So last night's Jay Smooth MSNBC debacle on "All In" reminded me
of the awkward moment Piers Morgan had with Janet Mock when discussing
gender theory.

It was ridiculous that Nancy Giles didn't do her homework prior to appearing
on a "race" segment with Jay Smooth, but it is reasonable to conclude that
a random person meeting Jay for the first time (without knowing of his media
presence) might not think he's black, based on appearance.

Which brings me to the point of this post: Why don't we discuss racial identity
with the same fluidity analysis as we do gender/sex?

After the Piers Morgan/Janet Mock discussion, everyone saw it fit to deliver
a teachable moment that presented a progressive discourse on gender identity:

"Biological sex refers to the equipment you’re born with, which comes with plenty of factors — there are many conditions that can make people intersex. Gender, on the other hand, is a fluid spectrum from man to woman to bigender to everything else that people choose to identify with. While your parts are biological, your gender pronouns are not — they were created by people, and they are chosen by people. They might wear clothes generally associated with other genders, they might not. They might use opposite, gender-neutral, or non-gendered pronouns…and again, they might not."

Why have we not adopted the same analysis for racial/ethnic identity? While our ethnographic DNA is the makeup we are born with (similar to biology in gender identity), it could be argued that "race" (alike gender) - could be subject to a similar spectrum of fluidity analysis that varies from person to person, depending upon how they self-identify. It seems that while we are more open to a flexible construction of fluidity as it pertains to gender identity, race theory and racial discourse is still very much planted in "black" and "white" - quite literally, with no effort to introduce fluidity or to accept multiplicity identity when it comes to something like race, even though many of us are comprised of multiples "races" as categorized in a census report.

Is it appropriate to keep race polarized in black and white identity? Is gender identity so inherently different that we can't apply the same analysis to race? Why or why not?




-->

Is gender identity so inherently different that we
>can't apply the same analysis to race? Why or why not?

..most people cling to anything that helps them feel a little more comfortable about their own insecurities.



*skatin' the rings of saturn*


..and miles to go before i sleep...

i.e. there is a privilege that comes with the mix and folks aren't trying to hear it

not even a little

interesting to see how gleeful folks are about the error knowing the stance has usually been the opposite

there are light skinned dude jokes on here and on twitter constantly

yeah
i'm fascinated
~~~~
When you are born, you cry, and the world rejoices. Live so that when you die, you rejoice, and the world cries.
~~~~
You cannot hate people for their own good.

