This is a well-studied topic, and is what’s referred to as essentialism. The fundamental difference is intergenerational discrimination.
Your understanding of this topic would be helped by reading:
Conversation
Replying to
This article seemed extremely weak to me. Women have also experienced many of the things this article claims are unique to black people. Would transgenderism be less acceptable in a more obviously oppressive society, such as saudi arabia?
4
27
Replying to
Not sure if you got to this part, but I feel like this pretty well addresses your concern. It seems like you're misinterpreting the "intergenerationality" effect here, and only understanding it to mean "oppression".
1
4
Replying to
Still weak even given this; it's unclear why intergenerationality is a good reason for disallowing transracial identities as opposed to other things. If this thing suddenly and magically applied to women, would you consider transgender identities to no longer be valid?
2
12
Replying to
Ok, this argument is also addressed...
And sorry, I've lost the thread. What is "this thing" referring to?
2
Replying to
That doesn't seem to refute my point. There's a lot of things about gender that are also not changed by identifying with that gender; terfs make similar sounding arguments except claim that their criteria is the more importantly dividing one
1
4
Replying to
your point: intergenerationality is not a good reason to disallow transracialism but accept transgenders.
my point: the intergenerational effects of being black are systemic and pervasive in a way that gender is not, and this is a sufficient point to make the two ideas different.
1
1
Replying to
Would you accept interracial identifications in a future where things are more equal, or in cultures today that don't have any generational racial discrepancies with wealth
1
2
Replying to
Hell yes! Once we are in a word where disparate outcomes are not linked to race, then it would be acceptable to use that (or any other) particular social construct in any way that you best identify. But that is not the world today, and will not be the world tomorrow either.
1
1
As an example: say you were born in the south, but moved to the midwest. After you live there for a while, it's a normal and accepted thing to identify as "midwestern", even if that's not where you were originally from. That's an example of a malleable social construct.
1
1
Replying to
The condition seems arbitrary to me, as in I could easily imagine a terf giving me the same exact argument but with the pain of childbirth and surrounding obligations instead of heritable wealth, but I do agree that once race gets less meaningful, we'll have transracialism.
Replying to
In a way, we already do. Think about race in the context of European immigration back in the 1800's and 1900's - Irish, Italian, Polish, etc. It wouldn't make sense for an Irish to identify as Italian, as they lacked the cultural identifiers. But now, both Irish and Italian...
1
Replying to
I don't find "TERF's could twist this logic and use it for bad purposes!" particularly relevant. Literally any group can twist logic.
Like your followers, twisting your words here and discarding the validity of trans identity because of its being equated with transracialism.
1