was there another transracial other than Rachel? because iirc she was doing it to put "african american origins" in her CV
people affected by transgender matters might "just" be ~1%, but it seems like people affected by transrace matters are WAY less than that. of course this doesn't mean their issues should be ignored, but can you even get any valid data with a sample size that small?
I never said that I thought it did, and in fact I doubt it does
You know, when I was writing my post I knew you probably didn't but I didn't know how to phrase it correctly so I put it as "you".
The thing is, you learn about how race works in middle school. Mutations, DNA/genes, adaptions from the environment. It's chemical but not brain chemical. In fact, race isn't based on the brain. Race and skin color came from where in the world you were, that how we evolved, near the equator people had darker skin and as you move out people had lighter skin.
Perhaps, perhaps not. That's why I mentioned the possibility of someone providing a study for this line of questioning. I never said that I … morethought it did, and in fact I doubt it does, but that doesn't mean I'm correct or that it doesn't. If it were true, as I said earlier, it would put them back together as related issues (transgender and transrace).
I wouldn't suggest the lack of justification for one justifies the other (my God I'd be just like the religious cooks screaming "we don't know therefore God did it!). But it does dimiss the argument that in order to accept one, you must accept the other.
As you and I had the conversation in private, though, my stance on transgenders hasn't really changed. I still don't claim to know which is right and which is wrong, but I can say I came to the realization that I know I am ignorant on the subject (as i think everyone is) and I won't hurt people because of my ignorance.
I would agree that the two aren't always exactly the same, but I don't believe they should be looked at differently in terms of enabling one… more and being against the other. The cause of the delusion doesn't change the fact that these people are in fact deluded, and should receive help.
That goes without saying. If it wasn't their reality, then they wouldn't be deluded. Their false reality doesn't hold any justification for enabling the issue.
It's much easier to mold the body to match the brain than it is to mold the brain to match the body.
That's an oversimplification of the issue and it's not really applicable, especially given the fact that changing your sex does not solve the actual issue of gender dysphoria. Molding someone's body to match their brain's delusions doesn't solve the problem, and in many cases it makes it worse, especially so in how that person fits into society. This is pretty easily reflected in their rates of suicide.
There's so many more factors involved than just the sex change procedure. The person's race. Their education (or lack of). Lack of employment. Financial poverty. Physical/sexual assault. Discrimination. Rejection from family. It's not something that boils down to just "did this person undergo sex change surgery?"
You are talking about most of these things being a result of being transgender I would assume.. correct? That only strengthens the point that these people need help, and should not be enabled to have a sex change surgery that comes with so many potential consequences in terms of how they fit into and are viewed by society.
What about the people who are told that they "have a disease" and need extensive therapy because homosexuality is "wrong?" It is very much the same issue.
It's a completely apples to oranges comparison, and I'm not interested in comparing the two. It's irrelevant.
You're ignoring the large fact that they are pretending to be something that they are not. I disagree with you on the notion that they are n… moreot hurting anyone. They are hurting themselves, through living a lie and not being in touch with reality.
For transgender people, that is their reality. Going through their lives with the itch in the back of their head that something is wrong with their body which is what leads to some deciding to transition towards their desired gender. It's much easier to mold the body to match the brain than it is to mold the brain to match the body.
sex change procedure,...it's no wonder their suicide rates are as high as they are.
There's so many more factors involved than just the sex change procedure. The person's race. Their education (or lack of). Lack of employment. Financial poverty. Physical/sexual assault. Discrimination. Rejection from family. It's not something that boils down to just … [view original content]
no coherent, fixed definition of (human) races actually exist, "chemicals in the brain" might be a factor in some definitions of race
chemicals in your brain will not change your skin color, but they might change your... racial classification according to some racial classifications
a transracial could technically be considered of a differenct race just based on their brain (when races are defined by taking all body parts into account, not just skin color) just like a transgender could be considered of a different gender just based on their brain, even if all other aspects of those transX are of another gender/race
gender has the advantage of actually having precisely defined classes tho, that's what makes it credible over the transracial mess
You think race has connections to chemical balances within the brain? I apologize but that sounds ridiculous. To think some people are black… more and some are white or Asian or whatever because they have different chemicals in the brain is...ridiculous. Thinking that immediately, it sounds plausible but if you think about it a bit more...it doesn't. Race is based on genes and parentage, it's impossible for two white parents to birth a fully black child unless one of the parents isn't fully white.
Its just a matter of the two things being similar in the fact that they both have to do with being deluded. We may never know 100% how these delusions come into place, but I don't believe that should stop us from identifying them as issues, both on the individual and societal level.
I wouldn't suggest the lack of justification for one justifies the other (my God I'd be just like the religious cooks screaming "we don't kn… moreow therefore God did it!). But it does dimiss the argument that in order to accept one, you must accept the other.
