Nice response. Very sensible and scientific.

Bingo! That's my scientific reaction to your explanation! "Cultural" is a far more important conceptual factor when talking about race.

@Matias Yes it does solve the riddle. Because cultural constructs are about labels, so that yes you can change your nationality from, say, German to French, if you you born German changing the label of your nationality to French. But that does not change the historical label, if someone asks you your nationality, then you say French. But if someone asks you the nationality you were born into, then you would be telling an untruth if you did not answer German.

But if you thought all your life that you were born in Germany, had lived in Germany as a German person, but you then found out later that you were born in France. Say your parents died and going through their papers you found that your birth certificate was actually issued in France, then you would be telling the truth if someone asked you, what is your place of birth, and you said France. Because place of birth may be labeled with the name of a nation state, but it is still a real thing, where a nation state itself is only a cultural construct, and labels can be wrongly asigned.

@Matias But you are missing my point too. The national analogy works well, because it makes the point that there could be times when it is normal to change your race label. (Even if not your race because those do not exist. Which is an issue it was perhaps better not to address since it muddies the water.) So to give an example, which I seem to remember has happened, and is not just hypothetical.

Forget about race as such, and think about skin colour for a second, because that is a real world genetic thing. Supposing a child is born to parents with black skin colouration, but is adopted by parents with white skin, and as it happens the child's skin is a very pale form within the normal black range. So that the child, having not been told about its adoption, grows up thinking that it has the same white skin colour genes as its adoptive parents, but later it finds out the truth, in the same sort of way, finds its birth papers. (This really has happened. ) The child then chooses to identify thereafter as having black colouration ancestry, (falsely know as race ). In this case I do not think that it is plausible that anyone, or any human sub-culture, save a few on the lunatic fringe, would have a problem with the child making the change as a correction. Because real world thing, genetics, has been mislabelled with a human cultural label of the wrong sort.

That is why using race changing as an analogy of that sort, for gender changing, does not work, because it is the wrong sort of race changing. Most sex changing is to correct a error, and so could race changing be to correct an error as in my example, but you are using an example where an error is being created. Which is a false analogy because, changes made to correct errors are not the same thing, as changes made when no error is present.

Sex exists in the real biological world, not gender. Gender is a social construct created by humans the same way race is. Unless you are suggesting that there are only two genders and they are inextricably tied to sex (in other words, man and woman are synonyms for male and female respectively).

@JeffMurray Yes I was using the terms quite loose because their exact meaning did not really affect the argument. But qualification accepted.

@Fernapple I think it does though. But recognizing that qualification, we see that both race and gender are nothing but social constructs, and places the OP question in a different light than you originally answered it. Namely, if they are both purely social constructs that are generally assigned at birth because of other real-world biological reasons, why is it courageous to change one, but deserving of hatred from the entire world to change the other?

@JeffMurray That's my main point, ( please read the one above your first comment.) it is that it is not deserving of hatred to change your race if you are wrongly assigned to a race, I give an example above where I am sure that society would be quite happy for someone to change race. It is just that it is far less likely that you will be wrongly assigned a race, than a sex/gender. People don't have a problem with people changing sex/gender when they are wrongly assigned, though they would if for example if someone were to do it for a phony reason, such as wanting to claim a social security benefit only available to the opposite sex/gender. Though because there are many genuine cases, most who do sex/gender change get the, benefit of the doubt.

Likewise, anyone who was really assigned a wrong race label, as in my example above, would probably be treated with sympathy. My point being that society as a whole is not really againtst changing either, only phoney changes where the change is not because they are wrongly labeled in the first place. It is just that wrong sex/gender labeling is commonplace whereas wrong race labeling, even though it is not real, is rare.

I am sorry if I was not plain but I muddied the waters a lot by trying to make an unneeded point about labeling as well. Should have given my remarks more thought.

@Fernapple That begs the question, what is race? Is it only lineage? Is it skin color? Is it living conditions and socio-economic strife? Is it upbringing? Community? Family? A combination? If so, how weighted is each of those categories, and who gets to decide those weights? How black is black enough? Surely we can't ask everyone for DNA tests, right? Why is the arbiter of gender only the individual, but the arbiter of race everyone but the individual?
Did you happen to read my post on this topic last year?
"The Dolezal Jenner Paradox

EDIT: As stated in a recent comment, this post has been edited since ..."

