21 Jun 2015

Callahan on Identity Politics

Religious 85 Comments

I’ve been zinging him lately on other matters, so I wanted to shine a favorable light on Gene Callahan’s posts on the (very touchy) subject of identity politics. For example, in this post Gene writes:

The Incoherence of the Dolezal/Jenner Distinction

I am interested in the sharp distinction being made between these two cases as an example of the incoherence of the progressive worldview, and not because of the cases themselves. And commenters attempts to defend this sharp distinction in response to previous posts leaves me more convinced than ever that I am right about this incoherence.

Gene then explains why he thinks the “duh” type explanations of why these cases are allegedly so different, really don’t work.

But then Gene takes it further, to offer a theory as to why progressives were so quick to embrace Jenner but to reject Dolezal:

What is going on is this: complete sexual freedom, “anything goes so long as it is consensual,” and the identification of traditional sexual morality as a barbarous relic are cornerstones of progressive ideology. So anyone who “transgresses” those traditional boundaries is heroic, whether there is any biological basis for those transgressions or not.

On the other hand, racial identity, and in particular the racial identity of oppressed or formerly oppressed people, is an important weapon in the progressive assault on “Eurocentric” civilization. Thus, crossing those boundaries is a very, very bad sort of transgression, and the person who does it is a “fraud” and a “liar.”

Incidentally, strictly speaking this issue has nothing intrinsically to do with religion, and yet I am posting this on Sunday because in the national discussion, it seems that the two are related. I’ll let you folks hash it out in the comments if you think this is a coincidence.

85 Responses to “Callahan on Identity Politics”

  1. Keshav Srinivasan says:

    Bob, out of curiosity what is your general view on the whole transgender issue? I’m asking because a lot of libertarian Christians say that they have socialy conservative values, it’s just that they don’t want to impose those values on the rest of society. Is that where you stand as well?

  2. Grane Peer says:

    Gene’s points are well taken but I don’t think this can be simply couched in terms of anything goes sexual freedom. I think this has something to do with loss of individualism, denial of the self in favor of the collective or groups. People are over emphasizing group identification to the detriment of the self. They have no importance as individuals. It is in the group where they think they have meaning, an identity, the only hope to distinguish themselves. The stronger the urge for uniqueness the deeper into self denial they push to become the group that embodies their inauthentic self. Bruce Jenner can feel however he wants nothing can take that away from him, he is always who he is. Instead of being a unique man he denies his self to try to become an ordinary woman, as if to say what he feels inside is what it is to be a woman, when in fact what it is to be a woman is unique to each woman. Not only does he deny his true self but he denies the individual self-hood of every woman. Same with this Dolezal woman, unable to self identify in her “privileged” group she concocts an image of her new inauthentic self to be what she thinks is the group, black. Again, denying her true self to be a group and denying the self-hood of black individuals who don’t share the characteristics that she deems as black.

    If Gene wants to see this as an attack on religious values that is certainly fair but not at all helpful for curing the deep psychosis being inflicted on people.

    • Keshav Srinivasan says:

      Grane Peer, surely there is some group identity that you consider an important part of who you are, whether it is being a libertarian, or being an atheist, or being Irish, or being a nerd, etc., isn’t there?

      • Bala says:

        “Libertarian”, “atheist” and “nerd” have nothing to do with any group. That there may be other people who fit any of these descriptions is irrelevant to my considering myself to be one.

        • Andrew Keen says:

          Those terms were all created and cultivated by people other than you. Without those other people you would not and could not consider yourself to be any one of those things. Those other people (specifically the ones who also fit those labels) form a grouping of people with whom you’ve chosen to identify. Those other people are not only relevant, they are a requirement for you to apply those labels to yourself.

          • Bala says:

            The point I see you missing is that identifying myself as, say, a libertarian does no necessitate identifying myself with a group. That someone else coined the term does not mean that anyone else who associates the term with himself associates with the other person.

            More particularly, my identity is not dependent on the group. Rather, it is dependent on the definition of the word “libertarian” and my positive identification that I do indeed possess the attributes that mark me out as one instance of the concept identified as “libertarian”. Even if there were no one else in the world today who is similar to me in this respect, I would still be a libertarian.

            My objection was specifically to the claim that it is a group identity we are talking of here. It simply is not.

            • Andrew Keen says:

              The point that you are missing is that without those other people with whom you have aligned yourself, you would be completely unaware of libertarianism as a concept. It is those people’s ideas that has afforded you the opportunity to claim this philosophy as your own. Without their intellectual effort, you could never be a libertarian. You would never have come up with the concept of libertarianism on your own.

              And since those people are a prerequisite of your being a libertarian and because you have aligned yourself with them philosophically, you are a part of a group. Even if everyone else dropped out of libertarianism and you were the last one left, you would be the last member of a dying group.

              Lastly, the term itself is group defined. You are not the sole arbiter of the definition of the term libertarian. If the term libertarian were to undergo a transformation similar to the historical transformation of the term liberal, you would stop associating yourself with that term and thus drop out of the group. You would stop associating with that term because the group had changed course and at some point it became too at odds with your personal convictions to continue identifying with it.

              Libertarianism is a group identity. If it weren’t, the term itself would cease to be useful and usage of it would be discontinued. It is precisely because the term, “libertarians,” defines a meaningful grouping of people that we are even writing about it.

