Read on Twitter
So Dianna E. Anderson (whoever that is), is going to whitesplain to other "ignorant whites" (nevermind that others might have this question "Why can't you be transracial if you can be transgender?"
It's not an OBVIOUS matter.
Let's see how she does. https://twitter.com/diannaeanderson/status/1301582736931528704
It's not an OBVIOUS matter.
Let's see how she does. https://twitter.com/diannaeanderson/status/1301582736931528704
First, if you want some orientation, you can watch @BenjaminABoyce's video on this thread:
You can also have a look at philosopher Rebecca Tuvel's infamous "In Defense of Transracialism."
https://sites.middlebury.edu/sexandsociety/files/2019/09/Tuvel-2017-Hypatia.pdf (Excerpt below).
You can also have a look at philosopher Rebecca Tuvel's infamous "In Defense of Transracialism."
https://sites.middlebury.edu/sexandsociety/files/2019/09/Tuvel-2017-Hypatia.pdf (Excerpt below).
Tuvel's case is straightforward: almost all arguments that justify transgenderism seem to also justify transracialism, so, since we accept transgenderism, we should accept transracialism.
That we do not is irrational, and must be a prejudice.
Let's see if Dianna can sort it.
That we do not is irrational, and must be a prejudice.
Let's see if Dianna can sort it.
Side note: Tuvel got VICIOUSLY attacked for this article. The whole incident was a disgrace to the field of philosophy.
Here are a couple articles about it, and an excerpt from a blog post by Nora Berenstain, one of the most noxious of the witch-hunt leaders.
Here are a couple articles about it, and an excerpt from a blog post by Nora Berenstain, one of the most noxious of the witch-hunt leaders.
"This is What a Modern-Day Witch Hunt Looks Like"
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/05/transracialism-article-controversy.html
"In Defense of Rebecca Tuvel" https://medium.com/@robimbeault/in-defense-of-rebecca-tuvel-a-just-society-b0e778d9ee59
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/05/transracialism-article-controversy.html
"In Defense of Rebecca Tuvel" https://medium.com/@robimbeault/in-defense-of-rebecca-tuvel-a-just-society-b0e778d9ee59
Let's get back to Dianna. It has to do with the different ways our bodies are "constructed" and our brains "map" onto those bodies. https://twitter.com/diannaeanderson/status/1301582929944952832
So here we see Dianna's strategy. She probably THINKS she is being a good progressive trans ally here, but she is in fact a TRANSMEDICALIST or TRUSCUM (like e.g. @MsBlaireWhite) who holds that transgenderism is rooted in a medical condition. https://twitter.com/diannaeanderson/status/1301583853610393600
This is a Woke heresy, and Dianna is a TRUSCUM, which is a kind of TERF, and therefore a TRANSMISOGYNIST.
Her use of "tend to" gave a bit of wiggle room, but that gets dropped immediately.
Her use of "tend to" gave a bit of wiggle room, but that gets dropped immediately.
Here is the TRUSCUM heresy clearly stated: our gender identity has at least SOME ROOT IN REALITY, that is NATURE, that is OUR GENITALS/NATURAL SEX and a condition of GENDER DYSPHORIA.
https://twitter.com/diannaeanderson/status/1301584107848130560
Dianna is not defending trans people. She is a transphobic TRUSCUM.
https://twitter.com/diannaeanderson/status/1301584107848130560
Dianna is not defending trans people. She is a transphobic TRUSCUM.
So besides the TRUSCUM case that trans involves GD or GID, Dianna adds that transracialists do not experience DYSPHORIA in the same way transgenders do. Again, this necessarily requires that trans folks experience dysphoria (TRUSCUMISM)âbut also, she doesn't KNOW THIS.
Rachel Dolezal has made claim of this sort. Just because the woman who provoked this was pretend to be a different race doesn't mean that EVERYONE is pretending. After all, there are people who change sex without being transâit is the only way to be gay and not killed in Iran.
Gay men pretend to be women and adopt women's gender identities is Iran in order to be able to have male partners. Does this mean either that there are no real trans persons in Iran or that all trans persons are "gays pretending to be the opposite sex"?
No.
No.
The plural of anecdote is not "data." That some people have passed themselves off as another race or sex for OTHER motives than a deeply felt sense of BEING that race or sex does not mean there aren't case where people DO have such a sense.
In other words, if the "bad" motives of some transracial persons discredits transracialism as such, then the "bad" motives of some transgenders discredits transgenderism as such.
And of course Dianna, truscum though she may be, doesn't WANT to discredit BOTH. Just the one.
And of course Dianna, truscum though she may be, doesn't WANT to discredit BOTH. Just the one.
So far, it's not going well. Let's move on.
https://twitter.com/diannaeanderson/status/1301585435160797185
She can't back up the "very often" here.