i don't have an issue with her not identifying as black

~~~~~~

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/02/20/giuliani_obama_doesn_t_love_america_white_mother_grandparents_cited.html

As Backlash Builds, Giuliani Cites Obama's White Relatives as Evidence of Non-Racism

it's probably because the US is only a generation out of sanctioned apartheid. US k-12 doesn't help.

>it's probably because the US is only a generation out of
>sanctioned apartheid. US k-12 doesn't help.

********************************

Get Out The Room!
http://getouttheroom.podomatic.com
@fakewilliamkatt

"You probably wouldn't worry about what people think of you if you could know how seldom they do!" - Olin Miller

Obviously Rudy is not a person of nuance, authority, or capacity
as it pertains to race identity. That's like saying "let's refer to
this anti-gay person's theory on gender identity" as if it's informative
and contributory to the discourse.

>it's probably because the US is only a generation out of
>sanctioned apartheid. US k-12 doesn't help.

We are still in an environment of sanctioned civil rights abuses
as it pertains to gay marriage, but that doesn't prevent us from
adopting a fluid analysis of gender/orientation identity.

-->

I didn't say he succeeded. I'll add he is someone with expertise as far as white supremacist power ideology is concerned.
And there's fluidity on gender identity among what, probably a fraction of the US masses? and only in recent years. I just did some high school instruction on Afro-Latino identity, so I'm holding down my part as many others are in this way. Ultimately demographics will ensure this goes beyond the coast, current pop culture and education, etc., and that goes for race and gender demographic diversity.

One is a hormonal directly parent influenced result the other is an adverse genetic manipulated environmental effect / social construct.

<----

Soundcloud.com/aquil84

(HIP HOP)
http://aquil.bandcamp.com

********************************

Get Out The Room!
http://getouttheroom.podomatic.com
@fakewilliamkatt

"You probably wouldn't worry about what people think of you if you could know how seldom they do!" - Olin Miller

both are social constructs which makes them 'real' in many ways. or at least real enough in that they have real impact on ppl's behavior toward each other and their self-image.

fuck you.

There's bend / give in gender for sure.

But chromosones are real
Gonads are real

Race, is in no way real.

I believe you're talking about the social construct element of gender, but there is a real physical / biological element - that is what I'm referring to.

********************************

Get Out The Room!
http://getouttheroom.podomatic.com
@fakewilliamkatt

"You probably wouldn't worry about what people think of you if you could know how seldom they do!" - Olin Miller

>There's bend / give in gender for sure.
>
>But chromosones are real
>Gonads are real

^ that's sex. our chromosomes create the gonads that give us our sexual characteristics on which our sex classification is based. most of us then perform gender according to what's going on w/our gonads.

>Race, is in no way real.

except that most of us perform race according to what's going on w/our skin color and various body parts.

>I believe you're talking about the social construct element of
>gender, but there is a real physical / biological element -
>that is what I'm referring to.

yes, gender is a social construct. it's performance. it's psychology.

sex is biology.

fuck you.

it seems like the directive of whether or not to conflate physical "sex" with the concept of "gender" is constantly contradicted. At one moment, male parts doesn't make you a man, but in same convo its used as a reason for a parts change.

With regard to the "feeling-like" side of gender, it seems a lot more rational that these are simply stereotypes of males/females that people buy into which causes them to think they're the opposite of their physical parts.

Like, if you aren't a female, how can you possibly claim to presume what you feel inside is womanhood. You probably just relate to stereotypes of women and can't relate to stereotypes of men. Or is it something else? What are you going off of?

Meanwhile with race, unlike a penis, you could easily make a case that the whole thing is made up to begin with, or cite some ancient blood lines and pair it with a challenge over how many drops make a race.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_and_gender_distinction

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/232363.php

http://www.who.int/gender/whatisgender/en/

fuck you.

>both are social constructs which makes them 'real' in many
>ways. or at least real enough in that they have real impact
>on ppl's behavior toward each other and their self-image.

Chris Hayes had a response to last night's show on his twitter today
where he said: "Race isn't real. Racism, however, is."

Just as we discussed how Gender wasn't real, was something man-made
and wholly inefficient to describe Janet Mock's identity, the same can be said
about Race.

It's real, but not particularly helpful in terms of producing authentic identity
that has any real flexibility. Just as conventional notions of "gender" are inadequate to frame
Janet Mock's gender identity, so too might current racial identity constraints be for individuals who do not feel comfortably framed in a black/white racial identity categorization.

-->

so too might current racial
>identity constraints be for individuals who do not feel
>comfortably framed in a black/white racial identity
>categorization.

sure.

academics and other thinkers have accepted the fluidity of gender identity like many of that group have accepted the fluidity of race identity. that's why i'm not sure what this post is about. or who it's about.

fuck you.

>academics and other thinkers have accepted the fluidity of
>gender identity like many of that group have accepted the
>fluidity of race identity. that's why i'm not sure what this
>post is about. or who it's about.

I don't think it's as accepted of a theory or as widely discussed.