As you and I had the conversation in private, though, my stance on transgenders hasn't really changed. I still don't claim to know which is right and which is wrong, but I can say I came to the realization that I know I am ignorant on the subject (as i think everyone is) and I won't hurt people because of my ignorance.
"To think race has connections to chemical balances in the brain is ridiculous." is one way you could have phrased it, but thanks for the clarification
The question wouldn't suggest that race is based on the brain, but that the brain is based (at least partly) on the race. You're right about your facts on melanin and the equator, but your astute knowledge of genetics doesn't dismiss the fact that race could affect the brain, and that if a brain were to "feel" like another race then transrace would be the same issue as transgender. As it stands we don't have anyone that can offer any evidence to this, so the argument fails before it even begins.
I never said that I thought it did, and in fact I doubt it does
You know, when I was writing my post I knew you probably didn't but … moreI didn't know how to phrase it correctly so I put it as "you".
The thing is, you learn about how race works in middle school. Mutations, DNA/genes, adaptions from the environment. It's chemical but not brain chemical. In fact, race isn't based on the brain. Race and skin color came from where in the world you were, that how we evolved, near the equator people had darker skin and as you move out people had lighter skin.
I hadn't even heard of transracial issues until Rachel Dolezal. Sure there was Michael Jackson and his skin, but he never claimed to be anything other than black.
was there another transracial other than Rachel? because iirc she was doing it to put "african american origins" in her CV
people affecte… mored by transgender matters might "just" be ~1%, but it seems like people affected by transrace matters are WAY less than that. of course this doesn't mean their issues should be ignored, but can you even get any valid data with a sample size that small?
For transgender people, that is their reality.
That goes without saying. If it wasn't their reality, then they wouldn't be deluded. … moreTheir false reality doesn't hold any justification for enabling the issue.
It's much easier to mold the body to match the brain than it is to mold the brain to match the body.
That's an oversimplification of the issue and it's not really applicable, especially given the fact that changing your sex does not solve the actual issue of gender dysphoria. Molding someone's body to match their brain's delusions doesn't solve the problem, and in many cases it makes it worse, especially so in how that person fits into society. This is pretty easily reflected in their rates of suicide.
There's so many more factors involved than just the sex change procedure. The person's race. Their education (or lack of). Lack of employment. Financial poverty. Physical/sexual assault. Discrimination. Rejection … [view original content]
"To think race has connections to chemical balances in the brain is ridiculous." is one way you could have phrased it
True, my mistake, I am a little off right now.
The question wouldn't suggest that race is based on the brain, but that the brain is based (at least partly) on the race
That's a strange argument now isn't that, would different chemicals mean certain types of races are more violent or calm, more smart, or have an easier time surviving. If that were true then wouldn't the inferior part of the race fail as evolution would push them out? Does having our overly abundant world today stop parts of our species from dying out? All valuable questions if you're correct.
"To think race has connections to chemical balances in the brain is ridiculous." is one way you could have phrased it, but thanks for the cl… morearification
The question wouldn't suggest that race is based on the brain, but that the brain is based (at least partly) on the race. You're right about your facts on melanin and the equator, but your astute knowledge of genetics doesn't dismiss the fact that race could affect the brain, and that if a brain were to "feel" like another race then transrace would be the same issue as transgender. As it stands we don't have anyone that can offer any evidence to this, so the argument fails before it even begins.
Yes. Provide him now so I may pass him off as an intellectual and continue my push for white supremacy!
Of course, just kidding, but I am curious what experimentation has been preformed on the topic.
Transgender isn't a choice or genetic, your born with it. Transrace is just a state of mind where you want to be a different race, to me its a choice but whatever floats your boat.
I don't think it would. The differences would be minute. Also, just because one subspecies is better at procreation doesn't mean another will cease to exist, especially if you incorporate many theories within the context of evolution, such as separation of species (or in this case, subspecies), which plays directly into how humans around the world had different areas for the different physical attributes they had, which only really started intermingling recently when considering the length of time the human species has been around. In short, the existance of a different subspecies doesn't mean another subspecies can't exist within or outside of any particular environment.
As for your question "Does having our overly abundant world today stop parts of our species from dying out?" I started typing a long response for why my answer was undeniably yes, through examples of people like those with heart problems and mental disorders such as down syndrome, but then my train of thought led me to the realization that those traits would likely be passed down to other offspring regardless if the people who had those ailments procreated or not through people that carry the recessive genes for those ailments. So I would say no, probably not. I think it has saved many lives and made those ailments more abundant, but it didn't save something that would have gone extinct otherwise.
"To think race has connections to chemical balances in the brain is ridiculous." is one way you could have phrased it
True, my mista… moreke, I am a little off right now.
The question wouldn't suggest that race is based on the brain, but that the brain is based (at least partly) on the race
That's a strange argument now isn't that, would different chemicals mean certain types of races are more violent or calm, more smart, or have an easier time surviving. If that were true then wouldn't the inferior part of the race fail as evolution would push them out? Does having our overly abundant world today stop parts of our species from dying out? All valuable questions if you're correct.
