this post was submitted on 27 Mar 2026
68 points (77.0% liked)
Controversial - the place to discuss controversial topics
498 readers
293 users here now
Controversial - the community to discuss controversial topics.
Challenge others opinions and be challenged on your own.
This is not a safe space nor an echo-chamber, you come here to discuss in a civilized way, no flaming, no insults!
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, "trust me bro" is not a valid argument.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I agree.
But I'm trying to think of a valid argument as to why you can change your gender but not race.
They're not changing gender, they're changing their body to match their gender.
Sure, but does that mean you can also change your body to match your race? Like isn't race also a social construct?
Irish people weren't considered white not too long ago, so surely it must be.
Race is also a social construct, as you point out.
Skin color is a genetic phenotype., biological sex is too. Those phenotypes are inherited.
So yeah, you could change your appearance: skin color, bone structure, musculature, etc with surgery.
Michael Jackson is a good example of this (though he had vitiligo). Compare pictures of his face in his early career to later. He was still 'African American' though.
Gender is not inherited
I don't see how that's relevant
Gender isn't a heritable trait. I'm not a boy because my dad was a boy any more than I am a girl because my mom was a girl. I am white because my parents were white
Sort of. You're white because that's the box that society put you into. There are children of African-American parents who are so light-skinned that they pass as white and vice versa. Regardless of what race your parents are, you are the race that people perceive you as, because it's only based on perception.
I should gave clarified that it's a bit more complex. Even I'm not sure how I really feel about this topic. Of course I'm white because I have light skin and my parents were white, but it becomes a lot more complicated when you're melanistic with white parents or albino with black parents. And then there's mixed races. Is a lighter skinned black guy "whiter" than a darker skinned mixed guy?
I'm waaay too white to be commenting on who can and can't be considered what races lmao
What makes you think that you can't change your race?
If you can change your gender, you can change your race.
So yea seems like you can
Why is race not based on how you perceive yourself? There are many people who walk the line between races, should they be forced to be the race that others think that they best match?
How would you even 'force to be a race' ?
You can force people's gender by criminalizing gender affirming care
Do you think banning blackface is remotely comparable?
Whiteness is an exclusionary concept, it's entire purpose is to create an in-group and out-group.
Whiteness as a social structure is perhaps the most pervasive descriptor of difference, being, and non-being. Structures of whiteness and being formally delimit the identities, bodies, and lives of non-white people. Frantz Fanon recognizes this in his depiction of identity in the book Black Skin, White Masks.
Ok then. I don't give a shit about gender. That isn't biological. That's psychological.
Only care about sex. That's biological.
Race is based on hereditary and genetics. It's not reducible to simply skin color. Race is a spectrum, so there's endless 'off-whites.'
People aren't born with identities anymore than they are culture. No one is born with a gender, apparently. They're born with a sex.
If you leave young kids alone they'll eventually get naked and, uh, investigate each other ... regardless of sex.
Now you understand where TERFs are coming from. Right? Right?
Right?
One could argue no one is born with a gender identity. No one is born with a sexual orientation. But thinking makes it so. So where do those thoughts come from? Because it's not kids.
gross
Got that one labeled as a fascist so, checks out
Huh. Mine says "ugly transphobe."
ok, so no word of a lie, i saw your comment, look at the name, read it as "fascistBasis" and I’m like dayum, they be self identifying and everything nowadays.
then realised my mistake.
I guess TERF would be more exact
Their controversial comments are less bad than I expected from my previous interaction with them, besides the TERFbrained comments
You can label users on here? Like private notes? Or am I misunderstanding you?
At least some apps allow you to. I'm using Thunder. I think interstellar allows it to
Yeah that was an easy block
I'm a Democratic socialist, Stalin.
OK, so i really need to preface this with the fact that this is a genuine question, my knowledge of political ideologies and their naming schemes is basically "things i heard in passing on the internet".
Also apologies if it's a joke that i've /whooshed on.