              • Bala says:

                I guess the next thing you will tell me is that “individual” is a group identity because I couldn’t have formed the concept “individual” without all the other individuals before me who formulated the concept “individual” and when I think of myself as an individual, I am basically associating with all those other people who have used that label to refer to themselves.

                That would be something, wouldn’t it?

              • Andrew Keen says:

                The group of all individuals is a rather large and diverse group. The term itself is defined by a lineage of human thought. It is not, by itself, very clearly defined. It could mean every individual human, in which case membership is a case of biological distinction and not intentionally entered. Or it could mean all self-recognizing entities, in which case it would contain a subset of humanity that have been taught the concept of the self by their parents. Either definition is a group. The latter definition is also a group identity.

              • Bala says:

                Thanks for proving my point.

              • Andrew Keen says:

                Thanks for disproving your earlier point. I’m always happy to change a mind.

              • Bala says:

                There’s my learning. Sarcasm doesn’t always work.

              • Grane Peer says:

                Andrew,

                If I understand you correctly, you are saying ideas do not come from people but have to be given to people from someone who is not a person and in order to have a new idea one must be remembering a forgotten idea because ideas are in finite supply.
                Do I have that correct?

              • Andrew Keen says:

                No, Grane. People come up with ideas. But human knowledge is highly recursive and iterative. In modern society, less than 1% of any individual’s ideas are original. Even the original ideas are built upon a base that was shared by other people.

                If a baby were left alone on an island and it grew to adulthood, it would not speak language or have any semblance of the intelligence of modern man. That adult alone on an island would be indistinguishable from a wild animal. The ability to share information from person to person and generation to generation is what sets humans apart from every other animal. Human intelligence is not an innate attribute. It is a human invention and it must be passed from person to person.

                Not only are your ideas built upon the ideas of others, they are conceived within the languages and thought patterns of others. This is an amazing thing. You will never meet the people who invented the bulk of English or mathematical theory, but almost all of your thoughts and ideas will be constructed within those paradigms. With all that in mind, I don’t know how anyone could come up with a wholly original idea. I don’t even remember how to think without using things that others taught me.

              • Andrew Keen says:

                Bala,

                It depends on what you mean by ‘work.’ I count two sarcastic replies from you. The first one was a swing and miss on your part, so I chose to ignore the sarcasm and explain why your comment had no teeth. The second one was a lame sarcastic jab and I responded with my own lame sarcastic jab in kind.

                If by ‘doesn’t always work,’ you meant that sarcasm is a lame rhetorical device that can only serve to derail when used in an otherwise cordial discussion, then I agree.

              • Bala says:

                Andrew,

                I gave up on the discussion with you the moment I saw you implying that all identity is group identity. I realised that you and I come from opposite poles of epistemology and hence shouldn’t be arguing unless we enjoy shouting past each other.

                Have a nice day.

              • Andrew Keen says:

                You too.

      • Grane Peer says:

        Keshav,

        If I am Irish then that is a property of my physical self I could not have the property of being non-Irish unless I was not Irish. If there was some procedure for becoming fully non-Irish then I would not be me. There is no oneness if I can be something else. But, lets say I were Arab and wanted or did or felt that I identified as being Irish. What is Irishness that this is a feature of my spiritual self, is there some unique consciousness that all Irish have and for that matter Arabs, yet I am an Arab with Irishness? Is there something about being Arab that prevents me from having a disposition for green, alcohol, jigs, and hating Cromwell? Or is it that no matter how one lists attributes of Irish people they are extrinsic to being Irish. Like an Irish man who loves Cromwell and purple but hates dancing and drinking doesn’t cease to be Irish. A non-Irish who identifies as Irish is denying who he is and what it is to be Irish.

        Who are you? Well, I am a political philosophy, a religion, and a social status. Are those things I have or that I am made of ? My sense of self may be predicated on having those things but not being those things.

  3. Harold says:

    Callahan in missing the point that gender is more than what sex you are born. There is a view that your gender is what you identify as. We have a word for the biological aspects and a word for the cultural aspects. For race it is a bit different, because we don’t have a proper concept for race at all: one does not fall unambiguously into a racial category. It is pretty clear that people generally do have a gender identity. It is not clear that one must have a racial identity at all.

    He brushes aside what he calls lie 1 – that she lied about her father and background. Truth is we do not know quite what the reaction would be without this lie. In fact, the necessity of the lie shows that the cases are seen very differently. We are prepared to believe that Jenner identifies as a woman although born a man. The case for Dolezal is different because we are not necessarily prepared to accept she identifies as black though born white. Whereas Jenner can live as a woman without the lie, Dolezal cannot live as black without the lie.

    Why this is so is not simple.

    I believe there is a long tradition of people that were considered black by society at large to identify (or pretent to identify) as white – it was called “passing” I think. There is very little tradition for whites passing as blacks because the latter are clearly massively disadvantaged in a fundamentally racist society. There is a tradition of whites blacking up as a mockery of black people for entertainment, so there is a bit of cutlural bias against that. These blackface performers appropriate some aspect of blackness for their advantage without giving up any of their privilege as whites.

    The concept of division between “black” or “white” has little actual basis in reality. The differences between races are culturally drawn and policed from both sides. How much black ancestry is needed to be black? How much to exclude you from being white?