Fair enough with a lot of your points, however when large over bearing species that have a better advantage then wouldn't the other, over time slowly cease to exist. Obviously, the differences are small, but when you have a large population compared to a small population or a equal population, the one with the advantage no matter how small will do progressively better than the other and the other will slowly cease to exist. The numbers will dwindle until they are virtually endangered.
If your answer to the second question is no then wouldn't that mean the sub species with the disadvantage would virtually become extinct or endangered? The problems would be passed down as the advantages would be passed down and therefore causing the subspecies to either transform into a type of the species with the advantage or die out with the disadvantage. If we connect this with history and science we can see that species can be mixed, there are several mixed people across the world. George on here, for example as he likes to point out his mixed variety, are not transrace as he is both races. He is both white and native American, he has both, he can not be Asian because he doesn't have the heritage of Asians. If there are differences within the brain, it would soon be lost or noticeable with people who are mixed.
I don't think it would. The differences would be minute. Also, just because one subspecies is better at procreation doesn't mean another wil… morel cease to exist, especially if you incorporate many theories within the context of evolution, such as separation of species (or in this case, subspecies), which plays directly into how humans around the world had different areas for the different physical attributes they had, which only really started intermingling recently when considering the length of time the human species has been around. In short, the existance of a different subspecies doesn't mean another subspecies can't exist within or outside of any particular environment.
As for your question "Does having our overly abundant world today stop parts of our species from dying out?" I started typing a long response for why my answer was undeniably yes, through examples of people like those with heart problems and mental disorders such as down … [view original content]
Most definitely, solidity in definition wouldn't mean the concept is false, though. With increasing interrace populations it's likely that within the next few (many) generations it won't even make sense to hypothesize this, since it won't be even remotely testable at that point, if it's even possible to test it now (rendering brain attributes to a race would be damn near impossible with the inclusion of the nuture portion of personality development). Unless you could identify notable differences in the composition of a brain from birth between two races you would likely never be able to seperate them.
Above, or below (?)(where am I in this thread) I also noted that depending on how much of a social construct gender is it's also another way that race and gender could be a part of the same issue, seeing as if gender is mostly all a social construct and actually has little to do with natural differences between the two types of brains (male and female) then wanting to change your genitals would be akin to wanting to change your skin color or other physical attributes. Thoughts?
no coherent, fixed definition of (human) races actually exist, "chemicals in the brain" might be a factor in some definitions of race
che… moremicals in your brain will not change your skin color, but they might change your... racial classification according to some racial classifications
a transracial could technically be considered of a differenct race just based on their brain (when races are defined by taking all body parts into account, not just skin color) just like a transgender could be considered of a different gender just based on their brain, even if all other aspects of those transX are of another gender/race
gender has the advantage of actually having precisely defined classes tho, that's what makes it credible over the transracial mess
Its just a matter of the two things being similar in the fact that they both have to do with being deluded. We may never know 100% how these… more delusions come into place, but I don't believe that should stop us from identifying them as issues, both on the individual and societal level.
Paragraph 1. Yes, eventually that would be the case. It certainly was with examples such as the neanderthals, but who is to say we were not on that path before we gained the awareness that we now posses? But don't forget that this is negating the many possibilities of the subspecies even existing in the first place (such as the example given above, separation of species (subspecies)). If you're proposition were true then we would only ever have one species alive on the planet at any given time because starting from ancestor #1 the entire population of ancestor #1 would have evolved with the exact same genetic differentiation as the population encountered a positive genetic difference. That was probably poorly worded, so I'll try again. Imagine we are the only species alive on the planet (toss away the impossibilities for the moment) and one person encounter a genetic difference that was benefitial, eventually we would (by your theory) all adopt the new difference. Another person encounters another benefitial genetic difference and we all adopt that difference over time. In the end all of a population adopting a genetic difference would leave you with only one, slightly different, population. This doesn't account for the many different species we have across the Earth, and is therefor false. Going back to our original discussion, it is also a possibility that the difference was not "seen by evolution" as either benefitial or detrimental, and simply existed. Eventually the two subspecies broke apart through one of many evolutionary theories (such as separation if species) and existed dependant of one another (which again explains why we have/had different areas for different races).
Paragraph 2. I'll be completely honest, I didn't follow that. Mixing races would change the attributes that "races type of brain" had, which is what makes transrace a much more confusing scenario. Race is not dichotomous, nor is it as specific as gender. But I don't see how this applies to the answer I gave in response to the question you gave me. Unless you can give an example of a part of our species that would have gone extinct if not for our overly abundant world I would have to stick with no, we have not saved any specific group within our group from extinction.
