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.
The topic isn't about race or gender. Please don't get side-tracked on race or gender. The topic is self-identity.
A pink, blonde woman claims to be a Native American and is hired by a university as a woman "of color" on her self-identity alone. She becomes a Harvard professor by claiming to be what she was not and thereby depriving a real minority of a position they might have gotten.
Is it politically and socially acceptable for a pink, blonde male who self-identifies as black (or Native American, or whatever) to get minority scholarships, admission to a university, or claim other affirmative action benefits based on that self-identity alone? If it is, what will that do to affirmative action, minority benefited programs, etc?
Last edited by texan2yankee; 06-30-2016 at 03:14 PM..
Here's one - why should biology/time determine AGE. If a 40 yr old feels/acts/identifies as 14 years old - shouldn't he be able to date/hook up with girls under 18?
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?
Who said that gender is not biological? Aren't processes in the brain also biological?
Determining what genes get expressed are not 100% foolproof. So there can be a mismatch between the external and the internal.
With race, it's irrelevant, because race is completely a social construct that while it has a real basis in how we operate, only has a biological purpose to absorb intense sunlight for those living near the equator, and aid in Vitamin D production for those living far the equator.
The question isn't ridiculous at all. Race is entirely a social construct, it has no biological basis.
All those imagined sun burns people have. Probably better than black because at least the punishment is more immediate and linked to ignoring ones race to their peril. Blacks on the other hand my not know about the low vitamin D levels in northern latitudes.
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.
Race mixing say absolutely nothing about the original adaptations that led to different phenotypes.
Quote:
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.
Oh look, another silly comment defeated by its own premise. It sure seems like race matter to you since you are very specific about picking the parents. Because I can make diffrent shades of green means there is no blue and yellow. If I mix a shade of 2 parts blue and two parts yellow with 2 parts yellow and end up with green means something to you? If it were a complete construct then the parents could be both black and the offspring could be considered white. However you have specifically constructed the same mixed race result. What you are saying is riotous and mendacious nonsense with essential purity.
I will suggest one thing. There should be no legal race based constructs. Too bad that horse left the barn long ago....or was that a Shetland pony?
Quote:
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.
Uh what? No one ever said a toy breed of dog was a different species, and could not mate with a doberman. However only a complete buffoon would think a guard dog is a social construct.
A person is a felon or not a felon. There is no self-identity issue if one is convicted of a crime.
And unless you're a Hermaphrodite, you either are a man or a woman.
If self identity is all in your head, why should a conviction of a crime determine ones identity any more than genitalia?
In fact, one could argue it's even less important because the criminal can change and be rehabilitated to "feel" like a law abiding citizen.
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.