@JeffMurray That is a big question, as I said above for the purposes of this debate, you could forget the term race and just go with skin colour. I was actualy just talking about this with someone else above. Biologist do not usually recognize the idea of human races, because, although races exist in some species, the differences between humans are not considered to be great enough, there is not enough significant variation, to constitute races as the term is used in other species.

This may be an example of biologists finding an excuse to be PC. But there is some good evidence for it. Especially the fact, that humans passed through a genetic bottle neck approximately some seventy thousand years ago, which means that we all carry a virtually identical X chromosome, having a single female ancestor, and that the human species as a whole, has less genetic variation than that found in the average family of chimpanzee. Genetic variation exists, is real, but is not considered enough for the biological term race. Morphotype or variety perhaps.

Another question which can be asked is why does society accept the idea of intermediates in race, i.e. not just black or white, but also brown. Yet we have never accepted intermediates in sex/gender, though there are many forms and they are not uncommon. It may well be that that is why we accept sex/gender changes so readily, not because we are tolerant of changes, but because we are intolerant of intermediates, you have to jump one way or the other. Whereas we are quite happy with a person of mixed race parentage calling themselves brown. I think that you could make a good case for legally defining six or eight sex/genders, at least, and even allowing people to have more than one each.

@Fernapple But we can't really just use skin color. Try telling a really light-skinned African American that they're not black and see how that works out for you. And we all agreed that biology doesn't recognize race which is the crux of the OP, why is one completely man-made construct okay to change but another is not?

Your second point begs yet another question, why do we need legally defined genders? And who is in charge of allowing people have one or more of them?

OP and I are still looking for someone to "Name the Trait" that is the fundamental difference why transgender people get applause and transracial people get scorn.

@JeffMurray Yes you can use skin colour, the advange of which is that it is a biological and exact trait, making it quite different from cultural race. And you have not read the rest of the comments yet, have you. LOL

@JeffMurray The basic point is that race, since it is a human cultural construct is probably, most likely, going to reflect human cultural assumptions. Where sex/gender because it has a much larger biological element in it, as well, is not going to comply, SO OFTEN, ( it is about percentages ) with human cultural assumptions. And therefore there will, probably, be more often mismatches with the human cultural labels, and people being aware of that, are more inclined to be tolerant of attempts to adjust sex/gender labels.

I gave however, to make the point with an exception which proves the rule, an example of a case where someone may find that they are assigned the wrong race, and that in fact, that would if genuine, probably be treated with the same tolerance, at least by most reasonable people.

The difference being between genuine attempts to correct the mistakes made by human culture and fake attempts to claim mistakes have happened when they have not, and not any real difference in attitudes to race and sex/gender, although those do exist in other spheres.

@Fernapple All there is is cultural race because there are lighter-skinned black people with skin lighter than darker-skinned white people. If you can go strictly by skin color, please tell me the shade threshold that confers blackness.

Yes, I have read all the comments, here and on my post about this.

@JeffMurray That is the point, there is none, which is why I made the point about people being accepting of intermediates such as brown. See above. I think you may also have missed another since we posted at more or less exactly the same second.

@Fernapple Okay, if we assume there is an issue with perception based on what we're used to, that provides an explanation of why people perceive them to be different, but not a logical reason that they are different.
We weren't used to seeing black people and women vote, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be allowed to vote, or that when blacks were granted the right to vote that we should have waited another 50 years to get acclimated to that before then extending that same right to women.

@JeffMurray I am not really interested in the realities, since in this case they are for the most part plain and banal, Matias asked a question about cultural perceptions, and that is all I am really interested in addressing.

@Fernapple That's unfortunate. I asked this question a year ago and was hoping maybe this go around someone would have an answer for me.

@JeffMurray Ok lets try. To tell the truth I can not see much reason at all why, race and sex/gender are different, both are based in genetic biology and both have social/cultural constructs built onto them. The main difference is just a quantitative thing rather that a mater of quality, in that race is controlled by very few genetic differences. (Hence he reason why skin colour is even better because the genes are smaller in number and quite definable and measurable in the morphotype. ) While sex/gender is a whole chromosome at least.