Fair enough with a lot of your points, however when large over bearing species that have a better advantage then wouldn't the other, over ti… moreme slowly cease to exist. Obviously, the differences are small, but when you have a large population compared to a small population or a equal population, the one with the advantage no matter how small will do progressively better than the other and the other will slowly cease to exist. The numbers will dwindle until they are virtually endangered.
If your answer to the second question is no then wouldn't that mean the sub species with the disadvantage would virtually become extinct or endangered? The problems would be passed down as the advantages would be passed down and therefore causing the subspecies to either transform into a type of the species with the advantage or die out with the disadvantage. If we connect this with history and science we can see that species can be mixed, there are several m… [view original content]
I would quote directly but it's hard to look through that long paragraph to find an exact quote without quoting the entire paragraph so I'll try my best without it:
I didn't mean over time we would all develop the trait...Well, sort of. The other trait would exist, obviously, but the amount of which the trait would exist would be limited. The better trait would be adopted by a large number of the species for survivability and in different climates and locations across the globe. The other trait would still exist within a number of different kinds of subspecies as the subspecies could mate with the better species, the trait then is within both species. Therefore, traits from both species live on within these mixes. Both species would live on, the one with the disadvantage would likely find a new location in which the disadvantage wouldn't be important or they would die out like many species we have seen on earth.
For your last point, I would give it to you that it could have been seen as neutral rather than good or bad to the species. At which that point, it would be interesting...You mention different chemicals in the brain based on race, while they might be small, they could be there...that could be true, to a certain extent but that wouldn't mean that someone could have chemicals of another race if they were to not have ancestors with the previous chemicals, of course then that would not make them transracial, that would make them mixed or mixed by ancestral meanings. The entire transracial thing is ridiculous, not at all like transgender as transgendered people have these chemicals come along after birth, during early childhood and puberty. That's my case on the subject.
I would also like to mention in case that last sentence meant what I thought, areas have different races and not the other way around...or is it the other way around...I can't remember. However, it stands that as our species moved out, we evolved in different areas to fit our living there...our physical features to be precise, nothing about our brain however.
Paragraph 1. Yes, eventually that would be the case. It certainly was with examples such as the neanderthals, but who is to say we were not … moreon that path before we gained the awareness that we now posses? But don't forget that this is negating the many possibilities of the subspecies even existing in the first place (such as the example given above, separation of species (subspecies)). If you're proposition were true then we would only ever have one species alive on the planet at any given time because starting from ancestor #1 the entire population of ancestor #1 would have evolved with the exact same genetic differentiation as the population encountered a positive genetic difference. That was probably poorly worded, so I'll try again. Imagine we are the only species alive on the planet (toss away the impossibilities for the moment) and one person encounter a genetic difference that was benefitial, eventually we would (by your theory) all ado… [view original content]
of another race if they were to not have ancestors with the previous chemicals, of course then that would not make them transracial, that would make them mixed or mixed by ancestral meanings.
And yet that actually aligns itself with the proposition of transrace being more like transgender, not the other way around, because it's what race the person is perceived as and what race they feel they are. A person could have ancestral genetic code from one race, but look nothing like that race. Hence they want to be received as they feel, not as they appear to others.
our physical features to be precise, nothing about our brain however.
I would quote directly but it's hard to look through that long paragraph to find an exact quote without quoting the entire paragraph so I'll… more try my best without it:
I didn't mean over time we would all develop the trait...Well, sort of. The other trait would exist, obviously, but the amount of which the trait would exist would be limited. The better trait would be adopted by a large number of the species for survivability and in different climates and locations across the globe. The other trait would still exist within a number of different kinds of subspecies as the subspecies could mate with the better species, the trait then is within both species. Therefore, traits from both species live on within these mixes. Both species would live on, the one with the disadvantage would likely find a new location in which the disadvantage wouldn't be important or they would die out like many species we have seen on earth.
For your last point, I w… [view original content]
A person could have ancestral genetic code from one race, but look nothing like that race. Hence they want to be received as they feel, not as they appear to others.
Race isn't something you feel like, you don't feel white, you don't feel black. There are history to each group but you can't feel like you're a race. You can appreciate the differences between racial history and struggle but you can't be a race you aren't.
You can't possibly know that.
I can until proven otherwise. Let's be honest, if there were differences, even small amounts, then we would've found something.
of another race if they were to not have ancestors with the previous chemicals, of course then that would not make them transracial, that wo… moreuld make them mixed or mixed by ancestral meanings.
And yet that actually aligns itself with the proposition of transrace being more like transgender, not the other way around, because it's what race the person is perceived as and what race they feel they are. A person could have ancestral genetic code from one race, but look nothing like that race. Hence they want to be received as they feel, not as they appear to others.
our physical features to be precise, nothing about our brain however.
You can't possibly know that.
Race isn't something you feel like, you don't feel white, you don't feel black.