It's not certainly a 'hot' topic amongst progressive discourse like gender
identity is.

Can you point me to a popular show (like All In) where people are
discussing fluidity as it pertains to race identity?




-->

>I don't think it's as accepted of a theory or as widely
>discussed.
>It's not certainly a 'hot' topic amongst progressive discourse
>like gender
>identity is.

a simple Google search turned up these results on page one:

http://aida.wss.yale.edu/~nq3/NANCYS_Yale_Website/resources/papers/NixQian_20150101.pdf

http://www.mixedracestudies.org/wordpress/?p=39195

http://paa2013.princeton.edu/papers/131929

http://face2face.si.edu/my_weblog/2012/07/jean-toomer-the-fluidity-of-racial-identity.html

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/222039063_Opting_for_White_choice_fluidity_and_racial_identity_construction_in_post_civil-rights_America

>Can you point me to a popular show (like All In) where people
>are
>discussing fluidity as it pertains to race identity?

http://www.npr.org/2013/11/11/242357164/seeing-opportunity-in-a-question-where-are-you-really-from

fuck you.

I was referring more to popular culture/mainstream media. I did see
the NPR link and thanks for sharing, but it seems to me with as prominent
as race discourse has become within our mainstream media outlets, there would
be more discussion on this topic - yet I can't seem to find one mainstream
media outlet (fox, cnn, msnbc etc..) that has facilitated a discussion on race
and fluidity in the same vein as fluidity and gender.


-->

both have SOME scientific basis. Race isn't clearly defined but there are genetic traits that are common to people with shared ancestry. For lack of a better term, that's race. If I need a bone marrow transplant, I won't be able to get it from a Korean.

While both race and gender are fluid, they're fluid in different ways. We all have biological parents of different genders, giving us the capacity for both ends of the spectrum and everything in-between, but a child born to two white people is going to be white. Race is only fluid when there is mixing.

>both have SOME scientific basis. Race isn't clearly defined
>but there are genetic traits that are common to people with
>shared ancestry. For lack of a better term, that's race. If I
>need a bone marrow transplant, I won't be able to get it from
>a Korean.

agreed.

>While both race and gender are fluid, they're fluid in
>different ways. We all have biological parents of different
>genders

no. we all have bio parents of differing SEX. it is entirely possible for 2 persons who identify as women to produce a baby - the old fashioned way - as long as one of them produces sperm and has a penis (aka is biologically male) and the other has a vagina and at least one ovary that produces eggs and has a uterus, et al (aka is biologically female). i know of trans couples who have reproduced this way.

http://thechive.com/2014/08/14/transgender-couple-have-some-explaining-to-do-22-photos/

fuck you.

both are fluid. They aren't the same thing, but transgender and inter-sexed people blur the line. I *think* we're on the same page though. Every human coupling than can produce a child has the potential for generating a child of any gender/sex, not so much for race.

>both are fluid. They aren't the same thing, but transgender
>and inter-sexed people blur the line. I *think* we're on the
>same page though.

i'm not sure we are.

Every human coupling than can produce a
>child has the potential for generating a child of any
>gender/sex, not so much for race.

uh...okay.

fuck you.

fuck you.

Gender fluidity is becoming a real thing due to the fact that the genders (here in the U.S. and at this time) are becoming equal (not there yet, obviously, but anyone who says we ain't getting there is lying)

We ain't there w/race yet, not even close. There's a lot of work required before racial fluidity can be legitimized.

********************************

Get Out The Room!
http://getouttheroom.podomatic.com
@fakewilliamkatt

"You probably wouldn't worry about what people think of you if you could know how seldom they do!" - Olin Miller

With the increasing recognition of multiracial identity I think the fluid nature of race identity is already a thing. Not everyone accepts it as most don't accept the fluidity of gender and sexual orientation. So I dunno who you're talking about. Smart ppl? Liberals? Who?

fuck you.

react like I was out of my mind for raising the idea of applying the idea of fluid gender identity to race

today i'm saying i see the fluidity of race as a thing that's already accepted among certain ppl. kinda like gender and sexual orientation's fluidity are accepted among certain ppl.

the majority seems to disregard the fluid nature of race, gender and sexual orientation.

fuck you.

********************************

Get Out The Room!
http://getouttheroom.podomatic.com
@fakewilliamkatt

"You probably wouldn't worry about what people think of you if you could know how seldom they do!" - Olin Miller

When you pull at the strings it all falls apart. Once you decide race is fluid, then it doesn't really have alot of meaning altogether given the notion that the purpose is to allow societal to categorize people.

What's the use of a social category if you can self-select/identify the category?




**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"One of the most important things in life is what Judge Learned Hand described as 'that ever-gnawing inner doubt as to whether you're r

>When you pull at the strings it all falls apart. Once you
>decide race is fluid, then it doesn't really have alot of
>meaning altogether given the notion that the purpose is to
>allow societal to categorize people.

people say the same thing about gender. What's interesting though,
is that race is something where people can tangibly point to their
own DNA (being comprised of multiple 'races') - so in that regard
it would be amenable to a more complex/fluid analysis.

In contrast, you can't as readily point to somebody and say "they
are comprised of a gender spectrum, here's the proof/DNA" - which
by the way doesn't necessarily mean that they aren't comprised of
