I Identify as Black

Deleted

New member
Local time
Today, 18:37
Joined
Dec 1, 2025
Messages
131
I understand that if someone feels they are a woman, they can identify as a woman.

Furthermore, if another person dismisses that identity or ridicules it, society often views that as unacceptable—sometimes even as a serious offense. People who make such statements can face social consequences, losing respect, credibility, or even their positions.

This raises a question: why doesn’t the same principle apply to race? If gender identity is recognized, why can’t someone also identify as belonging to a different race? The only reason seems to be that the idea itself provokes strong reactions and upsets many people.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The worst part of that discussion is that race is a non-entity as currently (mis-)used in common society. Race (meaning white, black, Hispanic, oriental, polynesian, etc.) is being used when in fact that term doesn't apply. Humans are ALL the same race. The ETHNICITY of a person might include white, black, or other heritage, but there is only one race in question, and it is called HUMAN. For a musical take on this subject, here is a link to a group you might not have heard of before today.


To all who might be offended, I apologize in advance, but I have to use a "bad" word to make a point. If race were really significant in the black/white/other discussions, there would be no such designation as octaroon (a common derogatory term) for a person who is 1/8th black. In fact this used to be a legal term during the pre-Civil Rights Act era i.e. the USA era ending in the early-1960s. If the members of these different ethnicities were in fact significantly different then their 3nd generation would be sterile and the "octaroon" designation could not exist. But there is no problem with inter-ethnic fertility that has ever been found, other than possibly fecundity.

Mundane case in point: The mule is the offspring of a male donkey and a female horse. Donkeys and horses are not of the same "race" - so their offspring (2nd generation) can exist - but the 3rd generation cannot because their chromosomes don't match up. (There are exceptions but they are extremely rare - no more than 60 cases reported by rancher/breeders since the year 1527.)

Another case in point: Ligers (Lion/tiger mix) - the males are sterile, though the females are not.

Other such hybrids exist but in all cases, fertility is an issue - either totally or for one of the two genders.
 
The difference is that males and females are identified by their X and Y chromosomes.
A male might emotionally identify as a female but its biology remains male.
Identification by race is an artificial construct. For example we can sort beads according to colour but they still remain beads.
The genes we inherit are mostly identical to other humans however our physical apperance is is determined by less than 1% of our genes which makes each of us unique.
 
I won't repeat the argument here, @IanO , but in the "How Many Genders..." thread, I present some discussion (with a way for you to verify that I am not "blowing smoke") regarding a biological/physical explanation for gender dysphoria; i.e. saying that someone "identifies" with other than as assigned at birth is not always the starting point. Sometimes there is a physical reason for it.
 
I understand that if I feel like I am a woman, then I can identify as a woman.

Furthermore, if anyone tells me that I am a nutcase and there's no way that I can identify as a woman, then they are in the wrong, they are committing a henious crime against me.
Uncle, should I be referring to you as Aunty from now on? :D
 
Self identifying ones ethnicity is acceptable apparently. Some whites are identifying as black and getting melatonin treatment to match their inner identity. Search Nuka Zeus as an example.
 
@The_Doc_Man I rarely comment here on non-Access topics, but you posted the Pentatonix! I could go on for pages about how talented they are (too bad Avi left them a few years ago) but you HAD to post one of my favourite covers of theirs. Their cover of John Lennon's "Imagine" makes me tear up watching it and it really says all that needs to be said about "race".
 
@The_Doc_Man I rarely comment here on non-Access topics, but you posted the Pentatonix! I could go on for pages about how talented they are (too bad Avi left them a few years ago) but you HAD to post one of my favourite covers of theirs. Their cover of John Lennon's "Imagine" makes me tear up watching it and it really says all that needs to be said about "race".

Agreed. They are fantastic. Matt is a worthy replacement for Avi (since Avi helped the group select his replacement.) 'nuff said.
 
@Uncle Gizmo I finally got around to reading this thread. I can see your point. Nowadays there are a lot of advantages to identifying as a minority, especially as American blacks in particular. It didn't used to be this way. Interesting points raised too by several about the "partial" heritage. When it comes to Native Americans, our society has no problem at all with slicing and dicing the specifics of their ancestry; it determines whether or not they can officially register with tribes - I remember from living in Oklahoma. But with people who have both white & black ancestry, nowadays it is much more advantageous to come out as "black", period. Even if they are obviously mostly white - Megan Markle, Kamala Harris, etc.

Put another way: If something as scientifically indisputable as true gender--i.e., if you want the most proper and absolute Science on the question, drop your pants and believe your eyes--can be categorized as being totally fluid (and in fact, not only fluid - but you can claim the OPPOSITE of what you actually are, and then go further and claim THAT'S immutable!)........Then I see no reason why we might not start considering the mirror but a potential ally or phobic, and make up our own minds about which race we are.

Let me know which way you decide to go on this one, but you might want to see if reparations go through first. ;)
 
"Photo finish of 100 metre race as woman beats man for first time. Sore loser blames his shackles."
 
Richard, with regard to men identifying as women, and your idea about impeding their running ability by having them wear high heels, this thought has offered me a solution to this issue.

In some sports, possibly gliding or it might be go-karting, I understand sand is added as a ballast weight to the vehicle to even out the drivers/pilots weight advantage.

This idea could be applied to the competitors with a male physiology. They could be required to wear ballast weight in the form of ankle/arm bands, filled with sand.
Forced equality. Read Harrison Begeron by Kurt Vonnegut, published 1961. This story was way ahead of its time given today's trends. Once again Science Fiction authors perceive the future. Very prescient. It's one of those stories that I read many years ago and had a good snicker at the time. Now it's in your face real. A nightmare.