And how would one know they feel like another gender? Because they have similar opinions as and enjoy doing the same things as the majority of the other gender? Or because they don't like what they see in the mirror and want to be different? Both apply to "transrace".
but you can't be a race you aren't.
You can't be what you aren't. Sounds familiar.
I can until proven otherwise.
No. Your options are "I don't know," or "I find it unlikely." Saying you know because it hasn't been proven otherwise is not an acceptable conclusion. I might as well say I know FSM is watching over me.
Let's be honest, if there were differences, even small amounts, then we would've found something.
A person could have ancestral genetic code from one race, but look nothing like that race. Hence they want to be received as they feel, not … moreas they appear to others.
Race isn't something you feel like, you don't feel white, you don't feel black. There are history to each group but you can't feel like you're a race. You can appreciate the differences between racial history and struggle but you can't be a race you aren't.
You can't possibly know that.
I can until proven otherwise. Let's be honest, if there were differences, even small amounts, then we would've found something.
Because they have similar opinions as and enjoy doing the same things as the majority of the other gender?
Let's think about something here, anyone can do what another race can do. They can, it's about culture, not the actual race.
You can't be what you aren't. Sounds familiar.
Sex and gender are different.
No. Your options are "I don't know," or "I find it unlikely."
My apologizes then, I will correct myself. I find it highly unlikely until I am offered up substantial evidence.
Mmm... how?
Scientific research. We could gather a group of different groups of races, all kinds including mixed races of each, of all different ages. We could record and analyze the differences in their brains and then compare them to in order to see if there are differences in the chemicals run throughout the brain both during different ages and races.
Race isn't something you feel like, you don't feel white, you don't feel black.
And how would one know they feel like another gender… more? Because they have similar opinions as and enjoy doing the same things as the majority of the other gender? Or because they don't like what they see in the mirror and want to be different? Both apply to "transrace".
but you can't be a race you aren't.
You can't be what you aren't. Sounds familiar.
I can until proven otherwise.
No. Your options are "I don't know," or "I find it unlikely." Saying you know because it hasn't been proven otherwise is not an acceptable conclusion. I might as well say I know FSM is watching over me.
Let's be honest, if there were differences, even small amounts, then we would've found something.
Mmm... how?
Let's think about something here, anyone can do what another race can do. They can, it's about culture, not the actual race.
I don't understand the point being made here.
Sex and gender are different.
I completely agree.
Scientific research. We could gather a group of different groups of races, all kinds including mixed races of each, of all different ages. We could record and analyze the differences in their brains and then compare them to in order to see if there are differences in the chemicals run throughout the brain both during different ages and races.
Research of this magnitude is far more complex than you or I could even begin to contemplate. For instance your entire experiment parameters would be decimated by the introduction of the nurture portion of personality development.
Because they have similar opinions as and enjoy doing the same things as the majority of the other gender?
Let's think about somethi… moreng here, anyone can do what another race can do. They can, it's about culture, not the actual race.
You can't be what you aren't. Sounds familiar.
Sex and gender are different.
No. Your options are "I don't know," or "I find it unlikely."
My apologizes then, I will correct myself. I find it highly unlikely until I am offered up substantial evidence.
Mmm... how?
Scientific research. We could gather a group of different groups of races, all kinds including mixed races of each, of all different ages. We could record and analyze the differences in their brains and then compare them to in order to see if there are differences in the chemicals run throughout the brain both during different ages and races.
You used the reason of transgenderism saying "Because they have similar opinions as and enjoy doing the same things as the majority of the other gender?" This however, using race instead of gender, isn't correct. One race can not own an opinion or activity, entirely of course. It's like saying "I believe Mike Brown deserves justice, black lives matter, I must be transracial." An extreme opinion but I hope you understand what I'm talking about now.
Research of this magnitude is far more complex than you or I could even begin to contemplate. For instance your entire experiment parameters would be decimated by the introduction of the nurture portion of personality development.
Of course, it would require carefulness, however we aren't planning to do this, are we? You asked how we could find out and that is a way, of course it would be too hard for us but it is a way.
Let's think about something here, anyone can do what another race can do. They can, it's about culture, not the actual race.
I don't… more understand the point being made here.
Sex and gender are different.
I completely agree.
Scientific research. We could gather a group of different groups of races, all kinds including mixed races of each, of all different ages. We could record and analyze the differences in their brains and then compare them to in order to see if there are differences in the chemicals run throughout the brain both during different ages and races.
Research of this magnitude is far more complex than you or I could even begin to contemplate. For instance your entire experiment parameters would be decimated by the introduction of the nurture portion of personality development.
Are you saying one of the genders can own an opinion, or own "enjoying doing something"?
Okay, but you said we would know something, and then said we aren't going to do the research. Do you know of anyone else that has done the research? How do you know we would know something?
In any case, I believe this conversation has run its course.
I don't understand the point being made here.