I comment: "Very often, a person, a straight white male for example, chooses to be perceived as a trans woman because it is advantageous for them to do so."
https://twitter.com/diannaeanderson/status/1301585435160797185
She can't back up the "very often" here.
I comment: "Very often, a person, a straight white male for example, chooses to be perceived as a trans woman because it is advantageous for them to do so."
A straight white man who becomes at trans woman INSTANTLY teleports form the very BOTTOM of the "progressive stack" to the VERY TOP.
That's no small incentive for low status men, since men are naturally driven to SEEK STATUS.
That's no small incentive for low status men, since men are naturally driven to SEEK STATUS.
Only in our time could the natural male desire to achieve high status be accomplished by becoming a woman, but here we are. 
We all know we live in
.
We all know we live in
.
Dianna again. Anecdotes again, two and one suspect. Means nothing to the phenomenon of transracialism. https://twitter.com/diannaeanderson/status/1301586190609473537
The question ISN'T whether it was "their place" but that they did it for motives that Dianna disapproves of. Since she's a TRUSCUM, she would only approve (presumably) of a medical diagnosis of "racial dysphoria" as motive. Could there not be such a thing? https://twitter.com/diannaeanderson/status/1301586396986003457
Dianna is WEASELING again, trying to backpedal after having gone full TRUSCUM. Now trans people "frequently" have dysphoric experiences. Oh, so NOW they ARE NOT NECESSARY TO BE "REAL" TRANS?
Then they aren't NECESSARY to be transracial either. https://twitter.com/diannaeanderson/status/1301586902030508032
Then they aren't NECESSARY to be transracial either. https://twitter.com/diannaeanderson/status/1301586902030508032
Note also that Dianna once again generalizes from TWO case that "these women who 'became black' did so simply because they felt it advantageous to do so."
1 So? That doesn't mean it's the case for ALL transracial folks, and
2 Dolezal at least CLAIMS true racial dysphoria.
1 So? That doesn't mean it's the case for ALL transracial folks, and
2 Dolezal at least CLAIMS true racial dysphoria.
Krug admits guilt in the matter, but SHE TOO claims a MENTAL CONDITION drove her to do what she did.
If BOTH Krug and Dolezal CLAIM a MENTAL CONDITION led them to identify as blackâisn't that RACIAL DYSPHORIA? Dolezal says it is. Who is Dianna to question HER lived experience?
If BOTH Krug and Dolezal CLAIM a MENTAL CONDITION led them to identify as blackâisn't that RACIAL DYSPHORIA? Dolezal says it is. Who is Dianna to question HER lived experience?
Yes, Krug (now) feels she was deceiving people. Again, so what? This is one person. A gay man who pretends to be trans in Iran, since trans is accepted but gays are killed is also PRETENDING to be TRANS.
So all trans people are pretending? NON SEQUITUR. https://twitter.com/diannaeanderson/status/1301587548385341440
So all trans people are pretending? NON SEQUITUR. https://twitter.com/diannaeanderson/status/1301587548385341440
This conclusion is reached by TRUSCUMISM + the generalization of ALL transracial folks from two cases, one of which is not even honestly represented. https://twitter.com/diannaeanderson/status/1301587756687044609
And "people will adjust their skin color and other bodily racial markers to accommodate their experienced race."
Tuvel's "if it works for one, it works for the other" applies. https://twitter.com/diannaeanderson/status/1301607014691348480
Tuvel's "if it works for one, it works for the other" applies. https://twitter.com/diannaeanderson/status/1301607014691348480
It seems to be that Tuvel's Principle (let's call it) that "if it goes for transgenderism, it goes for transracialism" will necessarily hold UNLESS one goes FULL TRUSCUM and maintains that transgenderism is a medical condition rooted in gender dysphoria and transracialism is not.
And Dianna tried to make her case by invoking TRUSCUMISM and then having used it to make her case, TRIED TO BACK OUT OF IT.
But then her case doesn't WORK.
You if you are going to appear to a condition of dysphoria as THE basis for transgenderism, then you're TRUSCUM.
But then her case doesn't WORK.
You if you are going to appear to a condition of dysphoria as THE basis for transgenderism, then you're TRUSCUM.
If you aren't TRUSCUM, then you have to admit that a medical condition of gender dysphoria isn't NECESSARY for being trans, and if that is so, then racial dysphoria isn't NECESSARY for being transracial either.
"There's still a lot of work needed to be done to make this clearer."
In other words, she knows she failed in her object. She has done NOTHING to say why transgenderism is okay and transracialism is not. https://twitter.com/diannaeanderson/status/1301609200007565312
In other words, she knows she failed in her object. She has done NOTHING to say why transgenderism is okay and transracialism is not. https://twitter.com/diannaeanderson/status/1301609200007565312
ALL she managed to say is that SOME cases of transracialism are not okay because they are fundamentally rooted in PRETENDING TO BE WHAT YOU ARE NOT.