    Transgenderism has only recently been treated with respect in the media. It took quite a while for society at large to recognise that transgendered people genuinely identify as the other sex. Since people have little experience of Dolezal’s form of “trans-racism”, but quite wide experience of racial appropriation of the blackface variety, it is understandable that the reaction is initially one of suspicion. The assumption is that the person is taking on aspects of blackness for their advantage without giving up the advantages of whiteness.

    I have not seen all the detatils of this case, but a peripheral look reveals an apparently genuine identification as black, a desire for everyone to see her as black, and a willingness to take on all the implications of that, both good and bad. I don’t see any reason why we should not call her black and say no more about it if this is a genuine reflection of her identity.

    • Andrew Keen says:

      To summarize, you agree with Gene that the progressive backlash to transracialism is inconsistent with the progressive acceptance of transgenderism. Further, you propose that transracialism should gain wider acceptance in the future.

      • Harold says:

        Broadly, I don’t see why we shouldn’t accept transracialism. I do have some doubts because as I explained above sex is actually a thing, whereas race is not. We are one sex or another, whereas we do not have to belong to any race at all. So identification with race may be a completely different thing than identification with gender, and may turn out to not exist in the same way. I am hedging my bet, but at the moment it is on accepting the concept.

        I don’t agree with Gene that we can dismiss the lie aspect as easily as he suggests. Whilst we may be reasonably accepting of transgenderism, we are less so if the individual pretends not to be trans-gender, and makes up a past where they have always been the new gender.

        • Andrew Keen says:

          I have to disagree with you when you say that race does not exist. Race in humans is similar to breed in dogs. We all share common ancestors (Adam and Eve for humans, wild wolves for dogs) and we can all interbreed, but there are defined biological differences between us based on our ancestral evolutionary selection (natural in the case of humans, unnatural in the case of dogs). Race is not as sharply defined as biological gender, but race is still an observable biological trait.

          • Harold says:

            Well yes, I agree that race is not a wholly empty concept, but in the context here it is very different from sex. Sex differences are clear cut, large and biologically important. Race differences are very small, very mixed up and biologically unimportant.

            For example, a baby with white parents, swapped unknowingly at birth with a baby with black parents, may be brought up as black, and identify as black, but be genetically white. I think plenty of people would agree that the person was black A baby with black parents may be much more genetically white than black. There is no clear distinction between black and white so you can classify people into the two groups by any mecahnism other than what they identify as. Membership of the groups is to an extent cultural rather than biological, so the distinction between black and white as an identity is largely cultural.

            Not so boys and girls. Young children may not understand the concept of race, yet they all understand the concept of sexes. A boy swapped for a girl will be noticed immediately. A child is a boy or a girl, we cannot be a bit more boy than girl like we can be a bit more black than white. We can classify nearly everyone into two genders easily and accurately. The two classs exist in a very real way that the classes of black and white do not.

            Or, sex is determined by a genetic variation of which there are essentially only two types, XX or XY. Race is a mixture of every gene we have. If we insist on having two classes of race, membership of each class will inevitably be arbitrary or cultural.

    • Keshav Srinivasan says:

      “The assumption is that the person is taking on aspects of blackness for their advantage without giving up the advantages of whiteness.

      I have not seen all the detatils of this case, but a peripheral look reveals an apparently genuine identification as black, a desire for everyone to see her as black, and a willingness to take on all the implications of that, both good and bad. I don’t see any reason why we should not call her black and say no more about it if this is a genuine reflection of her identity.” Well, the argument is that it’s impossible for her to take on all the bad consequences of being Black, because some of those consequences involves having a history of disadvantage throughout your life. She simply cannot replicate the experience of being treated differently as a child and things like that.

      • Harold says:

        Part of being a woman is growing up with the sexism in society, yet we accept changes of identifiaction here. I don’t thinbk that on its own would be a bar to identification as black.

    • E. Harding says:

      “There is very little tradition for whites passing as blacks because the latter are clearly massively disadvantaged in a fundamentally racist society.”
      -Lol.

      • Harold says:

        Not sure why this is amusing.

        • E. Harding says:

          Saying America is a fundamentally racist society is nonsense. It’s no different from saying America is a fundamentally Judeoprivileging society because, on average, Jews tend to make more money than gentiles.

          • Harold says:

            Do you think USA was never fundamentally racist? Or that it once was and has now stopped being?

            If the latter, can you please tell me when the last vestige disappeared? If the former, then any conversation is pointless, as your understanding of the world is so far removed from mine that there is no hope of bridging the gap.

            Even if the USA had removed racism then it would not prevent there being no tradition of passing for black since traditions are based on what happened in the past.

            Your argument is flawed anyway because the conclusion that there is racism is not based only on blacks on average earning less than whites. On its own this would be far from conclusive. When we link it with all the other evidence it becomes pretty conclusive.

            • E. Harding says:

              “If the latter, can you please tell me when the last vestige disappeared?”
              -The U.S. stopped being a fundamentally racist society in the late 1960s to early 1970s.
              “If the latter, can you please tell me when the last vestige disappeared?”
              -Never. Affirmative Action still exists at private universities.
              “When we link it with all the other evidence it becomes pretty conclusive.”
              -What “other evidence”?

  4. Matt M says:

    I think a lot of people are upset at Dolezal because of the implications of her decision.

