Althouse: "Good question, overheard at brunch: why is it considered OK to emulate someone else's gender but not OK to emulate someone else's race or ethnicity?"

June 12, 2015

"Good question, overheard at brunch: why is it considered OK to emulate someone else's gender but not OK to emulate someone else's race or ethnicity?"

This is a question that my son John put up on Facebook last February, that's relevant to the big internet story of the day — that poor lady, Rachel Dolezal, who's suddenly way overfamous. (Already blogged 2 posts down.)

The discussion there is interesting, though it's not about the full-scale life transition that you see with transgender people or with what Dolezal seems to have done. It's about temporary performances, like drag shows and blackface routines.

Is our internalized rejection of blackface helpful in critiquing what Dolezal seeems to have done? Maybe not. I don't see any basis for accusing her of mocking or disparaging black people or trying to leverage any negative feelings other people have toward black people. And she might be genuinely identifying herself with black people, perhaps to the point of delusion, but perhaps in some lucid and enlightened way that we don't yet fully understand.

227 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 227 of 227

Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: What I don't get is why you have such a hate on. You try to come across as so smug and intelligent and superior to those Others, but you spend most your time here slinging mud a people you deem Others. And never really contribute anything of value.

I'm sure there's a lot you don't get. Like the value of facts, for one thing. Who the fuck cares about how things "come across" when a fact's at stake? A fact is a fucking fact, you dildo. Some of us grew up and don't need things presented in Sesame Street format to actually learn from them. This is the biggest problem in America - low information retards complaining that the facts haven't been respectful to their ignorance. Facts, by definition, are neutral. It's your need to feel jerked off by them that's disrespectful.

Your ignorance is NOT better than another's knowledge, and that's just the way it goes, jack-off!

Maybe you can show us on the doll where the evil conservative touched you?

You still carry the shame of it, don't you?

Did you grow up Catholic, or something? No need to sexualize your fear of knowledge and anger at people who actually aren't too lazy to acquire it.; 6/13/15, 11:28 AM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: that's absurd

"Received wisdom that modern humans emerged in Africa then dispersed across the rest of the globe is being challenged by skulls found in Dmanisi, a site in Georgia to the south of Russia."

There's some typically Republican wishful thinking, for you. An article from six years ago that "challenged" something, is taken as the new Gospel by the wishful thinker who prefers it to be the new truth.

Obviously the science wasn't respectful to his ignorance. Things get "challenged" all the time. The preponderance of all the accumulated facts and reasoning is what matters, but as a Republican he's too mentally lazy to add that all up.; 6/13/15, 11:32 AM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: You should be skeptical about popular expositions. They are politicized, and aside from that, popular science journalism is in a woeful state. Add to that the fact that new evidence, requiring revision, is coming up all the time, and confusion is bound to result.

Quick and dirty summary: The genus Homo arose in Africa. No dispute about that, to the best of my knowledge. So lower-case "out of Africa" is true. The upper-case "Out of Africa" thesis came out of new genetic research in the '90s and had its heyday then. It seemed to indicate a common descent of all modern humans from a quite recent migration from Africa. In addition, there was then little or no evidence of inbreeding of sapiens with other species of Homo in Eurasia. Note also that in the '90s it was still received wisdom among a lot of people that nothing of evolutionary import could happen in so brief a period as 50-150,000 years.

Since then, of course, upper-case "Out of Africa" has been superseded by a much more complicated picture. One can see why the original thesis was very popular with the "no such thing as race" crowd. Newer info, not so much, because, as you correctly believe, wandering human groups went right on evolving in the new environments in which those groups found themselves, resulting in identifiable genetic clusters (which by sheer coincidence correspond with your grandmother's and Joe Blow's entirely arbitrary and socially constructed conception of continental races).

I wonder if some popular confusion arises from a hangover of earlier disputes. Back in the day, the great debate raged between "multiregionalists", who believed that the modern races of Homo sapiens evolved separately from different Homo erectus populations, and earlier versions of "out of Africa" proponents, who argued for a single lineage of Homo sapiens from Homo erectus. The former were routed and the latter carried the day - well, for a time, anyway, since we now know that the ancestry of modern humans is a lot more complicated and "multiregional" than is accounted for in the simple "Out of Africa" model.

