Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If someone self-identifies as a female with DNA XY or self-identifies as male with DNA XX they can now use any locker room, dressing room, or restroom facility based on gender self-identity alone. Appearance is irrelevant. Bearded, flannel shirt wearing, low voiced males must be admitted to women's dressing rooms just by saying s/he is a self-identified female. Pre-op high school males, not even on hormones, can complete in many high school girl's competition sports events in this country.
Given the current political climate that biology does not determine gender, should anyone be able to self-identify as a minority and receive the benefits of affirmative admission programs, scholarships, etc?
How would self-identifying as a minority by anyone who chooses to self-identify as such to get the benefits of being a minority impact minority benefited programs?
Last edited by texan2yankee; 06-30-2016 at 08:12 AM..
I was going to first write how ridiculous this question sounds. But then I realized in a few years, this may very be an issue brought up, perhaps by Hillary?
I will up the ante.
If biology no longer determines gender, why should biology determine species?
Think more liberally you racist bigots!
I was going to first write how ridiculous this question sounds. But then I realized in a few years, this may very be an issue brought up, perhaps by Hillary?
The question isn't ridiculous at all. Race is entirely a social construct, it has no biological basis.
Just about everyone agrees that a child with two black (or white, or Asian, etc) parents is a black child.
What about just one black parent? Then it's hazier. Most will go off of what that child "looks like" to them and there's a fairly broad spectrum.
How about one black grandparent on each side, but two white parents? What about Hispanics in general? That's not a race at all (it's an ethnicity- of which any race may be hispanic) but many people treat it like it is. You see how easily this breaks down. Biology doesn't determine race at all, society does and its largely arbitrary.
Quote:
If biology no longer determines gender, why should biology determine species?
Think more liberally you racist bigots!
not sure if this one is serious or not- species are generally considered distinct when they are not able to produce viable offspring with each other. THAT at least is clearly determined by biology.
The question isn't ridiculous at all. Race is entirely a social construct, it has no biological basis.
Just about everyone agrees that a child with two black (or white, or Asian, etc) parents is a black child.
What about just one black parent? Then it's hazier. Most will go off of what that child "looks like" to them and there's a fairly broad spectrum.
How about one black grandparent on each side, but two white parents? What about Hispanics in general? That's not a race at all (it's an ethnicity- of which any race may be hispanic) but many people treat it like it is. You see how easily this breaks down. Biology doesn't determine race at all, society does and its largely arbitrary.
not sure if this one is serious or not- species are generally considered distinct when they are not able to produce viable offspring with each other. THAT at least is clearly determined by biology.
Let's start by using your example of race. You are correct that race is a fuzzy thing to try and define. It's easier now with genetic testing that goes back thousands of years, but most people are at least somewhat of a mix. Let's say that 30% of someone's genetic background is of African origin. In Western society, it would be normal for that person to identify as black. For most of the US's history, they probably would have been forced to identify as black.
Let's look at species identification. Humans and Chimps share 97% genetically similar. Humans and cats are 90% genetically similar. If we as a society allow people who are 70% not-African to identify as African or someone who is 100% not female to identify as female, is it that much of a stretch to see Leftists demanding that someone be allowed to identify as a cat if they are 90% genetically similar to that species?
I don't think its a stretch at all. That is how lost our society is now.
A chihuahua can call itself a Saint Bernard, but it doesn't change reality.
But a boy can call himself a girl and that isn't changing reality...?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