THE YEAR WAS 2081, and everybody was finally equal. They weren’t only equal before God and the law.
They were equal every which way. Nobody was smarter than anybody else. Nobody was better looking
than anybody else. Nobody was stronger or quicker than anybody else. All this equality was due to the
211th, 212th, and 213th Amendments to the Constitution, and to the unceasing vigilance of agents of the
United States Handicapper General.
 
Actually, in horse-racing there is such a thing as adding weight to a saddle as a way to level the field. Add a sand-bag here or there and suddenly you have equality.
 
Put another way: If something as scientifically indisputable as true gender--i.e., if you want the most proper and absolute Science on the question, drop your pants and believe your eyes--can be categorized as being totally fluid (and in fact, not only fluid - but you can claim the OPPOSITE of what you actually are, and then go further and claim THAT'S immutable!)........Then I see no reason why we might not start considering the mirror but a potential ally or phobic, and make up our own minds about which race we are.

@Isaac - I am not picking on you so much as just piggy-backing your post. I have to step in here only because you are using words inappropriately. Take a second to look through this thread on gender (and other) identity issues, focusing on the gender issues:


There is ample evidence in medical literature from as far back as the 1990s that the human brain has a "structural gender." Here are a couple of references that might help. You can get a LOT of these references by doing a search of "Homosexual + brain scan" - from many years and with many types of scans.



https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-84496-z (might need to play with cookie settings on this one)




The transsexuals and homosexuals do not treat gender as FLUID. They don't bounce back and forth between identifications. What usually happens for them is more along the lines of recognition / realization. Every gay person I have ever known has clearly known from puberty that they were attracted to what the world saw as a "wrong" relationship. I personally have doubts about prepubescent kids but once the hormones start kicking in, they know. It is less like a fluid thing and more like "a light comes on" and they realize their personal truth.

The problem is simple: Gender identification at birth is made based on the wrong indicator sometimes. I.e. to whatever extent of the population is gay, that same percentage is very likely to have been misidentified at birth. Looking at genitalia fails twice - once with gays and once with folks who are hermaphroditic or "intersex." (Not claiming that hermaphrodites and intersexes are the same - but they are the other group that gets misidentified by initial exams.)

There is no fluidity as such. To gays, it was never a choice to be gay or be straight. It was always a chance to recognize an inner reality. To them, the goal is to recognized and acknowledge what their brains tell them. The brain is the most powerful sex organ. If it says go, we go. If it says no, we do nothing. Arousal requires cooperation of the brain and therefore, if the brain and body disagree about what to chase, you have gender dysphoria. You have homosexuality.

There are religious repercussions of this situation, because these brain structures are formed in utero, not after-the-fact. Gay people are born that way (with Lady Gaga singing in the background) and if you are religious, you believe that you are born as God made you. Welcome to the world of religious contradictions. Gays were born that way and religious hatred expressed to gays is just another sign of ignorance on the part of the religious hard-liners.
 
There is no fluidity as such. To gays, it was never a choice to be gay or be straight. It was always a chance to recognize an inner reality.
I agree with some of what you have said - maybe quite a good %, even - but what I have quoted is where these arguments start to fail, or at least fail to explain this adequately. For a few decades the gay rights people had most of society fairly well convinced that it was 'from birth'. Miley Cyrus (you can take 'pansexual' to start with) was the single biggest social influencer tearing that down at first, and then it came in droves and floods - because nowadays, we do, in fact, have all sorts of gender fluid, non gender, non binary and terms being bandied about that constitute everything *BUT* a "I've been this way from birth" scenario. Miley's testimony, which clearly demonstrated sexual choices that had nothing to do with original, fixed biology - did more to tear down the "our condition starts at, and is fixed from, birth" claim than just about anything else had before that.

In other words, if the past 5-10 years had never happened, the "I've been this way since birth and cannot nor never had the opportunity to be any different" argument would have been pretty believable, since many people appeared to be living it out right in front of us. Then came the 50 other genders as well as the gender fluid, gender agnostic, gender different on different days and so much additional nonsense I feel it kind of called into question the whole thing.

Having said all that, I do believe and accept that some people are predisposed, probably either from birth or from a fairly young age - for reasons that I don't necessarily believe are always all biological, but also learned - to be homosexual.

So if the main gist of what you're arguing is that homosexuality isn't largely a conscious, adult choice, we could probably find common ground across that statement. But if you won't acknowledge the way that the last decade (or less) of the emergence of 1000 other versions of sexual deviations--many of which don't even CLAIM to be grounded in a "I was born that way" scenario at all, and in fact, do the exact opposite--Present a bit of a contradictory viewpoint--then our viewpoints diverge on that.

Beyond that, I could go into a long bit about what I have learned really happened with psychiatrists circa 1970's and how they were pressured to essentially give society what it wanted, rather than their true opinion about it being a mental disorder, and whether I think there were (magically) fewer gays when it was taboo, and more when it wasn't taboo, and what I think about what that obviously means as to pure biology vs. learned/permitted behavior......... but I don't want to seriously dig into all that since I know we disagree on that probably and don't wish to argue just to argue, although I do enjoy hearing other points of view.
 
Last edited:
There is no fluidity as such
On a positive note, I do respect you for sticking to your guns on this issue.

You've essentially chosen to defend the concept of biological homosexuality, and you seem to have enough common sense to realize it comes at the expense of having to completely deny the plethora of new sexual conditions we have now been told must be respected and acknowledged and encouraged just over the last 5-10 years, because all of it can't be true at the same time..

That tells me that at least you understand the obvious contradiction of it all, have chosen one over the other, and are sticking to it, due to actual homework and research you've done - and I respect that.

My bigger problem is with people who pretend not to even notice the ridiculous contradiction present in the totality of the picture.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom