Make your case: transgender, transracial

[boost]

My definition is irrelevant. I am asking for others' opinions in the context of how they view the issues themselves.

Sometimes MMM tools threads up. Sometimes I do.

In this thread it is you; you're being a tool.

[wufwugy]

Sometimes MMM tools threads up. Sometimes I do.

In this thread it is you; you're being a tool.

You have blinders on with regards to me. It's to the point that I have the impression that ~50% of your posts are attacks on me.

[boost]

You have blinders on with regards to me. It's to the point that I have the impression that ~50% of your posts are attacks on me.

I think you're wrong sometimes, and sometimes I think your posting style is worthy of mockery.

The same exact thing is true of MMM, and at roughly the same rate.

If you can't see that this is true and see what follows from this truth, possibly it's you that's got the blinders on.



If you still feel but hurt, I'll critique your exchange with MMM since you obviously are having trouble seeing my post as anything but a personal affront.

You started a conversation which MMM joined in. MMM's style (at least in this exchange) is to establish first principles as to ensure everyone is on the same page and the discussion doesn't bare false fruit. This apparently isn't your preferred style (at least in this exchange) and instead of simply saying as much, you attempted to paint MMM's contribution to the discussion as invalid.

Also, while I've got my feet on the constructive criticism stump-- playing the victim is unbecoming. Even if I do have an extreme bias against you, to think that this precludes me from offering valuable criticism is asinine.

[wufwugy]

You started a conversation which MMM joined in. MMM's style (at least in this exchange) is to establish first principles as to ensure everyone is on the same page and the discussion doesn't bare false fruit. This apparently isn't your preferred style (at least in this exchange) and instead of simply saying as much, you attempted to paint MMM's contribution to the discussion as invalid.

He asked, I answered. He didn't like the answer and misunderstood the OP. I'll repeat for the third time that my definition of race is irrelevant and this is clearly the case in the OP.

Also, while I've got my feet on the constructive criticism stump-- playing the victim is unbecoming. Even if I do have an extreme bias against you, to think that this precludes me from offering valuable criticism is asinine.

You offered no critique until just now. You can choose to consider what I said or you can continue to try to discredit me as you have done.

[boost]

He asked, I answered. He didn't like the answer and misunderstood the OP. I'll repeat for the third time that my definition of race is <em>irrelevant</em> and this is <em>clear</em><em>ly </em>the case in the OP.

Far too many potentially productive conversations never pay off because people refuse to humour their peers attempts to lay a foundation. &nbsp;Essentially you are saying that you know it to be the case that the framework being set up by MMM could not possibly in any way bare fruit. &nbsp;If this is not the case, I'm open to hearing how that's not what was meant to be inferred from your end of the exchange and further how it is reasonable that that wouldn't be the takeaway.

If this is the case, and if you are indeed interested in making headway towards the truth in these discussions, I think you should put into question the way you navigate them in such a rigid unyielding manner.

You offered no critique until just now. You can choose to consider what I said or you can continue to try to discredit me as you have done.

Sometimes I don't have time to, or am not sure how to articulate the gripe I have, but I can mention that gripe and it doubles as a place holder and also an opportunity for you (or whoever) to dig into it. In this case, you seem to think my gripe was baseless, and in saying so I'm able to revisit it and have another shot at expressing it in a more robust and articulate way. Feel free to critique this approach.

[wufwugy]

Far too many potentially productive conversations never pay off because people refuse to humour their peers attempts to lay a foundation. &nbsp;Essentially you are saying that you know it to be the case that the framework being set up by MMM could not possibly in any way bare fruit. &nbsp;If this is not the case, I'm open to hearing how that's not what was meant to be inferred from your end of the exchange and further how it is reasonable that that wouldn't be the takeaway.

If this is the case, and if you are indeed interested in making headway towards the truth in these discussions, I think you should put into question the way you navigate them in such a rigid unyielding manner.

I think this has all been a misunderstanding. The OP references "transracial" as it fits in the social narrative, which means things like Rachel Dolezal being a white woman who calls herself black. MMM then asked me for my definition. I wasn't sure why he did, but I provided it because I figured he wanted to go somewhere with it. Then he said the OP was unanswerable based on my definition. I pointed out that the OP question has nothing to do with my definition.

I don't know what else I could have said about it. I recognize that my persona on this forum tends to not get the "ah okay" or "that makes sense" kind of responses and instead tends to get the "wrong, as usual" type of response.

[boost]

I think this has all been a misunderstanding. The OP references "transracial" as it fits in the social narrative, which means things like Rachel Dolezal being a white woman who calls herself black. MMM then asked me for my definition. I wasn't sure why he did, but I provided it because I figured he wanted to go somewhere with it. Then he said the OP was unanswerable based on my definition. I pointed out that the OP question has nothing to do with my definition.

I don't know what else I could have said about it. I recognize that my persona on this forum tends to not get the "ah okay" or "that makes sense" kind of responses and instead tends to get the "wrong, as usual" type of response.

This post is awesome. Your understanding of the unfolding of events is very clearly laid out, and as you see it, I can fully understand where your posts came from. I do think that with a little more benefit of doubt this could have all been avoided, but once things deteriorate in this way, it's posts like this one you've just made that help us get out of the weeds.

How I read MMM's questioning was more of "how are we defining race" and he was offering you the initiative. In this light, maybe you can see how you come off as being needlessly dismissive and short towards MMM. And even if I'm wrong, if he was going off topic, don't you think you could highlight that fact while also leaving the door ajar for him to be tangential with what could be a very interesting, albeit slightly off topic, point?

[OngBonga]

Sometimes MMM tools threads up. Sometimes I do.

In this thread it is you; you're being a tool.

I'll save wuf.

So what are we talking about? Transracial? I've just done a whole three minutes of research and it seems that the word "transracial" can be used perfectly legitimately to describe "someone raised in a culture or race different from their own", to give one random googled definition.

I see no reason why someone cannot be proven to be transracial. An image of a white kid asking his black Mommy if he's adopted springs to mind.