    The fact that someone would voluntarily go to great lengths to appear to be the member of a racial minority casts some serious doubts on the theory that racial minorities are incredibly disadvantaged in our society, and perhaps even gives credence to the “reverse discrimination” theories about how minorities are often advantaged in numerous ways in modern society. It certainly appears that “passing” as black was necessary for Dolezal to obtain her desired position with her employer, and that no options suddenly became closed to her as a result of this decision.

    Those who promote the idea that racism is a huge problem in modern society often ask the question “Would you trade places with a black person?” Dolezal provides the very uncomfortable answer that at least one person absolutely would, and not just trade, would make great efforts to attempt to trade. This is pretty bad news for them overall and will cause people to question their primary narrative – that blacks are unquestionably disadvantaged compared to whites.

    • Keshav Srinivasan says:

      Well, there are different kinds of advantage and disadvantage. A handicapped person gets better parking spots, for instance.

      Here’s a great blog post on the subject

      http://squid314.livejournal.com/354385.html

      • Z says:

        That’s also why there is no ‘patriarchy’ in this society either. Men and women have systematic and individual advantages and disadvantages in many different areas. A 7 cent wage gap is not the only relevant point in the discussion.

        • Keshav Srinivasan says:

          Well, the character of those advantages and disadvantages makes a difference. Like you can say that the fact there’s a black history month and not a white history month is an advantage for blacks, but in the larger context of how white historical figures are studied automatically without any need for a month, things look different.

          Again, I recommend the blog post I linked to, especially it’s discussion of structural power vs. social power.

          • Z says:

            I would say white vs black advantage has a clear cut winner: white. Not that this justifies reverse racism.
            But I argue male vs female advantage has no winner. There is no patriarchy.

            • Bharat says:

              Contrary to popular opinion, there are many advantages to being a woman over being a man (and vice versa of course, I’m not denying there exists male privileges too), but typically many liberals believe both in male privilege and white privilege simultaneously. So using white privilege to invalidate transracism is likely a sign of inconsistency for many.

    • Keshav Srinivasan says:

      Well, there are different kinds of advantage and disadvantage. A handicapped person gets better parking spots, for instance, and some people might try to call themselves handicapped to get the parking spot, but that doesn’t change the fact that being handicapped is a bummer.

      Here’s a great blog post on the subject
      http://squid314.livejournal.com/354385.html

      • Andrew Keen says:

        Where do you stand on the rights of the trans-capable, Keshav?

        • Keshav Srinivasan says:

          I’m actually just playing devil’s advocate in this thread, because there’s no one here to represent the liberal perspective. (I really suggest you read that blog post, though.). But as far what I believe, I’m skeptical of transgenderism, transracialism, and transableism.

          But I think you can have a coherent position where you embrace transgenderism but reject transracialism and transableism. The liberal argument against transracialism is that you’re appropriating someone else’s ancestry, which is problematic when that involves stealing someone else’s heritage of oppression. And the same argument can be made against transableism (or what most liberals would just call body integrity disorder): you’re appropriating the identity of people who have a real plight that they can’t get rid of. But I don’t really see an analogous argument against the transgender community; you’re not appropriating someone else’s oppression or suffering.

          • Andrew Keen says:

            Male-to-female transgenderism has the same exact problem as the other two in terms of stealing someone else’s oppression. Consider the following statements for example: “Caitlyn Jenner was rewarded financially for growing up as a male. His athletic career would not have been as lucrative if he had been born a woman and competed in the Olympics as a female.”

            Also, I find it inconsistent to say, “You are whatever feels right and natural to you so long as you don’t steal someone else’s hardships.” That seems loony to me. Either you are what you feel in your heart or you are what your biology shows you to be. How can past hardships in which you had no involvement impact your personal identity?

      • Matt M says:

        Right. And the “you wouldn’t trade places with a black person, would you?” question was usually meant to be the conversation-ender to any white person who ever dared to complain about affirmative action or some other such thing. The notion is that despite having some advantages, on the net of things, it’s still better to be white.

        The better analogy here would be someone intentionally lying on the train tracks so that they could break their legs and literally become handicapped. As far as we can tell, Dolezal did everything she possibly could to make a complete and total transformation and had zero intention of ever “going back.” Dolezal decided that, on the net of things, being black was preferable, and the fact that an otherwise sane person would make this calculation spells trouble indeed for the race-baiting portion of society and must be immediately quashed.

        • Keshav Srinivasan says:

          “As far as we can tell, Dolezal did everything she possibly could to make a complete and total transformation and had zero intention of ever “going back.” But the argument is, there’s nothing she could do to make a total transformation, because the diaadvantages of being black aren’t limited to how you’re treated right now, it also has to do with having a history of disadvantage/oppression throughout your life that puts you at a disadvantage now. It would be different if Rachel Dolezal was raised from birth to be black, raised by black parents, believed by everyone to be black. if that were, then a lot of liberals would have a very different reaction to the Dolezal story. Because ultimately liberals believe that skin only matters because we live in a society that treats people differently based on skin color. If she really was treated throughout her life exactly how Black people were treated, then her genetic level of melanin wouldn’t really matter.

          In any case, I highly recommend that blog post I linked to.