But of course that would apply to at least some seeming cases of TRANSGENDERISM.
But of course that would apply to at least some seeming cases of TRANSGENDERISM.
And it is not even clear that "pretending to be what you are not" isn't sometimes justified. I again bring up the case of gay men in Iran who PRETEND to be trans, because trans is accepted in Iran and gays are killed. Is their "pretense" UNJUSTIFIED?
I conclude that Dianna E. Anderson's attempt to justify transgenderism while rejecting transracialism is a complete failure.
She attempts the only method that could work, TRUSCUMISM, but then distances herself from, undermining her only real argument.
She attempts the only method that could work, TRUSCUMISM, but then distances herself from, undermining her only real argument.
Let us return to Rebecca Tuvel, who is a young philosopher, but a professionally trained one, and so provides a substantially higher quality of argumentation.
This seems quite reasonable.
Is the oddity of transracial claims any more odd than transgender claims in the past?
This seems quite reasonable.
Is the oddity of transracial claims any more odd than transgender claims in the past?
Note in passing and on passing: many light skinned blacks in American history who could pass as white, DID SO.
Would Anderson regard these as "bad motives"? They were "pretending to be something they were not" because it was "advantageous". Was that "not their place"?
Would Anderson regard these as "bad motives"? They were "pretending to be something they were not" because it was "advantageous". Was that "not their place"?
Tuvel puts it STARKLY: how can one ACCEPT transgenderism and DENY transracialism?
Naturally, her first suggestion is the kind of TRANSMEDICALISM Anderson endorses and then unendorses once it has done its job.
Naturally, her first suggestion is the kind of TRANSMEDICALISM Anderson endorses and then unendorses once it has done its job.
As Tuvel notes, it would be "problematic" (don't you love progressive newspeak?) to chain transgenderism to biology. (Although trans folks are not likely to want to UNCHAIN it so long as extensive body modification can be at least partially covered by medical insurance).
Tuvel correctly notes that "even if there is some biological basis for 'being a woman' that would not entail that one's SENSE OF BEING A WOMAN is biologically rooted."
This could even open the door for, horrors!, saying that sex is biological and "feeling" is pathological.
This could even open the door for, horrors!, saying that sex is biological and "feeling" is pathological.
If you cannot be (genotypically and phenotypcially) white and yet FEEL or IDENTIFY as black, how can you be (genotypically and phenotypically) male and yet FEEL or IDENTIFY as female?
This is of course, Tuvel's question, and the question Anderson totally failed to answer.
This is of course, Tuvel's question, and the question Anderson totally failed to answer.
Indeed, as Tuvel notes, "race" is a MUCH STRONGER candidate for being a social construction than is sex. Anyone who is not an idiot understands that sex is natural; the usual strategy is to claim "gender" is something different.
But "race" is ALWAYS an arbitrary grouping.
But "race" is ALWAYS an arbitrary grouping.
It is literally impossible to set forth the necessary and sufficient biological conditions of being "white" or "black" or "Asian" or however many races you want to claim there are. There is as much genetic diversity WITHIN "races" as between "races."
Sex appears to be a true binary, which is Black or White, with some rare genetic disorders that add some white to the Black basis (females who are masculinized) or some black to the White basis (males who are feminized).
Black is female and White male because Yin-Yang says so.
Black is female and White male because Yin-Yang says so.
But human genetic space seems (to me) a lot like color spaceâred is not green is not blue, but no one can really draw any non-arbitrary borders within color space and say "THIS is true red."
The whole thing is a continuum on many axes.
The whole thing is a continuum on many axes.
Let me use at least one tweet in this thread to note HOW OFTEN we mixed race people are TOTALLY LEFT OUT of conversations about race. It's like we DON'T FUCKING EXIST, because we don't fit in the neat little categories.
And I thought 'progressives' DECONSTRUCTED CATEGORIES.
And I thought 'progressives' DECONSTRUCTED CATEGORIES.
Only the ones they don't like, it seems.
Back to Tuvel: if there JUST IS no "fact of the matter" of what race a person is, transracialism is POSSIBLE.
It would be a matter of society acceptance. This WOULD BE a case of "something assigned, at birth or later."
And assignments can be reassigned.
It would be a matter of society acceptance. This WOULD BE a case of "something assigned, at birth or later."
And assignments can be reassigned.
We are ALREADY partially prepared to do this. I have filled out innumerable forms that ask my race, and they often rather explicitly ask how you IDENTIFY.
Why would they do that, rather than what you ARE?
Why would they do that, rather than what you ARE?
"Add the text, Eve."
Yes, I forgot.
Yes, I forgot.