The main difference therefore is that we can identify race, especially the blending of race, easily. Indeed are forced to do so, since it is plain that a person of intermediate race will have parents belonging to different races, and most of the time an obvious intermediate colour and appearance. Where persons of intermediate sex/gender will have parents of both sexes just like everyone else, plus the most obvious morphological differences are typically hidden due to cultural custom, at least in the west. As also, are the mental differences which are entirely private within the brain, ( there probably being few if any important mental differences between races, because of the tiny genetic changes. )Therefore it was my contention that the difference between race and sex/gender is that; the differences between sex/gender are large and mainly concealed, while the differences between races are small but in plain sight and obvious. (This must be so, since small differences would only become culturally significant if they were obvious, we do not for example, commonly divide people into groups based on the ability to curl tongues , since though it is a genetic difference, it is for the most part invisible.)

It follows that obvious differences will be well accounted for by our culture. While concealed differences will not, leading to both shame, (Which makes it worse, we do not like to address what we don't see or understand.) and to frequent errors and misunderstandings in what is hidden complex and little addressed by culture, and the proof of that, is that we make large artificial differences, such as dressing differently, to exaggerate what is concealed.

Given therefore that our cultures make little attempt to address sex/gender differences realistically, but use a huge smoke and mirrors artificial displays to create false differences, and that we like simple either or results, ( being lazy humans ) it follows that vast numbers of errors will occur in assigning people to sex/gender groupings. My contention is that most ( none religious at least ) people are able to recognize that cultural failing, and that therefore there is tolerance of those which to ask for some readjustments in the labels that society attaches to them. While with race since the differences are small, obvious and mainly a construct of culture it is harder to see/admit that culture will be in error, indeed culture can hardly be in error abut itself. Therefore there is little will to accommodate demands for alterations.

PS. with regard to your other question about the law. I think that the law requires a legal definition of everything of interest to people, because everything of interest to people, will sooner or later be a subject of conflict. In the UK we even have a legal definition of the difference between, cake and biscuit. One gets dryer and harder as it ages, the other gets moister and softer.

@Fernapple So this does a really good job of explaining what is in regards to this debate, and per our last exchange, I was saying it was unfortunate we were not able to discuss what ought to be. I suppose it's beneficial to have this potential reasoning in our back pockets to help understand why people may react the way they do. But does it solve our ought to? Why is it that society should have no say whatsoever when it comes to gender, but almost exclusive rights are held by everyone but the individual to conclude on race? I mean, I agree with you that it feels like that's the right thing, but is it really? I mean I know I can be wrong about something feeling correct. It feels like I have free will. Even knowing I don't doesn't change how much it feels like I do. Most people feel like Michael Vick deserved everything he got, and probably much, much more, but did he? Or at the very least, are all other punishments too lenient? Should someone who drinks and drives and kills a human being really get a lighter punishment? Should people that contribute to the horrible treatment and inhumane slaughter of animals literally every single day of their lives be unencumbered by even reminder they're doing so, but Vick's transgressions against a few dogs should lose him his career and land him in federal prison for almost 2 years? (Don't bother mentioning it was technically for gambling, because we both know that's not why he was punished so harshly.) So in pursuit of what ought to be, we should do our best to exclude our feelings from the deliberations.

As for the legal definition portion, I know we do need them (currently) but should we need them? For instance, should someone's gender be of interest to others? Should we eventually get to a point where those designations are irrelevant?

@JeffMurray Will have to give your several points some thought, and get back to you. But with regard to the suffering of animals, I think that you have first to ask if suffering in general is not a natural and normal part of life, and if it is not just a human religious delusion that it can be avoided. For all creatures including humans have to die and be consumed by others in the end. In the Western world we may, ( it is debatable, ) have found the resources and technical means to reduce human suffering to a degree. It is debatable, since our attempts to prolong life indefinitely, may really only be adding to and prolonging suffering. It is probably also a delusion, that we can extend suffering free life to all of humanity, or even find the resources to maintain the levels of health and material comfort we now enjoy in the West in the long term.

What is certain, is that we will never be able to do that for all of animal life, and even if we were to do so, nature would in time simply find ways of readjusting the balance, such as evolving creatures with lower pain thresholds. ( Which will happen to us too given time.)