          • Matt M says:

            I couldn’t read it before – my work network filtered it out as “pornography”

            In any case I don’t think it’s too relevant to my point. The existence of Dolezal challenges the mythos that whites hold even structural power over blacks. Dolezal is not some conservative agitator who simply claimed to be black on a college admissions application to receive those benefits but otherwise lives as a white person. She did the very best she could, on a purely voluntary basis, to receive the total package of being black.

            You’re right that to a certain extent she can’t. There were parts of her childhood where she presumably benefited from being white. But now she happily rejects those. The fact that a fairly knowledgeable and well educated person would do that spells trouble for the overall “blacks have it really terrible and no white person would ever want to trade places with them” narrative.

            • Harold says:

              “The fact that a fairly knowledgeable and well educated person would do that spells trouble for the overall “blacks have it really terrible and no white person would ever want to trade places with them” narrative.”

              If that were the narrative, but the narrative is that generally white people would not swap. I don’t think anyone would claim that no white person ever would not wish to be black. After all, someone recently married a building, so one would be foolish to deny that almost any preference could occur. One counter example does very, very little to challenge the narrative that white people generally would not swap.

              However, people may perceive it as a threat, and so challenge it out of the mistaken belief that is is significant.

    • E. Harding says:

      “Would you trade places with a black person?”
      -Only if he was Obama. Or some African dictator.

  5. rob says:

    Gene first declares that the progressive response was incoherent, but then helps them out by presenting his version of their worldview.

    Part of this worldview is:

    ‘On the other hand, racial identity, and in particular the racial identity of oppressed or formerly oppressed people, is an important weapon in the progressive assault on “Eurocentric” civilization. Thus, crossing those boundaries is a very, very bad sort of transgression, and the person who does it is a “fraud” and a “liar.”‘

    Wouldn’t it be equally possible to attribute the following view to progressives?

    ”On the other hand, gender identity, and in particular the gender identity of women and others who experience sexual discrimination , is an important weapon in the progressive assault on “Male-centric” civilization. Thus, crossing gender boundaries is a very, very bad sort of transgression, and the person who does it is a “fraud” and a “liar.”‘

    Seems like Gene’s characterization of the progressive worldview is itself a bit incoherent.

    • Andrew_FL says:

      The latter view is significantly less prevalent, rob, that’s exactly the incoherence he’s pointing to.

      • rob says:

        There are plenty “progressives” out there who see society as both male-centric and euro-centric and think these are bad things. Based on this it would be a bit inconsistent of them to be supportive of people who identify as a different gender to their birth one, but against people who do the same with race. Outside of this specific case (where lying and fraud may really have a played a role!) I see no evidence that progressive are inconsistent in this way.

    • Tel says:

      Thus, crossing gender boundaries is a very, very bad sort of transgression, and the person who does it is a “fraud” and a “liar.”‘

      That would lead you into the tranny vs feminist “Progressive” infighting. Kind of hilarious the way identity politics and shifting alliances of convenience tie people up in knots… well in a tragic comic sort of way.

    • E. Harding says:

      Trans-exclusionary radfems exist.

  6. martinK says:

    Looks to me like the obvious difference is that Dolezal intentionally deceived everybody around her for years, while Jenner isn’t deceiving anybody.

    Furthermore people who believe blacks are severely disadvantaged in American society will see her as having (implicitly) claimed to have experienced that disadvantage, wile Jenner hasn’t done anything like that.

    • E. Harding says:

      Don’t feminists claim women have severe disadvantage?
      I also think deception is a large part of this.

      • martinK says:

        Don’t feminists claim women have severe disadvantage?

        Yes, but Jenner hasn’t in any way claimed to have experienced that disadvantage. (At least not as far as I know.) You could say he would have – implicitly – if for years he had pretended to be a woman and held a position within a feminist organization comparable to Dolezal’s position in the NAACP.

    • Harold says:

      But the problem for Dolezal is that she could not live as a black person without the lie, because the existence of transracism is not widely accepted. Part of the issue is that living as a black person has no real meaning, since according to laws there is no difference. The ubiquity of single sex public toilets reveals that there are very real difference between the way we view the sexes.

      To be sure we would need to look at a case of a transgender woman who had been living as a woman without revealing her past as a man, with a made up back-story. I am sure this must have happened.

      • Andrew Keen says:

        If you had ever applied for a loan or had to defend against a wrongful termination suit, then you would recognize that race does matter in the eyes of the law.

        • E. Harding says:

          Banks are prohibited from discriminating on the basis of race. Yet, on average, Blacks still have higher default rates than Whites.

        • Harold says:

          “If you had ever applied for a loan or had to defend against a wrongful termination suit, then you would recognize that race does matter in the eyes of the law.”

          If we are getting pedantic than there are lots of employment termination suits that have nothing to do with race, so defending one does not imply knowledge of the law regarding race.

          There is nothing necessarily wrong with pedantry – often it is necessary to nail down what is meant.

          So I will try to clarify. In any area where the law mentions it at all it is to say that everyone must treat her the same as either a black or a white. However men and women are treated differently in law, and certainly are treated differently by society. Public toilets are a very clear public demonstration that being a man or a woman leads to very different expectations.