What is the difference between the type of democratic socialist you are and a social democrat.
Is it a Peoples Front Of Judea type of thing ? or is there a legitimate difference?
The reason i ask is that the only other social democrat (or democratic socialist, assuming there isn't a difference) political ideology I’ve heard of was the precursor to the nazi's.
It's really not a dig, i'm interested in the answer.
See: Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), Bernie Sanders, Zohran Mamdani, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez(AOC), or other progressive democrats or independents.
That video isn't loading for me.
As far as I know, yes they are similar. (social democrat to democratic socialist)
I guess the difference is inclusivity. And if we're talking a Party or ideology(capitalization matters, like I'm a democrat, but not a Democrat.)
Unlike Nazis, I'm for inclusivity. Come as you are, all faiths welcome.
But I also personally detest body mutilation. Even when they want it. Yea, all forms. So tattoos, piercings, gauges, split tongues, etc. but to be clear: I don't think it should be illegal for adults to 'mutilate themselves', voluntarily. It's just not for me. It's a gut feeling kind of thing.
I think maybe, psychologically, it's because it is seeking external validation. To "pass" as the kids say. I don't think people should need to "pass"... You're good as your are. I don't think you're going to improve on God's design.
Useful and mostly answers my question, thanks.
Fair enough.
You lost me at this bit though, by that rationale anything external that isn't strictly functional would fall under this category.
Coloured clothes, haircuts that aren't just to keep the hair out of your eyes, any accessories of any kind ?
It also feels like a big leap to claim external validation as the only reason for personal expression.
That being said, as long as you aren't forcing it on other people, you do you, personal choice is important.
I'm going to be honest, I don't like this way of thinking, at all.
I'm all for personal faith, but the problems with that statement aren't theistic in nature, they're logical.
The only way that statement works is if it's absolute. If God's design is perfect it has to be "perfect".
If any part of the design is questionable then it's all questionable.
Easy go-to examples are everywhere
The most contextually relevant example i can think of is a cleft lip, something that you could live a full life with but would be significantly better off without.
I believe you’re responding to an argument I didn’t quite make.
I wasn’t saying “any external change = validation.” I was talking specifically about physiological body modification done to fit in or ‘pass’ ... that’s a much narrower category than general self-expression via....
Clothes, hairstyles, accessories, etc. aren’t comparable. Those are temporary, low-stakes, and reversible. I’m talking about chronic physical changes to the body.
And even then, I didn’t claim external validation is the only reason, but just that it’s a common psychological driver in some cases. So no, the logic doesn’t expand to “everything non-functional.” That’s a mischaracterization.
On the “God’s design” point, you’re also stretching it into areas I wasn’t talking about. Medical interventions like glasses, mobility aids, or corrective surgery (like cleft lip repair) are about restoring function or alleviating harm.
My counter would be the opposite. And this is really the core. If cleft lips became a fad and people willingly cleft their own lips when they were normal before. That's insane, IMO. That's jumping off the cliff because Bobby Jones did.
If you want to challenge the position, that’s fine, but it should be the position I actually stated, not a broader version of it.
Ah, that's my bad, i read it as all body mods are external validation driven.
Stakes are relative in this case, just because you care about the permanence or reversibility of a modification doesn't mean others do.
but yeah, it's not an exact match.
see above
This we'll have to disagree on, unless you have a convincing way of explaining why we can't improve on gods design with stylistic choices, but medical intervention is ok.
I realise how that sounds (to me at least) but your phrasing didn't leave any leeway in that it didn't really specify what about gods design could possibly be improved upon.
It also gets into conversation about what exactly constitutes harm, psychological harm exists and can be just as devastating as physical harm.
Not to mention that psychological harm can cause physical harm, i don't mean self-harm (though that's a thing also) i mean detrimental physiological changes brought about by negative psychological pressure.
My answer to this would be contingent upon your answer to "what about god's design is possible for us to improve upon?".