Talk about "bloviating at length". You give a Republican bitch a compliment and look what happens…

The DNA evidence is the strongest. Nothing in all this bloviation challenges the molecular clocks that date back to around 100 - 150 kya from Africa. The only deviation from that found thus far is the Neanderthal and Denisovan admixture that made its way into ex-African populations - also identifiable as such thanks to DNA evidence and the strong reasoning of the "molecular clock" approach. To call that multi-regional evolution is a farce, it's hybridization. Other small forms of evolution are happening all the time, but other than skin adaptations to trap the Vitamin D that whitey couldn't get enough of after hiding from the sun that he ran from, it's hard to say what they are or how significant they could be - other than a belief in one's own right to rape and pillage other peoples and to promote one's proud, personal ignorance as being as good as real knowledge. Whitey seems to excel at that, especially the latter. Asians however, not so much. Perhaps they evolved more.; 6/13/15, 11:50 AM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: "In fact, when we look at specific individuals, we often run into difficulty trying to categorize them. For example, on the basis of skin color, we might put them into one "race" and on the basis of nose shape, body form, or blood type, they might go into others."

I always say, that if you want good examples of the Straw Man fallacy, you can't do better than to find somebody in an anthropology department somewhere explaining to you why "there's no such thing as race".

It's not a straw man you half-wit. On what other basis than pigmentation and arbitrary physical characteristics has anyone ever attempted to define any such thing as "race"? Which "races" were devised for actual, USEFUL purposes? They only ever were drawn up to reinforce the us/them mentality of continent of origin, appearance and social prejudice (they're dumber, less successful, we're smarter). I guess that's why you like them. Do tell me when the new blood-type races are formulated. Even though every "race" has all four. Perhaps we should inform the blood banks to stop testing those antigens and instead just screen for outward appearance. Thanks, Anglelyne for this incredibly insightful observation.

I think I see now what that Republican, who was pissed off at facts getting in the way of perspective and viewpoint, was getting at. Anglelyne's opinionated viewpoint doesn't seem to understand what facts are for.

And now, cue the groans of displeasure. Ritmo used facts to make a VALID point. KILL HIM FOR IT! HIS KNOWLEDGE IS NO BETTER THAN OUR IGNORANCE! WHAT AN ASSHOLE!; 6/13/15, 11:59 AM
Fen said...: Rythym: You give a Republican bitch a compliment and look what happens

You're not fooling anyone here - the reason you lace your points with insults is because you're not confident with you own intelligence and need to distract.

Also, your penis is very very small. Tiny.; 6/13/15, 12:59 PM
Fen said...: Rythym: An article from six years ago that "challenged" something, is taken as the new Gospel by the wishful thinker who prefers it to be the new truth.

Never said it was gospel, I said it was an accepted alternative view.

And I guess you missed the part where the original authors of the "Out of Africa" theory decided on their own that they were wrong and retracted the paper.

As I said above, you're just a poser with a hate on. You should seek professional help.; 6/13/15, 1:02 PM
Anonymous said...: Fen - I took a look at the link you left @6/13/15, 2:40 AM, and it has an extremely high crank coefficient. Randomly collected and ill-digested bits of information, misrepresentation of research, etc. Don't know what they're on about.

If you're interested in this stuff, the links Fernandinande left would be a good place to start, if you haven't checked them out yet: John Hawks and West Hunter. (The latter is highly entertaining as well as informative.); 6/13/15, 1:06 PM
Fernandinande said...: Some moron bloviated and I accidentally read ...
Which "races" were devised for actual, USEFUL purposes?

Which "species" were devised for actual, USEFUL purposes?
Which "subspecies" were devised for actual, USEFUL purposes?

They only ever were drawn up to reinforce the us/them mentality of continent of origin, appearance and social prejudice (they're dumber, less successful, we're smarter).

Like when those wily Asians trick doofy Caucasoids into saying Asians are smarter?

"All three races of the Spotted Owl are found in the United States, one of which has a range that stretches into Canada and one into Mexico."

The race of spotted owls which stays out of those durned furrin countries must be the superior one. Yes? Or are they xenophobic owls, and therefore morally inferior?; 6/13/15, 1:14 PM
Fernandinande said...: Anglelyne said...
John Hawks and West Hunter.

Sometimes they collaborate. (West Hunter = Cochran and Harpending).

And Steve Hsu's interesting blog, which is more about human genetics (and things like yesterday's "Entanglement and fast thermalization in heavy ion collisions") than evolution.; 6/13/15, 1:45 PM
Fen said...: Anglelyne, thanks. Will look at those instead.; 6/13/15, 2:24 PM
Gahrie said...: On what other basis than pigmentation and arbitrary physical characteristics has anyone ever attempted to define any such thing as "race"

How about genetics?; 6/13/15, 2:49 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: Also, your penis is very very small. Tiny.

Sorry to let you down. Few men have what it takes to satisfy an ass and gay mouth as hungry as yours.

I insult people who annoy me with their ignorant attitude. It's not even the ignorance that's the problem. It's the ego they build around it, as if knowing nothing should be something to celebrate. It's not, as you can tell by the civilian-life failure you've made out of yourself.; 6/13/15, 2:54 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: Never said it was gospel, I said it was an accepted alternative view.

