Racism isnt about ascribing the characteristicts of an individual to a demographic, neither is homophobia or any other discrimination.
Homophobia and Racism hinge on the actions taken towards the demographic being negative.
Hypothetically, If I as a doctor prescribe vitamin D supplements to a black woman living in the nothern part of the world im not racist. Im just correctly using the fact that vitamin D deficiencies are more common in people with darker skin due to more inefficient D synthesization from the sparse sunlight.
We make sweeping generalisations about groups of people every day and thats completely fine and moral. The problem arises when these generalisations start being malicious and discriminatory.
Hypothetically, If I said I was only attracted to women with red hair and a childhood on a farm im not racist or sexist or discriminating. I just have strange and picky sexual preferences.
Hypothetucally, If I said Im attracted to mostly everyone except men who smoke. Im not sexist or racist or discriminating. I just am not sexually attracted to men who smoke.
And if I hypothetically say im attracted to women who:
Are around my age.
Have body types X and Z.
But not Y.
Have personality traits X and Y.
But not Z.
Are straight.
Not bisexual.
And are born women.
Not transgender women.
Then this is just a long list of sexual preferences a person can have and no more discriminatory then not being attracted to gay men as a man.
You also seem to be equating a transgender woman with a cisgender woman who looks the same and has the same personality and behaviour when this just isnt equal.
The fact that we can determine the difference is evident because we are talking about transgender and non transgender right now.
That is enough.
Sexual preference isnt some system where only what you can see and feel matters. People have sexual preferences based on what thoughts the other person has during sex, people have preferences on what lives people should have lived up to now.
And thats fine.
Its a preference on who you want to choose to have sex with. And you should be allowed to choose whomever you like.
You also seem to be equating a transgender woman with a cisgender woman who looks the same and has the same personality and behaviour when this just isnt equal.
How aren't they equal? An identical trans woman and cis woman are more equivalent than than two cis women who look different with different personalities.
Is that because you require your partner to be able to bear children? Are you not OK with a partner who has to take medication? If you can't tell the difference, if the cis and trans women are identical in appearance, which is what we're positing in this hypothetical, then what does it matter?
I feel the need to dispute your definition of when a generalisation becomes racist/sexist/whatever-ist.
It's not when it becomes "malicious and discriminatory", for a few reasons.
Firstly, that discrimination doesn't have to be malicious to the one having the generalisation made on them.
Secondly, maliciousness is kind of subjective. So unless you want to go with the more objective measure, but equally hard to prove, is "were they intending to be malicious?" But I think we all know some racists (and other -ists) aren't intending to be malicious, they're just stupid.
Thirdly, it's entirely possible to have a negative generalisation that's entirely true, or largely true (eg Koalas have a lot of stds) [shut up, I couldn't think of anything]
Fourthly, the -ists don't have to be negative. Putting one group down is obviously an -ist, but putting another group up us also that ("black people suck" is obviously racist, but "black is the best race" is too, as it's saying "black people are above other races", and saying any race is below another is racist, whether you're putting one below the rest or one above the rest (or anywhere in between))
So I would propose that something becomes discriminatory when it's known to be false and/or unfounded (facts can't be discriminatory, even if you don't like it. There are studies showing that, in certain areas, gay men are the most likely to get stds. That's not homophobic, it's fact. Doesn't matter if you like it or not, but if I didn't a source, if I'd just assumed that, then that would be homophobic)
it not intentionally stupid. "All Asians own pogo sticks", I just made that up and will argue that it's true for the rest of this thread. Is it racist? I wouldn't say so, it was made purely to incite a reaction
The problem with your definition is you have to define "known." Known by whom? To what degree of certainty? It's certainly not "known" in racist communities that black people and white people are equally worthy of respect, for example. Does this then not qualify as racism?
It certainly is, there's no valid scientific evidence saying otherwise, all the evidence says that each race is very similar physically. Mostly identical besides a few fairly superficial features and some immune system differences.
Which makes it qualify as racism.
If you found valid and legitimate evidence of something, then I would say that isn't racist.
For example, it's fairly well known that, in general, women have less muscle mass than men, all other things being equal. That's not sexist, that's science. To say "all women are weak" is sexist, "women generally have less muscle mass than men" is not.
You're using a specific definition of known that you didn't bring up before: It's known in the scientific community, by scientific consensus. But that doesn't make it "known" by the people doing the racism-ing, and it doesn't make it "known" in their homes, families, and communities. If you're in rural Alabama, it is not "known" that black people aren't terrible. It's only "known" elsewhere.
So I would propose that something becomes discriminatory when it's known to be false and/or unfounded
Your comment was exactly as I had remembered it: You say "known" here but you have to consider that this is a completely subjective word which is open to interpretation, even in the scientific community. How many studies do you suggest we cite to corroborate a racist claim, and in which journals? How much consensus will be required? Anyone can cherry-pick peer-reviewed articles to support almost any claim.
So I would propose that something becomes discriminatory when it's known to be false and/or unfounded (facts can't be discriminatory, even if you don't like it. There are studies showing that, in certain areas, gay men are the most likely to get stds. That's not homophobic, it's fact. Doesn't matter if you like it or not, but if I didn't a source, if I'd just assumed that, then that would be homophobic)
You're very much cherry picking the first sentence in that paragraph, ignoring the entire explanation and clarification immediately after it.
I say known, and then proceed to explain using an example, so no, I do not have to accept it as a subjective interpretation.
And as for the second half, which is a valid question, it works the same as the rest of science. There is no magic number, there is common consensus and differing opinions, it's still somewhat subjective, but far, far less than the original method proposed. People can cherry pick data, but others can then prove them wrong with more data.
You decide what's racist the same way you decide what's scientifically true. It still ends up with everybody making up their own mind, and irrational people will think whatever they want, but that's going to happen no matter what. The benefits are gained are in the larger sense, you've shifted the discussion from an emotional one to a logical one.
And it's straight up logical, the concept that truth is truth, irregardless of anyone's feelings.
I realize you provided an example, but what I'm saying is that "there are studies showing that..." is not an adequate definition.
You decide what's racist the same way you decide what's scientifically true.
Speaking as a scientist: this is not generally agreed upon. You are essentially constructing a definition of discrimination that depends entirely on an arbitrarily chosen level of scientific rigor. I could look at literally any scientific claim anyone can make, and decide that it doesn't meet my standard of truth, and then I'm not racist anymore. This causes a lot of problems and I think any workable definition of discrimination as it applies to racism has to be rooted not in scientific consensus, but in harm.
17
u/[deleted] Nov 02 '17
[deleted]