a gender spectrum, it's just that we can't point to DNA in order to
prove it. There are instances where people are born with sexual
equipment that transcends sex/gender, but those situations are
significantly more rare than being able to point to somebody who
is comprised of 2 or more races.


-->

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"One of the most important things in life is what Judge Learned Hand described as 'that ever-gnawing inner doubt as to whether you're r

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex

fuck you.

There are people with vaginas, no male genetalia and a y-chromosome.

fuck you.

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"One of the most important things in life is what Judge Learned Hand described as 'that ever-gnawing inner doubt as to whether you're r

fuck you.

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"One of the most important things in life is what Judge Learned Hand described as 'that ever-gnawing inner doubt as to whether you're r

and i never claimed anyone had said sex isn't binary. i clearly responded to JF - cosigning his assertion that sex ain't binary and offered a link to a Wiki entry about intersexed ppl to support my agreement w/his assertion. i later responded to someone's counter that intersexed ppl are a rarity by saying that their existence is proof that sex isn't binary. no where in any of that did i claim or imply that anyone had said sex ain't binary.

but we can keep doing this if you want. i have time to waste.

fuck you.

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"One of the most important things in life is what Judge Learned Hand described as 'that ever-gnawing inner doubt as to whether you're r

You point to sex as a quantifiable, biological thing, but it's a lot messier than that and our understanding of sex is intertwined with our understanding of gender.

Is Caster Semenya's sex male or female? We have to defer to her gender identity to answer that question.

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"One of the most important things in life is what Judge Learned Hand described as 'that ever-gnawing inner doubt as to whether you're r

till then, it's sticking your head in the sand, at best.

Also, gender, as a concept, is some new new shit, and isn't as socio-politically important as race (especially when *divorced* from race).

SEX is, and there is absolutely no fluidity in that concept whatsoever in most cultures

It would just be the case

BTW, I basically agree with you in the sense of dissolving hard concepts of race going hand in hand with dissolving of the advantages of Whiteness, but just in terms of someone saying "I'm not x, I'm y. This is who I really am." If that were to be accepted as a real thing, then I'm assuming it would be real whether society is prepared or not.

https://www.census.gov/census2000/raceqandas.html

back in 2001

Question: Why didn't the Census Bureau allow respondents to report more than one race in previous censuses?

Answer: The decision to use the instruction "mark one or more races" was reached by the Office of Management and Budget in 1997 after noting evidence of increasing numbers of children from interracial unions and the need to measure the increased diversity in the United States. Prior to this decision, most efforts to collect data on race (including those by the Census Bureau) asked people to report one race.

Answer: The categories (made available in OMB Bulletin No. 00-02, "Guidance on Aggregation and Allocation of Data on Race for Use in Civil Rights Monitoring and Enforcement") to be used are:

American Indian and Alaska Native
Asian
Black or African American
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander
White
American Indian and Alaska Native and White
Asian and White
Black or African American and White
American Indian and Alaska Native and Black or African American
>1 percent: Fill in if applicable with multiracial combinations greater than 1% of the population
Balance of individuals reporting more than one race
Total
The use of these categories, including the identification of specific two or more race combinations greater than 1 percent, is mandatory for civil rights monitoring and enforcement agencies. For more information, see www.whitehouse.gov/omb/bulletins/b00-02.html

I find it really interesting that those who like to tout or even discuss the possibility of "racial" fludity are those who are a part of the privileged group.

I consider it an exercise in othering.
*****************************************
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=de6VnExhelQ

Presenting Collective Peace.

https://www.facebook.com/CollectivePeace

analysis as it pertains to race who aren't from a "privileged group."

To assume that this is a theory/discussion that only white people engage in is beyond silly,
although it's an easy way to lazily dismiss the whole conversation.

Further, the pioneers who have largely pushed the "fluidity" discourse re: gender identity
by & large come from non-privileged (and often actively oppressed/under-represented)
groups.

-->

Looking at who is under the umbrella of blackness, I'd say the fluidity of race is actually a central pillar of blackness. We've welcomed just about everyone who is remotely or tangentially black to be black with us, even when they don't want to lol, basically no other group does this.

Whiteness has existed as a multiplicity of identity too, there is no denying that...

But the societal rewards and punishment around race identification makes the type of fluidity you're talking about impossible. There will always be an ulterior motive, an incentive, how ever so slight. There is no societal incentive to identifying as a gender fluid person like there is wit race. Society hates them and is infatuated with them but hasn't gotten to the point where they want to be them. Society hates black folks and is infatuated with us, but it also wants to be us.




___________________________________________________________


DJTB YOMM

and it happens across all race categories.

fuck you.