          We no longer have blacks only toilets. We have no way as a society to recognise someone as black. Given mixed race relationships it has no clear definition anyway. A transgender woman may wear clothes only worn by women, use toilets only used by women etc. A woman identifying as black has no such public demonstrations. So for that woman the lie becomes a much more necessary part of the black identification than it does for the transgender woman.

          • Andrew Keen says:

            I agree with your first four and a half paragraphs. I wasn’t saying that the law requires races to be treated differently. I was pointing out that the fact that there are laws that require different races to be treated fairly with respect to one another is proof that the legal system recognizes the existence and importance of race.

            I would add that there is the possibility that a white person could pass himself off as a minority race in order to increase his likelihood of getting a job/loan/scholarship/acceptance letter, of not getting fired from a job, or of winning a discrimination lawsuit. Whether or not this is the intention of the law, this is the effect of the law.

            I disagree with you about the lie being more necessary for the transracial than the transgendered. People believed Dolezal was black because she tanned her skin, curled her hair, and worked for the NAACP. None of those things are exclusive to black people, but they are public demonstrations that led people to believe she was black. In fact, she said in an interview that no one asked whether she was black before they found out that her biological parents were both white. I don’t see a glaring difference between her public demonstrations/need to lie and those of transgendered people.

            • Harold says:

              Possibly, I am still thinking about this. Dolezal was assumed to be black because she had the outward appearance of women who are black. People may assume Jenner was a woman because she appeared to be a woman. However, on finding out that Dolezal’s parents were both white, lots of people then denied that she was black. Whereas the fact that Jenner was born a man does not stop people from accepting that she is now a woman.

              Now, clearly some people think that Jenner is still a man, but it does get significant public acceptance that she is a woman.

              For Dolezal, I think there is less public acceptance that she is black – I think more people deny that she is black than deny that Jenner is a woman.

              Perhaps it is not a glaring difference, but one of degree.

  7. rob says:

    “Looks to me like the obvious difference is that Dolezal intentionally deceived everybody around her for years, while Jenner isn’t deceiving anybody”

    Yeah, that would seem like the simplest explanation, but Gene obviously sees this as a chance to get out his progressive-bashing stick – but I think it is his own argument that lacks coherence in this case.

    • Bharat says:

      Nice, I can tell that both of you followed the link and read the entire blog post.

      • martinK says:

        Can’t speak for rob, but I did read the whole thing.

        I think the relevant part is this:

        As far as the second “lie” goes, to declare it is not acceptable for a X person to choose to self-identify as a Y person is the whole question on the table, and calling it a “lie” is just a different way of answering “no”: in other words, it is completely question begging.

        So if I choose to self-identify as Gene Callahan and go around telling people I’m Gene Callahan, I wouldn’t be lying? Seriously?

        • rob says:

          Yes, I read it to.

          Gene just seems to have abandoned logic in his quest to give progressives a good kicking.

          It would be a perfectly valid and consistent view to believe that its OK to switch your gender and/or ethnic identity, but not OK to lie about it.

          Bur Gene just knows what people who claim to hold this view really think – they really just want to push their own agenda on race and promiscuous sex!

        • Harold says:

          Of course not. I think you can call yourself what you want unless it is for fraudulent purposes.

  8. khodge says:

    WHOA! “nothing intrinsically to do with religion?” Maybe in the Calvinistic tradition, where you are predestined for wherever, religion is irrelevant, or the evangelical tradition, where you are saved by “faith alone” without having to deal with living a good (i.e. holy) life religion is irrelevant. The rest of us in the Judeo-Christian tradition have to struggle with holiness and the teachings of Christ or of the God of Abraham. where lying is a moral wrong with limited exceptions. The person you are is the person God made. Even in the Eastern religions (from my very limited knowledge) with reincarnation, you do not get to choose what you come back as.

    The only truly secular aspect I can see is, from a biology/anthropology perspective, race is mostly a sociological construct so, maybe, Dolezal can be given a pass. From a truly secular perspective, the doctor who disfigures a healthy male or female may be doing no damage. The same cannot be said from a religious perspective.

    • Bob Murphy says:

      *sigh* khodge there’s no reason to write stuff like “The rest of us in the Judeo-Christian tradition have to struggle with holiness and the teachings of Christ or of the God of Abraham. where lying is a moral wrong with limited exceptions.”

      Part of the dispute concerns whether it’s true that Jenner is just “choosing” to be a woman, etc. Some people are saying he was really born a woman inside a man’s body, blah blah blah. My point was that strictly speaking, these supposedly objective facts about biology seem to coincidentally map onto people’s religious views, in non-obvious ways.

      The people who take strong positions on these matters don’t merely say, “These are my subjective whims, stop judging me man.” No, many of them are claiming to have objective evidence on their side.

      Let me switch examples so you can see the modest point I was making. The proposition, “Human activities have significantly contributed to an increase in global temperature since 1750” does not intrinsically have anything to do with religion. I don’t think there are any Bible verses talking about the equilibrium sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentrations. And yet, I think there would be a huge disparity in belief in such a proposition, if you polled American evangelicals versus American atheists.

      • khodge says:

        OOPS, sorry…you hit one of my trigger points with the “not religion” concept. (Incidentally, that’s one of the things I like most about econlog…she (Lauren) does an outstanding job of keeping the conversations clean.)

        However, as a Catholic, and given the Pope’s recent encyclical, the whole “human activities” thing is not a modest point and does, in a sense, put Catholics who religiously follow your writings in a position where we are, at minimum, required to respond to his teaching with respect regardless of our rational objections to them.