Therefore morally and practically, it is almost certainly needful to distinguish between two different types of pain and distress, the types which are natural, even healthy and inevitable, and those which are unnatural and needless. Which is where I think many animal rights groups go wrong, especially in their criticism of meat eating and hunting etc. because they forget that every animal has to die, almost all die long before old age sets in to any depth, if one animal does not die another must do so to prevent over use of resources, and nature does not care at all how much pain and discomfort death entails. The only agent of death which does care, is the human hunter and farmer, most of whom take care to kill with as little pain and distress as possible. ( I am speaking of Western Europe here, it may be different in the USA. ) So that human hunting and possibly even farming, at the point of killing, is almost certainly a net reducer of suffering. ( To a buffalo a well aimed bullet is certainly less hurtful than being pulled down, lamed and disemboweled while still alive, by the wolf pack. )

For that reason I think that killing and eating, which are perfectly natural anyway, are a distraction from the main issues, which really should be the suffering caused by animal keeping, especially things like factory farming where animals endure lives of almost permanent distress. And even pet keeping where often loving owners,who are nonetheless quite ignorant of their animals real needs, put animals though whole lifetimes of suffering. Despite often being animal rights activists, even vegans, who would rightly be horrified by dog fighting, yet, for example, are happy to leave their own dog alone at home, in fear, boredom and loneliness, while they go on the march to protest animal cruelty.

@Fernapple So I don't disagree with anything you've said here. Were you expounding on the idea I presented, or was there a point of contention I'm not seeing?

@JeffMurray No just expounding on your idea.

@JonnaBononna
Your response is the most plausible including the link you posted

@Matias trans women are viewed with suspicion by some, but not by me. Trans men and trans women are moving to identify with the biology of their brain, which makes gender much more than genitalia does. People can be born with both male AND female genitalia, and removing one or the other won't decide their gender. Their BRAIN will decide their gender. If you leave both sets of genitalia, they won't be both man and woman; the brain will indicate to them which they should be. All humans start out as female, chromosomally, then changes through development. Development can go haywire and create all kinds of issues. Some develop male genitalia and female brains and vice versa. It makes sense to let them correct that if they so desire. Also, being trans comes with its very own set of oppression, so they will still fight patriarchy from "within".

So basically, there isn't an actual difference, people just feel like they are different.

As for the reparations correlation, how did females feel when Caitlin Jenner won Woman of the Year over a "real" woman? There was infinitely less outage over that than there was that Dolezal had taken the job of president of the NAACP over a "real" black person.

@TheMiddleWay So you've made a similar claim before, that the lie is what makes the difference. I asked you to imagine someone being up front and honest at the start of living the truth of their trans-racial life and trying to imagine how that would go. I think I know that the person would still face horrible backlash, but would be willing to bet every last dollar I own that they wouldn't be applauded, draped across magazine covers, and named black person of the year. But I suppose that imagining these things isn't really even a necessary exercise. I think the shear fact that society even probes these people and performs accusatory "investigative journalism" type actions into their lives prompting the lies in the first place does all the leg work to prove my point for me.

And I think your definition muddies the water a bit. It says race refers to physical characteristics of which she had, so convincingly, that practically no one thought she wasn't black until she was outed, while your quoted definition of ethnicity includes ancestry which everyone has assumes she has none. So even the distinction you're trying to draw as a reason to point to, to claim the ire is deserved doesn't really hold up under scrutiny. Furthermore, simply looking at backlash for cultural appropriation (not even being trans-racial) strongly points to the fact that there would be no "correct" way to live trans-racially. If the lie, or the race/ethnicity difference really was the only difference between Diallo/Jenner, there would be a way to live trans-racially and be applauded for it. I can't put the burden of proof on you for that, but I think we all know deep down that that is so self-evident that we don't need any proof.

@TheMiddleWay Yep I think that is a good, and accurate summing.

@TheMiddleWay The terms being isomorphic as you described still doesn't account for the probing accusatory questions/investigations that lead to the lies in the first place. This suggests that in all likelihood, there isn't a way to "correctly" live trans-racially. And I don't think the majority of transgendered individuals are treated as poorly as Diallo if for no other reason than companies are getting on board with including them as protected individuals even before the [I believe inevitable] inclusion as a legally protected class.