there's a skin tone that could be anything from se asian to hispanic to light skin black to "swarthy" white

Most subsaharan africans are locked into their classification, as are most mainland asians and japanese. And western euros.

I mean really, this shit is very much a mixed-race/mulatto/Mediterranean white person convo about how to get the most out their hue.

*shrug*

I'm a dark skin black person. ain't shit fluid about that in this cultural context. jay smooth could easily be a character from a countee cullen novel, lol, but he chooses to let his blackness be known.

But, put him next to Eric Gardner when the cops are called, and lets see just how fluid their reactions are, lol

>there's a skin tone that could be anything from se asian to
>hispanic to light skin black to "swarthy" white
>
>Most subsaharan africans are locked into their classification,
>as are most mainland asians and japanese. And western euros.

But they aren't locked into a polarized 'black/white' identity classification.
It's an ethnographic classification, not a racial one.

-->

fuck you.

of issues of oppression and abuse in an effort to...i really don't know what.

Again, it's sticking your head DEEP in the sand

>...i really
>don't know what.


-->

...oh, to be racially fluid, lol

http://assets.rollingstone.com/assets/images/embedded/james-brown-cape-1373309594.gif


"i wanna hug all u idiotic bastards & then set you all on fire" -Bin

www.twitter.com/bedstuybetty
http://bedstuybetty.tumblr.com/
DROkayplayer: Giving you good puff since May '05

Plenty of human characteristics on a spectrum, including sex and race.

The op isnt really asking why race isnt actually fluid, but why race isnt societally fluid. Stakes too damn high.

>
>But the societal rewards and punishment around race
>identification makes the type of fluidity you're talking about
>impossible. There will always be an ulterior motive, an
>incentive, how ever so slight. There is no societal incentive
>to identifying as a gender fluid person like there is wit
>race.

Unless someone in here can argue against this^

-------------------
'Some have lives that haven't gone the way they planned, and some are trapped in situations they can't stand...'

>>But the societal rewards and punishment around race
>>identification makes the type of fluidity you're talking
>about
>>impossible. There will always be an ulterior motive, an
>>incentive, how ever so slight. There is no societal
>incentive
>>to identifying as a gender fluid person like there is wit
>>race.
>
>Unless someone in here can argue against this^

not terribly hard to offer a different/balanced viewpoint. There absolutely
is societal incentive in gender identity. Everybody knows about income equality
amongst gender as women still earn a fraction of what men earn - often for
the same position. Positions of power are also still disproportionately held by men. As such, an intersex/trans person does have significant societal incentive to identify and project a gender association of "man" versus "woman."


-->

Socially speaking, there is overall less social capital in being Black
as opposed to being a woman.

Which would you have an easier time being in American society?

You dont see scores of women trying to become men for the social benefit. However, we do see Black people trying to be less Black for the social benefit.

-------------------
'Some have lives that haven't gone the way they planned, and some are trapped in situations they can't stand...'

The premise introduced above was that there's no societal incentive
in being gender-fluid - which is simply not true. We have metrics
and real discrimination to point to as evidence.

>Socially speaking, there is overall less social capital in
>being Black
>as opposed to being a woman.

Not terribly productive to launch discriminationWarz on this -- both
women and blacks have been and are actively discriminated against.



-->

>Not terribly productive to launch discriminationWarz on this
>-- both
>women and blacks have been and are actively discriminated
>against.

I'm not trying to do that. Your original question was, 'Why don't we discuss racial identity with the same fluidity analysis as we do gender/sex?'

We got bogged down in discussing how social incentive influences fluidity in race versus sex and I started making faulty arguments. Let me clarify and shares some other thoughts.

Our modern world seems to allow for more fluidity in gender/sex. Unspoken social rules about what it means to be a woman or a man are not in place anymore like they were even 20 years ago. People in the U.S. are more likely to let you be androgynous than they will allow you to be racially ambiguous. We still have a ways to go when it comes to race, because there is more social pressure to pick a side and more resistance to people who attempt to straddle the fence racially speaking.

I think that part of the reason why race is less fluid has to do with the history and associated power structure of racial categorizations. I said 'The stakes are too damn high', meaning that there are too many people who want to keep the status quo as is to allow for racial/ethnic fluidity.

Becoming another gender doesn't seem to be as much of a threat to the way things are.

Maybe the difference really boils down to gender fluid people being more vocal and effective in telling society who they are.

Racially fluid people have to deal with a lot in telling society who they are, because race is largely based on other people's perception of you and what you look like. Society seems more likely to tell and even argue with racially fluid people about who they are.

Then again maybe your point is valid and I just don't see what you see.

-------------------
'Some have lives that haven't gone the way they planned, and some are trapped in situations they can't stand...'

work ethic and the acumen required to get to said positions.

Everybody knows
>about income equality
>amongst gender as women still earn a fraction of what men earn
>- often for
>the same position. Positions of power are also still
>disproportionately held by men.

Rest In Peace, Bad News Brown

-->