"Accepted", by whom? By anyone you know? Anyone who's done any science?

See, this is the problem at its core. You think that because you, personally, find something that you're dying to accept, plausible, that means it's accepted science. It's not. It's just you pretending that your ignorant opinion is more important than the facts. You're so disoriented by your own insecurity over knowing next-to-nothing, that you will trumpet half-truths and speculation to cover it up.

But anyone who actually passed a test knows that's what you're really up to.

And I guess you missed the part where the original authors of the "Out of Africa" theory decided on their own that they were wrong and retracted the paper.

Cite that. Which "original authors?" Which "paper" was retracted? There was only one group? It's been a strong stream of thought for a long time.

As I said above, you're just a poser with a hate on. You should seek professional help.

Slapping loudmouth idiots like you around is the only thing that makes me feel better about the ignorance you inflict on the public. Psychologists would agree that it's healthier than pretending what you do is not dangerous. That's for passive-aggressive pussies - much like you!

And shut your fucking mouth with accusations of "poser" until you can link to your own publications, dipshit. I bet the last thing you got published was your 6th grade essay on your summer vacation.

You never even went to college. The last credential you got was in pipe fitting.; 6/13/15, 3:03 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: Which "species" were devised for actual, USEFUL purposes?

The ones that can't have fertile offspring with other species, as the very useful definition asserts. Very useful for those of us who no longer wonder why elephants and giraffes aren't fucking each other and having babies. But then, you're a Republican, so your appreciation of any knowledge regarding sex and reproduction - let alone how populations interact with their environment - is suspect, anyway.

Which "subspecies" were devised for actual, USEFUL purposes?

Homo neanderthalis republicanis tyrannis nincompoopus. It helps explain the wayward tribe of inbred idiots walking (on knuckles) among us who refuse to identify and affiliate with the rest of humanity.; 6/13/15, 3:10 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: Multiregionalists have no way to account for any DNA evidence, which is the cornerstone of biological study. The first anatomically modern humans appeared less than 200kya in Ethiopia, and all their DNA, apart from when they fucked Neanderthals and other non-human species, are in common with that. Multiregionalists reject, without much evidence, the whole methodology of molecular clocks, which is probably why their rejection is not widely accepted.

So I'm not surprised the Althousian illiterati agree with the bone and stone guys. The mainstream consensus requires an understanding of DNA, which makes use of 4 biochemical letters. And using letters leads to reading, which is something no Althousian illiterati would ever stoop to doing.; 6/13/15, 3:39 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: Multiregional origin is nonsense according to any understanding of how DNA works. It used to be more popular, but is only still held by the old-time physical anthropologists who promoted it and, apparently, their racist fellow-travelers in the lay population - as ashamed as anyone could've ever predicted they'd have been of their African roots.

To reject African origin you'd have to propose for instance, that the Neanderthals who dominated Europe had DNA changes to become at least 94% more like African DNA, just on their own by chance! It takes a complete ignorance of statistics to believe something as ridiculous as that.

The only other explanation is that mysterious ancestors of fossil skeletons, of as yet undiscovered hominid species accounted for Europe's pre-modern population and that for some reason, unlike with Neanderthals, MAHs, and every other hominid, we somehow just can't find them.

Totally ridiculous.; 6/13/15, 3:49 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: On what other basis than pigmentation and arbitrary physical characteristics has anyone ever attempted to define any such thing as "race"

How about genetics?

People don't use genetics to define race. They use genetics to indicate origin, as is appropriate and objective to do. When modern geneticists match a haplotype with a modern population of origin in Africa, for instance, they are not saying Africans are a race of some sort. Population genetics has thus become very interesting and powerful in mapping migration patterns and genetic changes over time, but without the baggage of getting distracted by any assertions that there's something special or particular about one continent's inhabitants versus those of any other.; 6/13/15, 3:53 PM
Anonymous said...: Fen: Anglelyne, thanks. Will look at those instead.

Yer welcome. Hsu is good, too, as Fernandinande notes.

I trust that my brief outline of the rise and fall of the multiregional theory did not confuse you into apoplexy, unlike other unfortunate souls around here who are unable to grasp the nuances of quotation marks.; 6/13/15, 4:07 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: Oh Fen doesn't get apoplectic as he dissembles. He very, very calmly pretends to forget that he ever had the opinion he feels a need to distance himself from in the first place.

Sociopaths are like that, also. Like when they talked about Dr. Lecter's heart rate never rising above 85 bpm, even when he ate his nurse's face.; 6/13/15, 4:38 PM
Gahrie said...: but without the baggage of getting distracted by any assertions that there's something special or particular about one continent's inhabitants versus those of any other.

