Trans Women are not Women II: The Bath Of Khan
 

Yes, as anyone can read the reference states "The race element was emphasized in order that property-holders could get the support of the majority of white laborers and make it more possible to exploit Negro labor because they just didn't want the black folk to integrate.":rolleyes:

Obviously. The question is why it exists. According to you racism exists because racism exists, according to me it exists because it served a particular purpose for the ruling class.

Guns, germs, and steel. There's the "why."

It's pretty surprising that, in your search for root causes, you stop at an arbitrary point in time without going back to find its root causes.

I suggest you read your quote again.

Strawman. I never said or implied this. I used racism as a root cause of the events we observe. Racism's as old as the world. If you're looking for a cause of that, then I suggest you look up tribalism.

You think the ruling class invented racism? Get real.

What makes you think I haven't? Africans weren't seen as inferior during the first centuries of exploration and colonialism, it was only with the advent of the slave trade that this changed.

A "root cause" that only appeared after the economic basis for it (Trans-Atlantic slave trade) was created is not a root cause, it's an effect and not a cause.

Invented it? No. Emphasized and promoted it to the extent that it lead to a structuring of society along racial lines? Yes.

Maybe but that predates your proposed root cause of racism.

So it already existed, then.

But the question of what sex is someone has three answers. Hence not binary.

Got any actual evidence for that?

I was giving a root cause for institutional racism in US society (this discussion started off with the Jim Crow segregation). Racist sentiments themselves can be even be traced back to Aristotle. I'm sure you can find some people who hold discriminatory beliefs about red-heads but that doesn't mean that we live in a hairist society, society isn't structured so as to have one group of people hold institutional power over another group based on hair colour.

Wage labour already existed in Ancient Egypt yet that doesn't mean that Ancient Egypt was a capitalist society (ie a society whose economics is structured around wage labour).

We aren't meant to be discussing racism in this thread...

The ADL's page on "What is Racism?" notes this:
The important point is that societies don't structure themselves along certain lines for no reason, things like institutional racism don't just arbitrarily fall out of the sky. First comes the power differential (in this case the technological advantage of European societies vs African societies) and the material basis for exploitation (slave labour in this case) and then comes the ideological structuring of society so as to justify said things (the introduction of institutional racism since skin colour happened to be what distinguished Africans from Europeans, as opposed to say hair colour or handedness). If Africans were distinguished from Europeans not by skin colour but by hair colour we'd now be living in a hairist society rather than a racist one.

Wait you mean we didn't solve racism by keeping separate white and black bathrooms and just letting everyone "identify" was white or black, therefore solving the problem?

If you take a course you can either get a passing grade or a non-passing grade. Grades are binary. The fact that the answer to "what was your grade" can also be "I didn't take that class so I don't have a grade" doesn't change that. Just like the fact that the response to "what is your sex" can also be "I don't have a sex" doesn't change sex from being binary.

Is this posted as a mod or as a member?

I think that when discussing a question of discrimination and segregation, it can be useful to compare and contrast with other similar questions and how they've been answered over time.

---

Not, mind you, that it would be useful to try to prove something by analogy between the two things being compared. But as food for thought and perhaps some insights into the kinds of answers that might apply, such comparisons can be very useful.

---

So I disagree with Darat. We are meant to be discussing racism in this thread. In the sense that we're meant to be discussing whatever comparisons we think might inform the central questions of the thread.

If you don't think the discussion of racism is relevant, the appropriate responses are to argue against the relevance of racism, or just ignore it as irrelevant to the discussion you're having.

---

And of course if you're a mod or admin, it probably makes sense to be much more clear about what you mean when you jump into a thread and start declaring stuff off topic.

Right, right.

But regardless, Jim Crow laws sprung up in the south where racism were the strongest and where reaction to reconstruction was most negative. This thing you speak of would only work if the racism already existed. It didn't engender it, as you stated. Furthermore, those laws certainly in a lot of cases appeared regardless of what those "elites" did.

I see you've skipped question 3 and gone on with the pot-stirring instead.

I didn't miss all that, but I did miss (and I'm still missing) any connection you're making between those various relations and hypotheses and any actual position on the practical matters of public policy regarding claimed gender identity and places of public accommodation that are under discussion in this thread.

Congratulations on keeping the distraction and pot-stirring going for another two pages, though.

I thought it was shaken, not stirred.

I would guess they'd be more likely to hold it.

I don't think caveman is wrong about that part. This source seems to agree. https://www.livescience.com/54692-wh...egregated.html

From the article:


As for why people get more fired up about racial prejudices than hair color or handedness prejudices, I assume that's because different races usually come with different cultures. People who are racist tend to think that their own culture is the better one or the right one. So they hate people for having an inferior culture. There's more to it than just skin color and appearance, although it is still obviously very wrong.