That's fair, though as i said your position was unclear in that the statement seems to be an absolute with no specification as to boundaries.
I did go back and adjust my statement to ask a question around boundaries in the original reply, I’m not sure if you replied before or after this.
If you don't mind giving me some clarification on where those boundaries exist i can be more specific.
The “God’s design” line wasn’t meant as a literal argument! Lol. It was more rhetorical shorthand, and yeah, a bit tongue-in-cheek(I'm atheist). The actual point I care about isn’t at all theological, it’s about where we draw the line between restoring function and altering a healthy body for social or aesthetic reasons.
That's my boundary.
That's a very poor choice of phrase for a conversation with no cues outside of text.
And you've managed to go through my entire previous reply without mentioning that you didn't actually mean it, which is additionally confusing.
So i'll assume function restoration and harm reduction are the line for you, now i can answer the statement i skipped.
I wasn't comparing cleft lip restoration to tattoos, piercings or split tongues because that's a terrible comparison, one is functionally restorative and the others are aesthetic aside from the split tongue which is also functionally additive.
I was using it as an example as to why "god's design" is a poor argument.
As it seems "god's design" wasn't an actual argument you were making, this is less relevant.
I would point you back to my arguments about psychological harm reduction in it's many forms, some of which are societal in nature (fitting in, for example).
I'm not advocating for caving to peer pressure against someone’s will, I’m saying that voluntary personal choices that include societal considerations can contribute to a foundation of long term psychological harm reduction.
In simpler terms, finding your people and fitting in can help you feel better both mentally and physically.
As you've stated you're not forcing your opinion on others, we can agree to disagree on where the lines are with no real consequences.
Might be worth considering that not all harm is physical or immediate, when assessing what constitutes harm reduction.
It just wasn't meant literally. Again, it's rhetorical. That's still an argument...
It's not a great argument if taken literally but that's also why it was chosen, the ambiguity is a feature, not a bug. Indeed, there are endless gods, and which one I may have been referring to absolutely isn't relevant(I'm not making a theological argument.) When you understand that, it becomes a stronger argument.
I'm essentially arguing that people should embrace their nature rather than deny it or subvert it.
Replace god with nature, basically.
If you need to pave paradise and put up a parking lot to fit in, I guess you'll have your reward? But it'll also be your undoing.
Downvote. Unsubstantial.
Living up to your username
Isn't that the point?
No
No.
You might need fallopian tubes to understand.
No.
Gotcha. I can explain things to you, but I can't understand them for you.
Have a good day.
Fuck off, JK.
Because gender is a social convention
because I did and it worked. I'm a woman and everybody around me sees and and we all just get on with life. (See part 1)
Because race is a stupid term made to group people based on their appearance. 500 years ago it didn't even exist.
Gender is a deeper aspect which exist from the begining of our species.
Both seem to just be social constructs, so you should be able to change both
The reason, fyi, is because they're two different categories of thing. Gender is, and always has been, centered around the social aspects. Presentation, identity, roles, behaviours.
Race is a complex category, with a mix of physiological and culture dependent aspects.
You can't change your race because you can't change your heritage, which is a component.
You can, however, change your cultural identity. It's not a perfect analog to gender, obviously, but it's closer to race.
Much like how we conflated the names for the sexes with the names for the genders, many cultures share a name with a race that is a prominent member. This is often acutely clear to mixed race people or people adopted into a different racial household.
https://www.transvitae.com/debunking-the-transracial-comparison-why-gender-and-race-differ/
It’s definitely a complex issue with nuances that go beyond the surface level of the argument. The short answer is that gender is a fluid expression, race is static because it’s your heritage.
There’s way more to it obviously, but I’m not really qualified or eloquent enough to really get into it.
If you don't see why, then why do you agree she's a piece of shit?
idk Michael Jackson did... something
Also Martina Big:
https://blacknews.com/news/martina-big-white-woman-darkened-skin-identifies-black-plans-move-africa/