@TheMiddleWay
We'll have to agree to disagree because we have no evidence either way (yet) but like I said, I'd happily bet money that a white person couldn't publicly state they were going to start living as a black person because that's how they identify.

I never said transgendered individuals don't experience prejudice, but Diallo was vehemently hated by almost everyone. There are piles of shit that will always treat different people poorly, but if you look at "normal" rational people, you won't see hatred of transgendered individuals. They may not understand, may not be supportive, but not hatred. For Diallo, there was fierce, searing hatred from everywhere. Suppose we have to agree to disagree on this, too?

@TheMiddleWay I feel like I need to stress that I am actually looking for a reason to allow my thoughts to match my feelings. A lot of people assume that I love Diallo or want to defend her. Some may think that I hate transgendered people or that I'm just a racist who cares not for the historical struggles and plight of African-Americans. None could be further from the truth. I just have an uncontrollable need to eliminate all tensions from my beliefs. I'm looking for a reason that will allow my brain to justify seeing Diallo and Jenner differently, but so far haven't found it.

@TheMiddleWay Agreed, I'm team thoughts ALL THE WAY. But my desire to not have to explain myself or have people dislike me for bad reasons [when there are probably plenty of of good reasons to dislike me ] makes me want to sort out my feelings/thoughts as much as possible.

Yes I agree. Though there is the small point, that biologist do not usually recognize the idea of human races, because, although races exist in some species, the differences between humans are not considered to be great enough, or to use term you quote, there is not enough significant variation, to constitute races as the term is used in other species.

This may be an example of biologists finding an excuse to be PC. But there is some good evidence for it. Especially the fact, that humans passed through a genetic bottle neck approximately some seventy thousand years ago, which means that we all carry a virtually identical X chromosome, having a single female ancestor, and that the human species as a whole has less genetic variation than that found in the average family of chimpanzee. Genetic variation exists, is real, but is not considered enough for the biological term race. Morphotype or variety perhaps.

@Matias sorry. Fixed it

@TheMiddleWay If there is more than one logical reason why these cases are different, that's great, but we only need one; that's why we used the word 'the'. But if there are several, why hasn't even one been presented and held up under scrutiny?

Cultural characteristics, too, like history, language, etc.; a group sharing the same culture. e.g., an ethnic group (I'm not making up!; this is according to the Oxford Dictionary ).

@Ryo1 No, race by simple refers only to RACE. Finding unique definitions prove nothing. Looking at the root word says it all. The below is from Google, and is more specific. If you want to play definition war, you should know the more specific definition applies.

spe·cies| ˈspēsēz, ˈspēSHēz | noun (plural same) 1 (abbreviation sp., spp.) Biology a group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding. The species is the principal natural taxonomic unit, ranking below a genus and denoted by a Latin binomial, e.g. Homo sapiens.

race2
Biology a population within a species that is distinct in some way, especially a subspecies: people have killed so many tigers that two races are probably extinct.

"Human" is a species, not a race.

@Alienbeing so you think the term "human race" is meaningless? Or what.......

@Alienbeing, @AnneWimsey
'Human race' is a generic term meaning 'human being in general'. Meanwhile, 'species' is a biological term meaning 'a group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding'. Neither seems relevant to 'race'.

@Ryo1 No, you are making up definitions. Species is a well defined word.

@AnneWimsey I think the term "human race" is simply incorrect. The definition of species is specific. The Human species has many races. The term race is currently up for grabs depending of what biologist one wants to push. As far as I am concerned the word "race" merely notes physical differences, usually referring to skin color.

@Alienbeing Defined by the Oxford Dictionary.

@Ryo1 As posted elsewhere:

@Ryo1 No, race by simple refers only to RACE. Finding unique definitions prove nothing. Looking at the root word says it all. The below is from Google, and is more specific. If you want to play definition war, you should know the more specific definition applies.

spe·cies| ˈspēsēz, ˈspēSHēz | noun (plural same) 1 (abbreviation sp., spp.) Biology a group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding. The species is the principal natural taxonomic unit, ranking below a genus and denoted by a Latin binomial, e.g. Homo sapiens.

race2
Biology a population within a species that is distinct in some way, especially a subspecies: people have killed so many tigers that two races are probably extinct.

