Well...... wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
You duck - again - the point I raised that the argument used to justify gender identity is not accepted for forming a racial or cultural identity, when these, too, are also subject to genetic, biological and cultural criteria in the way gender is. The gender identity argument cannot be reconciled with the argument applied to racial or cultural identity. I may claim to be a woman if I am a biological man, but I cannot claim to be black if I am white, or a Sioux Indian if I am a WASP from LA - no matter how much I feel that I am. Why not? The answer appears to be that it is all about politics.
Your main point also misses the mark entirely; understanding sex and gender does not require that I or anyone else knows what it is like to be any other person on the basis of their individual personality or subjective life experiences. But if sexual biological features exist - and they do - then those are features that males and females have in common with others of the same sex. Those biological features help define the lives we lead and the experiences we have. Your argument can only stand if these biological differences don't actually exist; that none of it is biological and it only "exists in the mind" - as some say it does. In that case gender is indistinguishable from fantasy and claiming a gender identity is claiming that which isn't real - it is a convenient invention at best. I don't see trans or anyone else making that argument.
Not sure I follow, although I've lost some of the track of what the actual "argument" is now, I'll try and have a bash.
>>>the point I raised that the argument used to justify gender identity is not accepted for forming a racial or cultural identity, when these, too, are also subject to genetic, biological and cultural criteria in the way gender is.
I'm not sure I'm intending to reconcile any gender identity with racial identity ? I could certainly argue that they are biological, and not fixed, and that we choose labels and it's not a binary thing, but mixed, but I'm not quite sure what the point is here. I feel like your point is sort of a self sulfilling mislabelled prophecy (by society). I.e "I cannot claim to be black if I am white". The problem here is a decision it's binary, when it isn't firstly. No one is actually black or white (although because you've already adjudicated that you are white, you can't be black, it's kind of meaningless). We've chosen these labels, they don't actually match the reality in precision. Many if not most people are qualities of blackness, have mixed heritage etc. But I'm not saying this is "the same" as being transgender, although there are some similar issues (trying to apply a binary labelling scheme).
I've never said gender doesn't have a biological basis, and I don't really understand where you get that from. All the time on these forums, I've repeated that it has, that's erm my main point. I think you're confusing the context of my reply about maleness, to this..." cannot see, for example, how a female who now says she is male can know what it is actually like to be male". My point really is that it's irrelevant (i.e the experience doesn't dictate the gender). I.e a male to female person, may have grown up from a very early age (eg 2 yrs old) knowing (in a loose sense at that age) that her sex isn't matching her gender. She didn't have to know what it was like to be a "woman" to figure this one out. Just as you didn't have to live life as a man to know you were one (talking gender). Not sure if that's clearer.
No.
As for saying no one is actually black or white - that is staggering, and especially in a society built on race, as the US was and still is. While you can apparently base your gender on what you choose to identify with, try doing that with your racial or cultural identity and see where that gets you.