Shouldn’t We Recognise Furries As Trans-Species As Well?

A few days ago, I received a notification about a conversation I had almost three years ago. My first, and so far only, on the topic of “transracialism.”

In his article, Being Black Without Being Born Black, Daniel argued that “race” is a social construct. Which is largely true. There’s no good reason to group people by skin colour and not by head shape or blood group or whether their eyelids have an epicanthic fold. In an alternate universe, we’re having furious debates about curly-haired IQ scores and left-handed DEI programmes and whether people with hairy backs commit more crime.

He argued that race is “assigned,” which is kind of true. For example, while Barack Obama has a black father and a white mother he’s almost universally assigned the title of the first black president instead of the 44th white president. And while Italians are now widely assigned to the category of “white,” there was a time when they very much weren’t.

And he argued that all of this means that if I suddenly decided that I was Asian, nobody would have any basis to disagree with me. And this is not true. Because, and this is important, I’m very obviously not Asian.

---

Steve QJ:

Hi Daniel!

I honestly find this trend towards nothing meaning anything so fascinating, if also a little bemusing.

I'm a black man, which means that my skin is dark and I'm of Afro-Caribbean parentage. Is it false, or science denying or in any way controversial to say that I'm black and somebody of Scandinavian heritage for example, isn't?

I mean, I agree with the sentiment of the point you make at the beginning; what does it mean to be black? Being black doesn't say anything about my character, or my intelligence, or my ability to dance. But it does say something about my ancestry, and my genes, and the chances of me having sickle-cell trait.

The very fact that there isn't a single defining experience of being black is exactly why it's nonsense to say that you are black if you feel like you are. Being black doesn't feel like anything. If you "feel" like you're black, you're projecting an imagined view of what being black is onto your reality.

What next? Trans-height? With people below five feet fighting to end discrimination by the NBA? Or trans-weight? With people who weigh 500 pounds fighting to end the unfair way they're singled out by gravity?

We can let things be what they are, and still honour people's right to live their lives as they want to live them. If somebody wants to put their hair in dreads, or wear a dashiki, or eat okra and fried chicken, more power to them I say. I think the concept of cultural appropriation is equally questionable. But if they think that doing these things makes them a different race, they are, to put it kindly, confused.

---

Daniel:

“I'm a black man, which means that my skin is dark and I'm of Afro-Caribbean parentage.”

Skin color is an arbitrary factor that does not relate in any reasonable way to lineage. The idea that “black gives birth to black” is nothing but an outdated pseudo-scientific racist narrative.

Recognizing that race is a culturally defined construct that is related to, but still quite different from, biology, is important. It is important because we must follow science, and because we must rid ourselves if this false racist narrative.

“But it does say something about my ancestry, and my genes, and the chances of me having sickle-cell trait.”

Except that it doesn’t. That’s the point. Science contradicts your position here. If there is biological race at all, they are “ecotypes.” In other words, environmental pressures result in various traits being filtered out or magnified. Throw a bunch of Africans with varying degrees of skin tone in Norway (without vitamin D supplements anyway), and within a number of generations, they’ll start to get pasty white. Why? Vitamin-D deficiency is reduced with light skin.

---

Steve QJ:

“Skin color is an arbitrary factor that does not relate in any reasonable way to lineage.”

So just to be clear, the colour of my skin doesn't relate to my lineage, but it’s something which will only change across “a number of generations”? Aren’t those contradictory statements?

Also sure, skin colour will change over time, but by your logic shouldn’t we recognise furries as trans-species as well? Given that over “a number of generations”, monkeys (and in fact sea-life) became humans.

---

---

Daniel:

Look. Before we go into a discussion about transracial people, you need to understand that race is not biological.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2018/04/race-genetics-science-africa/

---

Steve QJ:

It's so hilariously unreasonable to just blithely link a 3500 word article to explain your position on something you already wrote an 800 word article about, but I read it anyway, on the off chance that I'd missed something and that this isn't some masterful troll.

Still, I don't see how an article which describes how genetic mutations produce differences in skin colour amongst others, is supposed to convince me that "skin color is an arbitrary factor that does not relate in any reasonable way to lineage."

Am I missing something? How is genetics unrelated to lineage or biology? And even if it was, which it clearly isn't, how does this support the notion that people are simply whatever race they say they are?

If you were arguing that we should all take DNA tests before claiming a particular heritage I'd say that was a little extreme, but I'd be able to see your point. But arguing that people should just be able to claim whatever heritage they feel like makes even less sense from your apparent position of scientific absolutism.