@Ryo1 As posted elsewhere:

@Ryo1 No, race by simple refers only to RACE. Finding unique definitions prove nothing. Looking at the root word says it all. The below is from Google, and is more specific. If you want to play definition war, you should know the more specific definition applies.

spe·cies| ˈspēsēz, ˈspēSHēz | noun (plural same) 1 (abbreviation sp., spp.) Biology a group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding. The species is the principal natural taxonomic unit, ranking below a genus and denoted by a Latin binomial, e.g. Homo sapiens.

race2
Biology a population within a species that is distinct in some way, especially a subspecies: people have killed so many tigers that two races are probably extinct.

@TheMiddleWay I refer to standard usage. I am sure I can find many definitions.

@TheMiddleWay humans invented language. Wow, what an idea!

@TheMiddleWay You tendency to bicker is boring. Standard is self explanatory.

Exactly and they've been doing it decades as well, time someone with brains gave them a good wholesome clip around the ears imo.

@Matias "Nobody is "biologically white", given that there are no races in biology. The difference between 'white' and 'colored' is not rooted in biology; the difference between 'male' and 'female' is"

Kind of answers your question if you simply assume gender to be a biological aspect of a person doesn't it?

@TheMiddleWay Maybe I used a wrong choice of words here. Let's say that Dolenzal strongly identified with black people so much so that she claimed to be one. This was all for her own benefit.

Wow. Thanks for the heavy dose of ignorance and bigotry.

@JacarC. And what somebody wants to be, whether nuclear physicist or man/woman/koala bear, is Your business becuz....?

@AnneWimsey You bring up a good point. Should any of it be anyone's business, ever? Probably not. Maybe if people wouldn't have tried to "gotcha" Diallo, she wouldn't have felt the need to lie to protect herself? I suspect one of two things will happen, either humans will mostly/completely die off from one of more various disasters, or they will eventually get so "racially mixed" that these sorts of questions and designations will be nonsensical.

@JeffMurray "tan" as a "color" couldn't happen soon enough!!!!!

@Matias I have found that people who object to this question routinely accuse me of loving Dolezal and defending her because I love her. They have a hard time comprehending that someone would defend someone they hate that much for any rational/logical reason. I try to point out that I defend Michael Vick as well, even though I couldn't give less of a shit about him personally or football generally, but that falls on deaf ears as well.
But you hit the nail on the head. We simply asked a question they are uncomfortable with (for whatever reason, I don't know) and they had a knee-jerk reaction to it.

Black cowboys you say?
[smithsonianmag.com]

Not a very recent phenomenon.

@Scott321 I know it's not specifically modetn, but here's a little cowboy history.

Though popularly considered American, the traditional cowboy began with the Spanish tradition, which evolved further in what today is Mexico and the Southwestern United States into the vaquero of northern Mexico and the charro of the Jalisco and Michoacán regions. While most hacendados (ranch owners) were ethnically Spanish criollos,[23] many early vaqueros were Native Americans trained to work for the Spanish missions in caring for the mission herds.[24] Vaqueros went north with livestock. In 1598, Don Juan de Oñate sent an expedition across the Rio Grande into New Mexico, bringing along 7000 head of cattle. From this beginning, vaqueros drove cattle from New Mexico and later Texas to Mexico City.[25] Mexican traditions spread both South and North, influencing equestrian traditions from Argentina to Canada.

[en.m.wikipedia.org].

Transracial or transcultural is just semantics. Call it what you like, but what makes it worthy of scorn while the other garners global applause, countless magazine covers, and a woman of the year award?

@Matias If you were honestly seeking information, you would research the relevant issues. Instead, you are attempting to desensitize the membership to exclusionary tactics like linking transgenderism to concepts like "ethics", "normal", "moral" and "taboo". You pretend that Rachel Dolezal was disenfranchised in order to camouflage your wish to disenfranchise transgenderism.

Your post is intellectually dishonest and your series of posts of the same vein prove that you are intellectually dishonest. Yet you will get away with it for awhile because of the popularity of fencesitting on this website but it must be very uncomfortable to feel so threatened by diversity.