Except for the fact that they are genetically distinct populations. Normally we call such populations sub species, however in humanity we call them races.; 6/14/15, 3:28 AM
Fen said...: Rythym: Multiregional origin is nonsense according to any understanding of how DNA works.

The authors who wrote the "Out of Africa" theory you support understand how DNA works, so much so that they decided to retract that paper.

How ya like dem apples, sophist?; 6/14/15, 6:53 AM
Fen said...: Rythym: Who the fuck cares about how things "come across" when a fact's at stake?

Because you are using insults as an intimidation tactic to get people to back off from questioning your "facts". That means your facts are weak, else you wouldn't to distract with emotional invective.; 6/14/15, 6:58 AM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: Except for the fact that they are genetically distinct populations. Normally we call such populations sub species, however in humanity we call them races.

Every freaking human (and any other organism) that's not an identical twin is genetically "distinct". At some point, you're just going to have to get over the fact that human populations mingled more than you'd apparently prefer. It's not like 100 thousand years ago Og and Grog drew borders at the Sahara, the Mediterranean, and the Ural Mountains and said, "Thou Shalt not Interbreed with Anyone over the Edge of This Arbitrary Boundary!" Dude, just get over it.; 6/14/15, 11:03 AM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: The authors who wrote the "Out of Africa" theory you support understand how DNA works, so much so that they decided to retract that paper.

How ya like dem apples, sophist?

I asked you once already to cite whichever paper it is that was not only retracted, but apparently for you the only evidence for the entire theory as it stands and as it is supported by the general consensus. But you could not do this - not because you're a sophist - but because you're just a jack-off who can quote movie lines as if masturbating your ego in a discussion that you don't know anything about is a substitute for actually making sense.

And no, you didn't get any girl out of it, either. You're gay anyway, remember? Closeted. Self-hating. But gay.

In this conversation, I'm the one who knows what I'm talking about and you're the one regurgitating what it "feels" good to you to say.; 6/14/15, 11:07 AM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: Because you are using insults as an intimidation tactic to get people to back off from questioning your "facts". That means your facts are weak, else you wouldn't to distract with emotional invective.

American conservatives are really bad at taking responsibility for their own feelings. I remember years ago when you would respond to my every comment with an insult or other attempt at expressing disdain for the fact that I'd merely spoken.

Your emotional response to what I said is a part of your own emotional make-up. If you want less invective, then stop ignoring the facts. Didn't anyone tell you that ignoring people is rude?

I'm not responsible for your inability to stay focused and penchant for being easily distracted. It doesn't matter if it's a fact, or a snappy insult - if you knew how to pay attention and took responsibility for attempting to make sense of what you don't understand, then you'd have an actual foundation for talking about what's "weak" and what's not. No, DNA evidence is not "weak". It's the best evidence biology has of anything. It's the people who ignore it (like those "alternative" anthropologists) who aren't able to go anywhere in the field.

If DNA is a weak basis for understanding biology, then I guess there goes all the actually useful technology we can get out of it. Medication, forensic science, household products, agronomy, genetic counseling, ecological mitigation… All the products and fruits of DNA research. The people who have no use for understanding it are the ones that have the burden of proof of showing how their own, alternative speculation is actually sound.; 6/14/15, 11:15 AM
Fen said...: American conservatives are really bad at taking responsibility for their own feelings. I remember years ago when you would respond to my every comment with an insult or other attempt at expressing disdain for the fact that I'd merely spoken.

Wrong again. I first came to Althouse expecting a civil exchange of ideas from people on both sides. Then I ran into you and garage and adjusted accordingly. In fact, I cut my teeth at Althouse learning to troll. All the invective I spew at your kind? I learned from people here like you. You made me, and now you whine like a bitch when I serve your bullshit back to you.

And you are still dodging this:
"The authors who wrote the "Out of Africa" theory you support understand how DNA works, so much so that they decided to retract that paper."

The cite you ask for is in the link I provided upthread.; 6/14/15, 2:54 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: Ok Fen - I'll look for your link (not sure why you couldn't have just posted it in your most recent comment), but I'm having trouble seeing how one retracted paper would necessarily undermine an entire theory.; 6/15/15, 8:14 PM

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 227 of 227 Newer› Newest»

Althouse

June 12, 2015

"Good question, overheard at brunch: why is it considered OK to emulate someone else's gender but not OK to emulate someone else's race or ethnicity?"

227 comments:

Amazon

Support this blog with PayPal

Blog Archive

Althouse

June 12, 2015

"Good question, overheard at brunch: why is it considered OK to emulate someone else's gender but not OK to emulate someone else's race or ethnicity?"

227 comments:

Amazon

Support this blog with PayPal

Subscribe To Althouse

Blog Archive