Additionally, left-handedness prejudice was absolutely a thing until fairly recently. My own grandmother had her knuckles constantly beaten as a student until she learned to use her right hand. Left-handed people were called "sinister."

Redheads catch a lot of crap too (especially since South Park did that stupid "ginger kids" episode and launched a thousand bullies' arsenals), and how many "dumb blonde" jokes have y'all heard in your lifetimes?

The consequences of racism tend to be much more serious than these other types of prejudices, but my point is simply that people will look for absolutely any piddling little reason to hate each other. People are just combative and dickish. I don't think any grand conspiracy is needed. It may indeed benefit certain powerful people to have lower "classes" squabbling amongst themselves, but I don't think those powerful people have to orchestrate said squabbling. People handle that themselves, just fine.

For a whole day? That sounds fantastically uncomfortable. And irresponsible.

Well, read on. Gutters are mentioned, personal devices called urinettes. I'm not saying it's good or healthy, I'm just saying it's true.

I read it. Still fantastically stupid. You'd think employers would provide at least a minimum for their employees, male or female.

Yeah, I guess there really were so few women in most workplaces back then that they could get away with it.

It kind of puts a damper on my admiration for fancy, flowing Victorian skirts to learn that they were probably all piss-sodden (joke).

They did all wear crotchless underwear. To many petticoats to mess around with such things. OF course such dresses were never worn by women who sullied themselves with work.

Agreed; an analogy mine too rich to pass up. Segregated toilets, platoons, pools, sports leagues, etc. The rationalizations alone are worth pondering.

And of course the responses to it and when it was right to compromise vs when compromise is just a factor of the bigotry.

I have no doubt they did, including for the mill workers mentioned upthread, for example. A lack of public facilities I can accept, and the image of the Victorian lady squatting over the gutter is fairly well know, but caveman1917 seems to have extended the public place reality to the workplace reality, and that's a load of nonsense.

I have no doubt they did, including for the mill workers mentioned upthread, for example. A lack of public facilities I can accept, and the image of the Victorian lady squatting over the gutter is fairly well known, but caveman1917 seems to have extended the public place reality to the workplace reality, and that's a load of nonsense.

He also has understated the number of women - and married women - in organised employment in those days, but seems to have missed the rebuttal to his claim.

Behold! The unisex changing room of the future...

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...e5cc78c8f1.jpg

ETA: With lockable door! :D

Pity about the US Military not acknowledging transgender any more.

The Pentagon would have no trouble with bathrooms - they could use the ones that used to be blacks-only.

On a Navy ship, it would get complicated. The berthing areas where the crew sleeps are very close quarters.
https://bit.ly/2MRuANT
Typically 3 racks high and 50-100 racks in each compartment. The heads and showers likewise. So if public restrooms are an issue, it would definitely be an issue in the Navy. They can't have their own private room of course, unless they are very high in rank. So they will have to live and share facilities with either male or female sailors.

Anyone dumb enough to join a navy is way beyond anything I'd care about.

Given signing on for potential death, I imagine where you go potty is pretty secondary anyway.

On the contrary, I literally acknowledged them using the men's facilities at work:
Indeed, I remember having seen in some feminist history book a very early flyer that was being distributed which demanded women's facilities in the workplace because of peeping tom's problems when they used the men's.

I didn't miss it, just have nothing to add.

Racism exists because for most of human history it was a very useful survival trait to be hate-filled at the sight of people who did not look like your people, because usually the next thing they did after seeing you was try to kill you.

Note: this does not mean that it is a good survival trait any longer.

Wow!

I had no idea that you hated both active duty Navy people and formerly active duty Navy people so very much.

You're signing up for potential death by doing anything. I see no reason to belittle people willing to put themselves on the line to serve a greater whole.

Ah yes, the well-known achievement of early humans of fast intercontinental travel and the regular meeting of people of different races :rolleyes:

Don't hate them at all. Despise is the word you're looking for.

Jeez mate, I hope you had your hand on your heart while hugging the flag when you typed that.

"serve a greater whole"

"bomb innocent civilians"

I choose the latter.

Oil companies are a kind of "greater whole" though.

Nice!

Once again you mistake me for an American. What's your problem with Americans, anyway?

Yes. Sorry to break it to you, but humans are a social species and very often individual humans do things in what they consider to be in the service of the larger community. It might be alien to you -- hell, it might be alien to me -- but it doesn't change that fact, and you deriding that choice for no other reason that those sentiments can be exploited or twisted for evil deeds sounds like little more than an ideological crusade by you.

...you choose to bomb civilians? What?