Why is gender fluid, but race isn’t?

Well..... wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

You haven't understood the discussion. I have not stated a moral position that I hold; I have simply drawn a comparison between gender fluidity and racial fixity, and sought to explain why the two situations are not currently analogous for social reasons.

I haven't commented on the discussion other than highlighting your lack of understanding, and incorrect usage on the terms you are using. But keep on trying, maybe you'll get there in the end.

No, you merely have asserted your conviction the earth is flat. You have demonstrated nothing

Race does not exist and gender can't be changed.

healthy dude wrote:

Race does not exist and gender can't be changed.

At last - facetiousness.

Race most definitely has a biological component.

How do you think companies like 23 and Me determine someone’s racial background. They look at DNA from your saliva.

Depending on your definition of gender, it has has biological component using the traditional definition. However, some fringe groups have a definition where gender can be determined by choice.

The hypocrisy is that these fringe groups via gender as fluid, but when someone claims a different race from their DNA they lose their minds.

I identify as being ... wrote:

My point is gender isn’t fluid.

My only gripe is when a former male enters a women's sporting contest and wins unfairly. Other than that I don't care what someone wants to be seen as because it has a zero negative effect on our lives.

That is their business and not mine or yours. So leave them alone and go back to your corner.

What is race?

well......... wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

With regard to the question, there isn't any difference - in principle. A male who identifies as female does so despite the biological fact of his maleness; he is also doing this without the experiences that biological females commonly share (menstruation etc); a Caucasian who identifies as black does so despite the biological feature of skin color that he doesn't have - and even more importantly, the typical cultural experiences that come from being black. And that makes all the difference. While there is a growing acceptance that a person can choose their gender, there is not that acceptance with regard to race. The issue of race is still way too sensitive, as gender no longer is.

No, you still haven't grasped what gender is. Must try harder.

Here's a little more clarity on what gender is. Gender is more a social and cultural determination, rather than biological. Biological identification is fairly rigid (with rare exceptions), while social and cultural norms can vary widely across different societies and cultures and over time within the same society and culture.

According to Oxford:

"either of the two sexes (male and female), especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones. The term is also used more broadly to denote a range of identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female."

According to the WHO:

"The World Health Organization (WHO) defines gender as: "Gender refers to the socially constructed characteristics of women and men, such as norms, roles, and relationships of and between groups of women and men. It varies from society to society and can be changed.""

Hope this helps settle that question.

I used to identify as... wrote:

Race most definitely has a biological component.

How do you think companies like 23 and Me determine someone’s racial background. They look at DNA from your saliva.

Depending on your definition of gender, it has has biological component using the traditional definition. However, some fringe groups have a definition where gender can be determined by choice.

The hypocrisy is that these fringe groups via gender as fluid, but when someone claims a different race from their DNA they lose their minds.

There is no biological component to race.

When you have a DNA test, they can identify genes which are likely to originate from different parts of the world. But these are not indicative of race as we only use a handful of these genes - skin color, hair texture, face and body shape - to place someone in a "race". You would only need to change 0.001% of someone's DNA to make them have darker skin. Think of this way - Africans and Native Australians have black skin but are from different continents, it's just one characteristic humans have - to use skin color as a marker of kinship is too basic. And once you begin to try and use other characteristics you realize there aren't any things which unique to a population and significant enough to use as a separator.

interesting point of view wrote:

Well done OP this is actually a thought provoking question since both gender and race are social constructs. And before I continue let me explain what I mean by that.

There is a difference between sex and gender. Sex involves biological characteristics whereas gender is one's presentation to society.

Ahmmm, NO.

Gender is NOT a social construct.

Difference is when members of the opposite race have a child, the child is a mix of both races. Variation with gender is fairly common. When a man and woman have a child, the child is either a male or a female. There is no variation. There are TWO genders.

To the OPs point, if anything there should be racial fluidity.

CircusClowns wrote:

Difference is when members of the opposite race have a child, the child is a mix of both races. Variation with race is fairly common. When a man and woman have a child, the child is either a male or a female. There is no variation. There are TWO genders.

To the OPs point, if anything there should be racial fluidity.

Fixed my above post.

No. They merely match similar DNA. Their databases were built based on questionnaires of the testers. It can now tell if you had ancestors of say, Poland, Germany, Sweden, and Norway. Or maybe your ancestors are entirely from Finland. Do you think the people from those countries are of different races?

I identify as being ... wrote:

M & M grew up surrounded by black culture.

hahahahah - How old are you?

Some truth. He started at 16.

douglas burke wrote:

What did the Founding Fathers say about this issue?

You know they weren't gods, right?

They just the politicians of that day, which happened to be when a new country was started.

CircusClowns wrote:Ahmmm, NO.

Gender is NOT a social construct.

Have you seen the definitions I provided above from the Oxford Dictionary, and from the WHO?

According to them, it IS definitely primarily a social and cultural construct, rather than a biological one.

I thought my posting of definitions from two sources would settle that issue definitively.

Do you have an authoritative reference for a contrary definition?

No. All of our laws must coincide with the constitution. No law can be written that contradicts it.

rekrunner wrote:

CircusClowns wrote:Ahmmm, NO.

Gender is NOT a social construct.

Have you seen the definitions I provided above from the Oxford Dictionary, and from the WHO?

According to them, it IS definitely primarily a social and cultural construct, rather than a biological one.

I thought my posting of definitions from two sources would settle that issue definitively.

Do you have an authoritative reference for a contrary definition?

It depends on context, and even then, what does that actually mean ? Are we talking about the definition, or the thing itself ?

For those who think they can change their gender (or race) for example, try it now...try and change your gender whilst reading this. Then you realise the concept of choosing gender is sort of weird. This is different to expressing, or identifying internally (or externally) gender. This is also different to a society defining what gender (or race ) is. We can relabel things, but that doesn't change the essence of the thing itself. I can call a blue/silver dress blue or silver if I want, but the underlying essence of the dress never changed (our perception of it may do).

Is there a biological component ? Is the brain a biological component, do formed memories, synapses, genes, etc count ? I don't think that's fully known yet, but my understanding is the latest studies imply that yes there is.

Trans people aren't trying to change their gender. They identify more with the opposite sex or feel they belong somewhere in between. They just want to be accepted - hence the need for them to change their appearance - it helps them fit in. In a society less focused on sex differences, trans people would feel more comfortable.

A minority of trans individuals have any sort of reassignment surgery. It really isn't a body thing, more of a need to feel comfortable being themselves rather than being categorized as man or woman and all the rigid expectations associated with that division.

Trans people are crazy and should be heavily medicated and/or in a mental institution.