---

Daniel:

It's not that skin color is unrelated to genetics or lineage. It's that we cannot use factors like skin color, hair, etc as a way to determine ancestral groupings (race).

As an example, the divergence between many populations in Africa occurred much earlier than the divergence between Asian populations and European populations.

The assertion that there are biological races that allow us to determine ancestry is falsified pseudoscience, no more valid than the Humourism.

---

Steve QJ:

Again, this is scientific absolutism, which is fine, but besides the point. Yes you're right. You can't look at an individual's skin colour, hair, etc and with 100% accuracy determine their ancestral heirtage. Especially if you want to be really accurate about where in Africa or Europe say, they came from. Granted.

The central point here, the entire reason we're having this discussion, is how you leap from this, to the idea that it's valid for people to claim whichever race they choose to as their own.

Why are you not okay with determining race by physical characteristics, but fine with determining it by an individual's gut feeling? Please actually answer this question.

---

Daniel:

“The central point here, the entire reason we’re having this discussion, is how you leap from this, to the idea that it’s valid for people to claim whichever race they choose to as their own.”

It’s not that anyone can choose whatever race they want, but rather it is not on us to say that they are incorrect when they identify as a given race, any more than it is acceptable to tell a transgender person that they are wrong when they say what gender they are.

I take it you also think that people who are transgender men/women are just faking it?

---

Steve QJ:

First of all, no I don't think that transgender men or women are "faking it". Just because I disagree with the assertion that a feeling can define a biological reality doesn’t mean I think that feeling is made up. Nor do I think that being transgender is a choice, however in your own article you cite Krug saying that she “assumed identities within a Blackness that [she] had no right to claim” which does seem to fit the definition of a choice for transracialism.

And this question of choice brings us all the way back to the point which you made at the start, and yes, one that I struggle to understand for transgender people too. If there’s no such thing as race (or gender), if it’s all in our heads and infinitely varied by personal experience (which I happen to agree with you about), what does it mean to say that you feel like a black person? Or a woman for that matter. What is the blackness or woman-ness that you’re feeling?

Technically, you’re right to say that we can’t make assertions like these just by looking at superficial characteristics (at least if you want to be correct 100% of the time), but then you go on to suggest that there’s no problem making these assertions on the basis of the subjective feelings of an individual, even if those run completely counter to any DNA testing or superficial characteristics.

In fact, the very article you cited talks at length about how it IS possible to tell a person what race they are, even if it disagrees with what they previously believed (see, I really did read it). It talks about how people were told they were incorrect about the race they presumed themselves to be when the DNA results came back. So science can tell peole they're wrong when we're tearing down the concept of race, but not when we're questioning the validity of transracialism?

It seems like you’re trying to have it both ways. You want these things to be totally artificial and illusory when it comes to the way society defines race, and at the same time you want them to be concrete, undeniable truths when an individual claims they feel a certain way.

This contradiction, which you once again sidestepped even though I point blank asked you to address it in my last reply, is where I’m not understanding your position.

---

Full disclosure, Daniel and I go back and forth for a while longer, but we mostly just go around in circles so he can avoid answering this question. Because how can he?

Either he’d have to argue that feelings are more meaningful genes, which is a silly claim even for a transracialist, or far worse from his point of view, he’d have to admit that they don’t, which is dangerously close to admitting that there is such a thing as objective reality.

One person’s “lived experience” does not override statistical data. Biology is not meaningless in the face of self-identification. And most importantly, you can’t arbitrarily redefine categories or claim they’re meaningless, but then declare them concrete and unchangeable once you’ve identified into one.

If “black” is an entirely arbitrary category, I wonder why white people weren’t “identifying” as black during slavery and segregation. (Come to think of it, transracialism would have been pretty handy in the opposite direction too.)

If “woman” is not a biological category but one of tens or even hundreds of genders, why do people insist that trans women are women? Couldn’t trans women just as easily have some other gender identity like “non-binary” or “omnigender” or even “man”? 

Reality is not oppression. Truth is not hate. We need to be able to talk about the world in terms we can all agree on and observe. This was true three years ago, and it’ll still be true three years from now. Although, of course, what a year is might be up for debate soon.

---

The dates line up a little awkwardly for Christmas this year, so this will be my last post on The Commentary before the New Year. I’ll still be lurking in the comments, but no more major posts until 2024.

I don’t say this enough, but a huge thank you to all of you for your support, your insights, and for reminding me that sane, thoughtful people still exist, even, nay, especially, when we disagree. Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. See you in the New Year!