You used the reason of transgenderism saying "Because they have similar opinions as an… mored enjoy doing the same things as the majority of the other gender?" This however, using race instead of gender, isn't correct. One race can not own an opinion or activity, entirely of course. It's like saying "I believe Mike Brown deserves justice, black lives matter, I must be transracial." An extreme opinion but I hope you understand what I'm talking about now.
Research of this magnitude is far more complex than you or I could even begin to contemplate. For instance your entire experiment parameters would be decimated by the introduction of the nurture portion of personality development.
Of course, it would require carefulness, however we aren't planning to do this, are we? You asked how we could find out and that is a way, of course it would be too hard for us but it is a way.
Are you saying one of the genders can own an opinion, or own "enjoying doing something"?
No, that was from your post. Nevermind.
Okay, but you said we would know something, and then said we aren't going to do the research. Do you know of anyone else that has done the research? How do you know we would know something?
We would know if we did the research but we aren't so we don't.
In any case, I believe this conversation has run its course.
Agreed, a good debate/conversation, was very civil except for a few misunderstandings at some points. Rare to find those.
Are you saying one of the genders can own an opinion, or own "enjoying doing something"?
Okay, but you said we would know something, and … morethen said we aren't going to do the research. Do you know of anyone else that has done the research? How do you know we would know something?
In any case, I believe this conversation has run its course.
But when you are white you get the high respectable position in life, my son will be a doctor or lawyer. Follow your dreams son.
-With love from
\
A white dad
Sure son, I always have time for some bonding with my child, follow your dreams and remember you can always share problems at your school with your father!
Comments
was there another transracial other than Rachel? because iirc she was doing it to put "african american origins" in her CV
people affected by transgender matters might "just" be ~1%, but it seems like people affected by transrace matters are WAY less than that. of course this doesn't mean their issues should be ignored, but can you even get any valid data with a sample size that small?
You know, when I was writing my post I knew you probably didn't but I didn't know how to phrase it correctly so I put it as "you".
The thing is, you learn about how race works in middle school. Mutations, DNA/genes, adaptions from the environment. It's chemical but not brain chemical. In fact, race isn't based on the brain. Race and skin color came from where in the world you were, that how we evolved, near the equator people had darker skin and as you move out people had lighter skin.
I wouldn't suggest the lack of justification for one justifies the other (my God I'd be just like the religious cooks screaming "we don't know therefore God did it!). But it does dimiss the argument that in order to accept one, you must accept the other.
As you and I had the conversation in private, though, my stance on transgenders hasn't really changed. I still don't claim to know which is right and which is wrong, but I can say I came to the realization that I know I am ignorant on the subject (as i think everyone is) and I won't hurt people because of my ignorance.
That goes without saying. If it wasn't their reality, then they wouldn't be deluded. Their false reality doesn't hold any justification for enabling the issue.
That's an oversimplification of the issue and it's not really applicable, especially given the fact that changing your sex does not solve the actual issue of gender dysphoria. Molding someone's body to match their brain's delusions doesn't solve the problem, and in many cases it makes it worse, especially so in how that person fits into society. This is pretty easily reflected in their rates of suicide.
You are talking about most of these things being a result of being transgender I would assume.. correct? That only strengthens the point that these people need help, and should not be enabled to have a sex change surgery that comes with so many potential consequences in terms of how they fit into and are viewed by society.
It's a completely apples to oranges comparison, and I'm not interested in comparing the two. It's irrelevant.
no coherent, fixed definition of (human) races actually exist, "chemicals in the brain" might be a factor in some definitions of race
chemicals in your brain will not change your skin color, but they might change your... racial classification according to some racial classifications
a transracial could technically be considered of a differenct race just based on their brain (when races are defined by taking all body parts into account, not just skin color) just like a transgender could be considered of a different gender just based on their brain, even if all other aspects of those transX are of another gender/race
gender has the advantage of actually having precisely defined classes tho, that's what makes it credible over the transracial mess
Its just a matter of the two things being similar in the fact that they both have to do with being deluded. We may never know 100% how these delusions come into place, but I don't believe that should stop us from identifying them as issues, both on the individual and societal level.
"To think race has connections to chemical balances in the brain is ridiculous." is one way you could have phrased it, but thanks for the clarification
The question wouldn't suggest that race is based on the brain, but that the brain is based (at least partly) on the race. You're right about your facts on melanin and the equator, but your astute knowledge of genetics doesn't dismiss the fact that race could affect the brain, and that if a brain were to "feel" like another race then transrace would be the same issue as transgender. As it stands we don't have anyone that can offer any evidence to this, so the argument fails before it even begins.
I hadn't even heard of transracial issues until Rachel Dolezal. Sure there was Michael Jackson and his skin, but he never claimed to be anything other than black.
At least we agree about something.
True, my mistake, I am a little off right now.