        My economics are significant in that they, for instance, explain why socialism does not care for the widow and orphan, not because they are a realm apart from religion.

        • E. Harding says:

          I dislike Lauren because she keeps the conversations too censored. When Scott Sumner has a post up on Econlog, sometimes, I’ll comment on his blog rather than Econlog to avoid being axed. And she answers emails late, too.

          BTW, pretty every commenter banned by Scott Alexander would be Fine By Me.

          • khodge says:

            I find that when she censors me I am required to clean up both my writing and my thoughts. It is like a sonnet: being forced into a strict pattern does not destroy the poetry; it demands that the poet choose his words carefully and eliminates most of the garbage that spews from string of consciousness.

            In my case, well-crafted sarcasm is much more effective than referring to the president as a political hack. (However correct I was and wrong she was.)

  9. Capt. J Parker says:

    Too bad Jenner is being used at the comparison to demonstrate the progressive incoherence of progressive identity politics and not Lizzy Warren. Warren and her dubious claims of Cherokee ancestry are a much closer fit to Dolezals situation. Dolezal has no defenders. Warren crossed exactly the same boundary from Euroethnic blond-haired blue to eyed swede to oppressed native american and all of the progressive intelligentsia gave Warren a get out of fraud and liar jail free card. How come?

  10. Tel says:

    Always difficult to outdo Delingpole on these matters
    🙂

    Imagine sticking both arms out every morning then remembering, with a shudder, that there is no valet to slip on your frock coat and that in fact all you’ve got is a bunch of Charles Tyrwhitt shirts and the same old pair of jeans which you’re going to have to put on yourself.

    Imagine….well there’s really no point because you can’t bloody imagine. Unlike me – unless of course you are a fellow Trans Class victim – you won’t have sufficient intellectual refinement or imagination to imagine, because your proletarian brain won’t let you.

    So since you lack the inability to imagine, I’ll just have to tell you.

    I was born an 18th century Duke with a vast estate, a stable of two dozen hunters, a bevy of mistresses, a summer “nooky house”, more estates in the West Indies (where I can assure you that the workers are all very happy with their lot and address me cheerfully as “Massa Duke, Sir”), a beautiful if slightly remote wife who is related to the King, lots of paintings (especially of me) by Gainsborough and Reynolds, yet I am trapped in the body of a middle-class, middle-aged journalist in ugly, pointless, 21st century Britain.

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/06/12/you-think-being-trans-black-is-bad-rachel-dolezal-wait-till-you-hear-about-my-problem/

  11. E. Harding says:

    I think Callahan is almost exactly and fully on target. The only reason Jenner is being portrayed as heroic is because his act is a blow in favor of free sexuality. Race-crossing has nothing to do with liberalizing sexuality and takes the claim “race is just a social construct” literally, i.e., not the way it’s intended. Leftists full well understand slave-descendants to be creditors, and guilt and debt to be transferred through the blood. Obama is not, however, a slave-descendant. His pretending to be Black (i.e., slave descendant) is far more insidious than Dolezal’s, as infinitely more people fall for it. What difference is there between Obama and Dolezal? Very little.

    • Matt M says:

      Pure devil’s advocate here… but Obama’s ancestors presumably were harmed by European “colonialism” rather than American “slavery” but the difference is pretty much zero in the eyes of the modern progressive. In both cases it’s a “dark skin good, light skin bad” conclusion.

      • E. Harding says:

        Were it not for imperialism, Obama, Sr. would never have had the chance to go to University in Hawaii. Also, Obama was raised by his mother, not his father.

    • Harold says:

      Obama is pretending to be black? It seems black is the new white. If black means slave descendant, how do we distinguish between a black and white Aftrican?

      Race is complex, and is not “just” a social construct, but a lot of it is a social construct.

      • E. Harding says:

        1. Look for any unusual (non-slave-coast) African ancestry.
        2. Look at family trees.

        • Harold says:

          Still don’t quite get it. If an African has no slave ancestors, he is not black?

  12. Major.Freedom says:

    I’ll agree with you Murphy that Callahan is right about this.

    • skylien says:

      Have you seen my and Andrews (above of mine) comments there?

      http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2015/06/at-some-point-it-would-be-nice-if-rothbards-critics-actually-read-his-article-on-legal-theory.html#comment-1514384

      I am a little confused what “absolute property rights” really mean. And it would help me if you would answer my question there so that I understand your view entirely. Thanks in advance if you do.

      • skylien says:

        *…if you would answer my question there so that I understand your view entirely. *

        Of course it doesn’t mean it must be you fault automatically if I am not able to grasp it after you answer..

      • Major.Freedom says:

        Honestly skylien I don’t see how what you said is consistent with liberty, nor do I see any general argument on whether a neighbor shining a light on another’s property does or does not constitute a violation of liberty if the other does not consent.

        Personally, when I see someone argue that the solution to these kinds of problems is “Take them to private court and let the chips fall where they may” seems to not get at the core of the challenge folks like Sumantra are making against absolute libertarianism. To me, saying “Take them to private court” is no different in principle than a totalitarian saying “Take them to the state court.”