~~~~
When you are born, you cry, and the world rejoices. Live so that when you die, you rejoice, and the world cries.
~~~~
You cannot hate people for their own good.

There is really only race - the human race and the only other valid clarification should be based on nationality.



.
.
.
"And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful." ~ 2 Tim 2:4

~
~
~
~
~
Days like this I miss Sha Mecca

-->

particularly AfAms

should be respected and defended.

-->

oppression.

How someone identifies is not as important structurally as how someone presents in a society. Also, this question is void of how people exist at the intersections.

<<Mood...Poppy Okotcha in Look 1 at Ashish Fall 2016
________________________________________

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sa7KBq0q5bU

but i figure ppl want to identify themselves culturally (religion, region, etc), not to specifically by race. i know the two aren't always mutually exclusive but i feel there can be fluidity in culture but not race.

also, i ppl are talking only about race in this country and not so much the way race is viewed around the world.

just a thought.

>but i figure ppl want to identify themselves culturally
>(religion, region, etc), not to specifically by race. i know
>the two aren't always mutually exclusive but i feel there can
>be fluidity in culture but not race.

Why do you feel that there can be no fluidity in race. Do you also feel
that there can be no fluidity in gender? If not, what distinguishes the two
such that they require wholly different analyses?

>also, i ppl are talking only about race in this country and
>not so much the way race is viewed around the world.

Is that not also the case for gender?


-->

"Passing" was all about race and sexuality as a fluid continuum and Baldwin's work hits on that in many places, too. That is more sexuality and race being paralleled, but sexuality is not a far cry from gender IMHO.

And you will know MY JACKET IS GOLD when I lay my vengeance upon thee.