That's a strange argument now isn't that, would different chemicals mean certain types of races are more violent or calm, more smart, or have an easier time surviving. If that were true then wouldn't the inferior part of the race fail as evolution would push them out? Does having our overly abundant world today stop parts of our species from dying out? All valuable questions if you're correct.
http://www.ferris.edu/isar/bios/rushton/rushton-last-article.pdf
don't bring out your nazi uniform yet, it's suggested at best
Transgender isn't a choice or genetic, your born with it. Transrace is just a state of mind where you want to be a different race, to me its a choice but whatever floats your boat.
I don't think it would. The differences would be minute. Also, just because one subspecies is better at procreation doesn't mean another will cease to exist, especially if you incorporate many theories within the context of evolution, such as separation of species (or in this case, subspecies), which plays directly into how humans around the world had different areas for the different physical attributes they had, which only really started intermingling recently when considering the length of time the human species has been around. In short, the existance of a different subspecies doesn't mean another subspecies can't exist within or outside of any particular environment.
As for your question "Does having our overly abundant world today stop parts of our species from dying out?" I started typing a long response for why my answer was undeniably yes, through examples of people like those with heart problems and mental disorders such as down syndrome, but then my train of thought led me to the realization that those traits would likely be passed down to other offspring regardless if the people who had those ailments procreated or not through people that carry the recessive genes for those ailments. So I would say no, probably not. I think it has saved many lives and made those ailments more abundant, but it didn't save something that would have gone extinct otherwise.
Fair enough with a lot of your points, however when large over bearing species that have a better advantage then wouldn't the other, over time slowly cease to exist. Obviously, the differences are small, but when you have a large population compared to a small population or a equal population, the one with the advantage no matter how small will do progressively better than the other and the other will slowly cease to exist. The numbers will dwindle until they are virtually endangered.
If your answer to the second question is no then wouldn't that mean the sub species with the disadvantage would virtually become extinct or endangered? The problems would be passed down as the advantages would be passed down and therefore causing the subspecies to either transform into a type of the species with the advantage or die out with the disadvantage. If we connect this with history and science we can see that species can be mixed, there are several mixed people across the world. George on here, for example as he likes to point out his mixed variety, are not transrace as he is both races. He is both white and native American, he has both, he can not be Asian because he doesn't have the heritage of Asians. If there are differences within the brain, it would soon be lost or noticeable with people who are mixed.
Most definitely, solidity in definition wouldn't mean the concept is false, though. With increasing interrace populations it's likely that within the next few (many) generations it won't even make sense to hypothesize this, since it won't be even remotely testable at that point, if it's even possible to test it now (rendering brain attributes to a race would be damn near impossible with the inclusion of the nuture portion of personality development). Unless you could identify notable differences in the composition of a brain from birth between two races you would likely never be able to seperate them.
Above, or below (?)(where am I in this thread) I also noted that depending on how much of a social construct gender is it's also another way that race and gender could be a part of the same issue, seeing as if gender is mostly all a social construct and actually has little to do with natural differences between the two types of brains (male and female) then wanting to change your genitals would be akin to wanting to change your skin color or other physical attributes. Thoughts?
Maybe, but one does have at least some scientific credibility to back its claims.
But I just had it dry cleaned!....
Oh, didn't realize it was a pdf until I tried to open it in another tab.
Lol wait. Transrace is a real thing? I have no fucking words.
Paragraph 1. Yes, eventually that would be the case. It certainly was with examples such as the neanderthals, but who is to say we were not on that path before we gained the awareness that we now posses? But don't forget that this is negating the many possibilities of the subspecies even existing in the first place (such as the example given above, separation of species (subspecies)). If you're proposition were true then we would only ever have one species alive on the planet at any given time because starting from ancestor #1 the entire population of ancestor #1 would have evolved with the exact same genetic differentiation as the population encountered a positive genetic difference. That was probably poorly worded, so I'll try again. Imagine we are the only species alive on the planet (toss away the impossibilities for the moment) and one person encounter a genetic difference that was benefitial, eventually we would (by your theory) all adopt the new difference. Another person encounters another benefitial genetic difference and we all adopt that difference over time. In the end all of a population adopting a genetic difference would leave you with only one, slightly different, population. This doesn't account for the many different species we have across the Earth, and is therefor false. Going back to our original discussion, it is also a possibility that the difference was not "seen by evolution" as either benefitial or detrimental, and simply existed. Eventually the two subspecies broke apart through one of many evolutionary theories (such as separation if species) and existed dependant of one another (which again explains why we have/had different areas for different races).
Paragraph 2. I'll be completely honest, I didn't follow that. Mixing races would change the attributes that "races type of brain" had, which is what makes transrace a much more confusing scenario. Race is not dichotomous, nor is it as specific as gender. But I don't see how this applies to the answer I gave in response to the question you gave me. Unless you can give an example of a part of our species that would have gone extinct if not for our overly abundant world I would have to stick with no, we have not saved any specific group within our group from extinction.
