbringing, social development, and a desire to fit in; there are no psychological or biological roots of "transracialism." Because of this contrast, any comparison between the two concepts is unjustified and insulting to the plight of transgender people.
(So I kind of went overboard on this response; it's not entirely directed at you, I just kind of wanted to get this off my chest because I see these comparisons everywhere. If anything I'll just use this as a copypasta whenever I see anyone making the comparison elsewhere).
Someone actually wrote that