As a modern person, the thought of two grown men fighting to the death over disrespect feels very strange. Especially given that, from what I understand, duels generally didn't happen in the heat of the moment but were planned affairs. So days or even weeks didn't suffice to cool tempers enough to avert bloodshed.
What led to this culture, and what led to its decline?
I am looking into why the data suggests that ethnic minority women are disproportionately affected by violence and homicide in the UK. I am looking for insight into why people think this is
Hi all! I'm just a curious guy with no intention of harm or hate to anyone. I was just wondering, given the acceptance of transitioning genders, why is race still not accepted?
This thought came from a reel I saw of some white Brazilian legislator (I think) trying to argue transitioning genders is.. I dunno... bad?
While I have nothing against transgender people - I always thought a person is more a person than their labels anyway - I thought that the way she tried to prove her point didn't make sense? If she were genuinely trying to transition into a black woman, what would be wrong in that?
When I don't understand something I always have a conversation with AI: the arguments it gave me were all so weak!
I think that's only cause gender transition is far more socially accepted, which let it be recognised in law, medicine, and psychological. Being more accepted and thus less stigmatised also let it be researched into, thus further acceptance in the three fields
Meanwhile "race dysphoria" is, let's say "socially rejected", thus it isn't recognised in the three fields.
Thus, I find this to beg the question: it's gender dysphoria is socially accepted because it is medically accepted, and it is medically accepted because it is socially accepted
In a world where there were less stigma to race transition, it would probably be more heard of, thus more looked into by these scholars, no?
I think that's also not fair, who is to say race transition is necessarily out of choice? This is more of assumption than a fact.
transitioning race would be picking and choosing what you like about a culture without the lived experience:
how is gender and race any different in this scenario, you transition and then you gain the privileges or oppression that a gender faces: someone who transitions into a woman will face the oppression of misogyny and the privileges of chivalry all without having grown up with it. A black person can transition into white and face the privileges that they never had growing up. A white person can transition into black and face the oppression.
It is argue that gender is a **psychological state** (Brain Sex Theory), while race is a **historical contract.** In this view, "Woman" is something you *are*, but "Black" or "Asian" is something you *belong to*. You can change your state, but you can’t change your ancestors:
What does ancestors have anything to do with an individual's identity?? The only reason it would matter is genetically, like the theories of genetic scars of slavery, but we aren't talking about genes in identity, right??
OK if you used this language on gender dysphoric people the mobs would chase you out of the village no doubt. However really considering it, what is the difference here between race and gender transition? They are both constructs that aren't tied to biology
Anyways the debate was too long that I couldn't really put em all here, but lowkey.. after putting down all of AI's arguments, it did say that the notion thag race not being as fluid as gender is just a blind belief held by society
Give me your bests arguments! Convince me!
and tell me if there are any flaws to my logic.
If so, how much/well?
They seem so obviously stupid that i find it hard to believe that they do.
Hello everyone, I came across a study from worldmetrics.org https://worldmetrics.org/transgender-crime-statistics/ which found that transgender people did have higher rates of violence perpetrated against them which I already knew, but they also found that transgender people had higher arrest rates for violent crime compared to cisgender people. I have never heard this before and I wasnt able to find any other evidence online that corroborates these findings. One that particularly stood out to me as unbelievable was that transgender men had arrest rates for assault 4.3 times higher than cisgender men. Is this information accurate or is it misleading?
American cultural theorist Sianne Ngai to discuss her intellectual trajectory, political aesthetics, Fredric Jameson, ugly thoughts, ugly feelings, aesthetic categories, the gimmick in capitalism… and a lot of other things.
I am reading The Life and Death of Ryan White by Paul Renfro Its about Ryan White, the teenager with hemophilia who contracted HIV through a blood transfusion in the 1980s and how the public and media framed him as an innocent victim, which implied that people who contracted the same virus through sexual contact were guilty ones. The book is making a great point but it doesn't really go into why this happens and who (if anybody) benefits when we separate sexually transmitted infections into their own category in the first place.
The categorization makes little sense from a purely biological standpoint. HIV can spread through sex but also through blood transfusions, shared needles, childbirth, and breastfeeding. Hepatitis B spreads sexually but also through sharing razors or household contact with open wounds. These are just pathogens that transmit through specific forms of human contact like any other communicable infection.
But we dont apply this logic anywhere else. Nobody calls tuberculosis a breathing transmitted disease. Nobody labels cholera a water transmitted disease. Those diseases get named after their pathogens or symptoms or the body systems they affect. But the moment sex is involved in transmission the name centers the behavior rather than the biology, and that centering seems to do a lot of moral work abd fnger wagging than legit medical work.
The only good faith reason I could think of is that the STI label is used to warn where transmission most commonly and effectively occurs, but again why not do that with other viruses? And is that warning worth the stigma and misinformation that comes with it. People who catch the flu on a crowded bus get sympathy. People who catch chlamydia through an equally ordinary form of human contact get shame. I imagine that shame drives people away from being tested and definitely from honest disclosure which leads them away from early treatment,which makes transmission worse for everybody.
Is there sociological research on how and why this separate categorization developed and is there any research measuring whether the stigma produced by this framing actually worsens public health outcomes?
Thank you!