I would quote directly but it's hard to look through that long paragraph to find an exact quote without quoting the entire paragraph so I'll try my best without it:
I didn't mean over time we would all develop the trait...Well, sort of. The other trait would exist, obviously, but the amount of which the trait would exist would be limited. The better trait would be adopted by a large number of the species for survivability and in different climates and locations across the globe. The other trait would still exist within a number of different kinds of subspecies as the subspecies could mate with the better species, the trait then is within both species. Therefore, traits from both species live on within these mixes. Both species would live on, the one with the disadvantage would likely find a new location in which the disadvantage wouldn't be important or they would die out like many species we have seen on earth.
For your last point, I would give it to you that it could have been seen as neutral rather than good or bad to the species. At which that point, it would be interesting...You mention different chemicals in the brain based on race, while they might be small, they could be there...that could be true, to a certain extent but that wouldn't mean that someone could have chemicals of another race if they were to not have ancestors with the previous chemicals, of course then that would not make them transracial, that would make them mixed or mixed by ancestral meanings. The entire transracial thing is ridiculous, not at all like transgender as transgendered people have these chemicals come along after birth, during early childhood and puberty. That's my case on the subject.
I would also like to mention in case that last sentence meant what I thought, areas have different races and not the other way around...or is it the other way around...I can't remember. However, it stands that as our species moved out, we evolved in different areas to fit our living there...our physical features to be precise, nothing about our brain however.
And yet that actually aligns itself with the proposition of transrace being more like transgender, not the other way around, because it's what race the person is perceived as and what race they feel they are. A person could have ancestral genetic code from one race, but look nothing like that race. Hence they want to be received as they feel, not as they appear to others.
You can't possibly know that.
Race isn't something you feel like, you don't feel white, you don't feel black. There are history to each group but you can't feel like you're a race. You can appreciate the differences between racial history and struggle but you can't be a race you aren't.
I can until proven otherwise. Let's be honest, if there were differences, even small amounts, then we would've found something.
And how would one know they feel like another gender? Because they have similar opinions as and enjoy doing the same things as the majority of the other gender? Or because they don't like what they see in the mirror and want to be different? Both apply to "transrace".
You can't be what you aren't. Sounds familiar.
No. Your options are "I don't know," or "I find it unlikely." Saying you know because it hasn't been proven otherwise is not an acceptable conclusion. I might as well say I know FSM is watching over me.
Mmm... how?
Let's think about something here, anyone can do what another race can do. They can, it's about culture, not the actual race.
Sex and gender are different.
My apologizes then, I will correct myself. I find it highly unlikely until I am offered up substantial evidence.
Scientific research. We could gather a group of different groups of races, all kinds including mixed races of each, of all different ages. We could record and analyze the differences in their brains and then compare them to in order to see if there are differences in the chemicals run throughout the brain both during different ages and races.
I don't understand the point being made here.
I completely agree.
Research of this magnitude is far more complex than you or I could even begin to contemplate. For instance your entire experiment parameters would be decimated by the introduction of the nurture portion of personality development.
You used the reason of transgenderism saying "Because they have similar opinions as and enjoy doing the same things as the majority of the other gender?" This however, using race instead of gender, isn't correct. One race can not own an opinion or activity, entirely of course. It's like saying "I believe Mike Brown deserves justice, black lives matter, I must be transracial." An extreme opinion but I hope you understand what I'm talking about now.
Of course, it would require carefulness, however we aren't planning to do this, are we? You asked how we could find out and that is a way, of course it would be too hard for us but it is a way.
Are you saying one of the genders can own an opinion, or own "enjoying doing something"?
Okay, but you said we would know something, and then said we aren't going to do the research. Do you know of anyone else that has done the research? How do you know we would know something?
In any case, I believe this conversation has run its course.
Transrace is stupid.
No, that was from your post. Nevermind.
We would know if we did the research but we aren't so we don't.
Agreed, a good debate/conversation, was very civil except for a few misunderstandings at some points. Rare to find those.
Gonna use this thread to celebrate the latest fusion in SU
STAY STRONG SARDONYX <3333333
wait so i can just snap my fingers and be a nigga?
Sign me up as a black person then, at least I wont be criticized for saying the n word
Sardonyx hot as fuck
Thanks for waiting until after the adult conversation had ended to chime in.
But when you are white you get the high respectable position in life, my son will be a doctor or lawyer. Follow your dreams son.
-With love from
\
A white dad
Yeh, no problem. Had to check in before my bed time.
DAD! I dont want to be no fuckking doctor! I want to be a Rapper and fuck bitches and smoke weed, make it happen now!!!
Well as Grandpapa always used to say, a nickel a day. Keeps those darn knee grows away! Follow your dreams son
Alright thanks dad!!! Want to hear some rap bars I made? I'm finally on my way to stardom
Sure son, I always have time for some bonding with my child, follow your dreams and remember you can always share problems at your school with your father!