        What that answer does is suggest that the solution to problems of liberty is not settled rationally via argument, but by the whims of the opinions of the court judges. To me that does not safeguard liberty, but rather invokes a faith that private judges are the true representatives of liberty.

        What Sumantra is saying is that the absolutist libertarian principle, if we are going to take it to its logical conclusions, would effectively make us accept that the individual themselves, not a private court, not a statist court, is the ultimate dictator of his own person and property, which means ANY effect on his person or property caused by another human being, can be grounds for that individual to refuse it, deny it, and that absolutist libertarian principles should allow him to follow through in acting in response to stop those effects if the caused of those effects is not willing to voluntarily refrain from causing those effects.

        What Sumantra is saying is that absolutist libertarianism logically leads us to respect other individuals to such a high degree that it may compel us to drastically and significantly change the way we live and what we have come to take for granted as OK activity, if there are absolutist libertarian out there who I am guessing Sumantra does not respect enough to think that yes it is right and ethical that many, possibly millions of people, would have to take drastic measures to ensure that the absolutist property rights of one or two “crazy” individuals are respected.

        Sumantra is just saying “it ain’t worth it”, while I am saying “It is worth it FOR ME.” I don’t encourage others to be “frivolous” about photons, but IF an individual wants only “natural” photons, natural meaning non-human caused AND non-action-but-still-human caused photons.

        I would think it is justified for me to first ask that Sumantra refrain from causing photons to land on my person or property, not by turning off his lights, but perhaps lowering the shades, or in the case of wi-fi, install a shield, and if he does not do so voluntarily, that he would according to absolutist libertarianism be violating my property rights.

        Since I think responses to violations cannot be cruel and unusual unless the violation is itself cruel and unusual, perhaps the best solution I would choose is not to be a dick and ignore hundreds of years of history of house building and expect my neighbor to pay, but rather I would install a shield around my house, even though I am the victim here.

        I think libertarianism in a statist world should not be so drastic even though it is morally right. I think in the case of wi-fi signals, we should all work together to move towards a world where homes come pre-built with metal shields in the walls. Something like this. But, having said that, I still think it would be justified for the anti wi-fi folks to take actions to get their neighbors to stop sending those photons, as long as it is eye for eye, and not shotgun in the face (unless of course the caused point a shotgun).

        • skylien says:

          Thanks for answer.

          For clarification. When I said, that largely justice is whatever the public thinks it to be, then I didn’t claim that this whatever is morally right. I just wanted to emphasize how the world works. And in the end you need to convince people of what is moral and right to increase liberty in the world.

          Your explanation is no solution to the actual problem. I mean yes it works for you, because in such a case you would just pull out and look for a work around (block the photons from your neighbor).

          However the problem on hand is that no one pulls out of the conflict and looks for a work around. And if no arbitrator was available (and we assume that in principle both neighbors are still sensible enough not enforce their claims with a shotgun outright) then what we will likely see is a neighbor war in the sense that: If my neighbor puts up a light, well then I will put up a light as well und to make my point a bigger one etc.. And maybe at some point this actually could slowly heat up until we would really see physical violence.

          So I don’t see a solution to the actual problem on hand. And if absolute property rights really mean this, then I am rejecting them.

          But as far as I know since Rothbard does not rule out arbitration and he is for absolute property rights, I guess it still leaves me confused as of yet. Well concerning Rothbard I didn’t do my homework yet, because I have not read his works on this issue yet…

          • Major.Freedom says:

            Skylien:

            “When I said, that largely justice is whatever the public thinks it to be, then I didn’t claim that this whatever is morally right. I just wanted to emphasize how the world works. And in the end you need to convince people of what is moral and right to increase liberty in the world.”

            Justice rationally understood transcends positive justice. I don’t mean to presume that is news to you, since after all you are a libertarian. You know what it is like to believe in certain rules of conduct even if you don’t observe others abiding by it.

            But justice is affected by the same thing as ethics, namely you, and me, and every other individual. It is what we make of justice that justice is. If you say “the world works this way” you are referring to history, the status quo. Such things are not inevitable as a law of nature. Human thought transcends history. You can know this by the fact that you understand history itself. To know of a concept is for you to transcend it, because to know of a concept, is to distinguish yourself from it.

            While there is much that I disagree with in his life’s writings, Leo Strauss’ “Natural Right and History” contains an excellent refutation of histoeicism, that I recommend.

            “Your explanation is no solution to the actual problem. I mean yes it works for you, because in such a case you would just pull out and look for a work around (block the photons from your neighbor).
            However the problem on hand is that no one pulls out of the conflict and looks for a work around.”

            If that is the “problem at hand” then the problem you have set up is that nobody wants to act according to ANY ethical norm.

            That means what you are challenging is not a particular ethic, such as “Don’t shine a light on me”, but rather all ethics as such. For the same problem xould exist. Imagine any ethic, and then imagine that the problem is that two people in a dispute don’t want to find a solution, which I take you to mean ” the only solution they can think of is shooting at each other”.

            You are not solving the issue by having faith in an arbitrator. For by what principles and evidence is that arbitrator to make their decision? You are still left with having to come to a work around solution!

            You are saying society needs a way to rescue people from themselves, without that way consisting of people to do the saving.

            You are basically saying there can be no solution to ethical problems, other than the dubious solution of might makes right, let the strongest person win the dispute.

Leave a Reply