6 ms·

I’m of Asian descent. I was raised in a white community and don’t know much about Asian culture. I am ethnically Asian, but if you were to try to infer things

I’m of Asian descent. I was raised in a white community and don’t know much about Asian culture. I am ethnically Asian, but if you were to try to infer things about me through an Asian cultural lens you would largely be incorrect. American white is largely my cultural identity. I largely relate to white New England Americans. It’s not necessary or relevant to imply I have “transitioned” from something Asian. Personality is an overlapping but poorly fitting term to describe identity. Transitioning gender is not so much about changing how you perceive your personal identity in a self reflective way so much as a term for publicizing it so that others have a frame of reference for understanding where you’re coming from because it’s uncommon and non obvious and helpful to them if they’re open to accommodating your own identity, imo. The types are not important, imo. But a simple thing may be that you feel very uncomfortable being seen as a thing of sexual or romantic interest from heterosexual men (or anything) and you want to make it clear that this is not a social role you want to play. Can you stop dudes from feeling that way? No. But perhaps you can create a social norm that such feelings are not brought up much as it’s generally not cool for gay men to openly hit on openly straight men in public.

yucky 4y ago
> The types are not important, imo. IMO, they are. How else can we explain it if we can't define it?
- oneoff786 4y ago
  Anything that is subjective and not discrete inevitably ends up lost in semantic arguments that achieve little. It’s useful to have a high level archetype, but the clusters are always fuzzy and we don’t gain much by carving out new names for things along the periphery. Identity politics get screwy due to in groups trying to maintain order and rigid rules while some are inflexible. How many times do you try to see a conversation about an idea get lost in a debate about whether the idea falls under a particular ideology rather than the merits of the idea itself? What’s socialism? What’s feminism? What’s a conservative? What’s queer? We make up buckets and get flustered when people define buckets differently or when some examples cross the boundaries. Then some people begin to believe that the definitions hold objective authority and place great significance on minor differences. Then people who feel they don’t fit exactly a definition declare they must be something new. Then two niche subgroups fight because they share a similar space and want the other to be made illegitimate. Then another body wants to maintain unity across the broader community so they declare all things are legit. Then the community looks stupid and confusing because it’s got so many niche classifications. Gender identity, Christianity, political ideologies, etc. take your pick. People trying to define things that are not actually discrete is just an invitation for nonsense. It’s fine to be “like Group X but different with respect to some qualities” and not make that a whole new taxonomical sub group.
  - yucky 4y ago
    I think that's the issue though right? If we accept that it won't necessarily make sense or follow any logical consistent rules because its subjective, then how exactly can we expect other to take it seriously? I'm not trying to be dismissive either, but my mind works logically. If I'm told "we're just making it up as we go and it's different for everyone" then you can't expect me to believe I need to actually take it seriously. It really does sound like people are just taking the concept of personality and tryin to overlay it on something where it doesn't fit, only leading to increased confusion. Ultimately, what is the point? What is the goal?
    - oneoff786 4y ago
      I do think people that identify as incredibly niche sub types are doing something dumb. Similar to the vast majority of people that do this for other dimensions of their identity or attempt to do it for others’ identity. But believing this to be the case isn’t incompatible with respecting that they feel different from the “normal” archetype or just generally acknowledging their preferred identity as it’s the closest thing they’ve got to describe themselves. Most people aligned with a given label are pretty reasonable and won’t demand you do anything too out of your way. Yes there are many exceptions but such is the case for every dimension of identity. This one is just a dimension that many people are eager to assert doesn’t exist.; Sometimes asserting that if you can’t cleanly identify as something easily defined that you’re just making up your differences which is of course also incorrect reasoning. People suck at such types of thinking and most cultures encourage against it to empower in group unity.
      - yucky 4y ago
        One could argue that it creates an incredible imposition on logically oriented individuals to tell them that they are bigots if they're not willing to play pretend.
        oneoff786 4y ago
        No not really. You’re not being logical if you reject someone’s preferred identity on the pedantic assertion that it’s an approximation of their collective beliefs rather than a rigid classification; and conflate that pedantic assertion with some additional implication that their person beliefs about themselves are less valid. You’re not a bigot for doing this. You are being an asshole nonetheless. And you don’t come off as more intelligent, just more clueless; even if you are in fact more intelligent.

yucky 4y ago

> The types are not important, imo. IMO, they are. How else can we explain it if we can't define it?

oneoff786 4y ago
Anything that is subjective and not discrete inevitably ends up lost in semantic arguments that achieve little. It’s useful to have a high level archetype, but the clusters are always fuzzy and we don’t gain much by carving out new names for things along the periphery. Identity politics get screwy due to in groups trying to maintain order and rigid rules while some are inflexible. How many times do you try to see a conversation about an idea get lost in a debate about whether the idea falls under a particular ideology rather than the merits of the idea itself? What’s socialism? What’s feminism? What’s a conservative? What’s queer? We make up buckets and get flustered when people define buckets differently or when some examples cross the boundaries. Then some people begin to believe that the definitions hold objective authority and place great significance on minor differences. Then people who feel they don’t fit exactly a definition declare they must be something new. Then two niche subgroups fight because they share a similar space and want the other to be made illegitimate. Then another body wants to maintain unity across the broader community so they declare all things are legit. Then the community looks stupid and confusing because it’s got so many niche classifications. Gender identity, Christianity, political ideologies, etc. take your pick. People trying to define things that are not actually discrete is just an invitation for nonsense. It’s fine to be “like Group X but different with respect to some qualities” and not make that a whole new taxonomical sub group.
- yucky 4y ago
  I think that's the issue though right? If we accept that it won't necessarily make sense or follow any logical consistent rules because its subjective, then how exactly can we expect other to take it seriously? I'm not trying to be dismissive either, but my mind works logically. If I'm told "we're just making it up as we go and it's different for everyone" then you can't expect me to believe I need to actually take it seriously. It really does sound like people are just taking the concept of personality and tryin to overlay it on something where it doesn't fit, only leading to increased confusion. Ultimately, what is the point? What is the goal?
  - oneoff786 4y ago
    I do think people that identify as incredibly niche sub types are doing something dumb. Similar to the vast majority of people that do this for other dimensions of their identity or attempt to do it for others’ identity. But believing this to be the case isn’t incompatible with respecting that they feel different from the “normal” archetype or just generally acknowledging their preferred identity as it’s the closest thing they’ve got to describe themselves. Most people aligned with a given label are pretty reasonable and won’t demand you do anything too out of your way. Yes there are many exceptions but such is the case for every dimension of identity. This one is just a dimension that many people are eager to assert doesn’t exist.; Sometimes asserting that if you can’t cleanly identify as something easily defined that you’re just making up your differences which is of course also incorrect reasoning. People suck at such types of thinking and most cultures encourage against it to empower in group unity.
    - yucky 4y ago
      One could argue that it creates an incredible imposition on logically oriented individuals to tell them that they are bigots if they're not willing to play pretend.
      - oneoff786 4y ago
        No not really. You’re not being logical if you reject someone’s preferred identity on the pedantic assertion that it’s an approximation of their collective beliefs rather than a rigid classification; and conflate that pedantic assertion with some additional implication that their person beliefs about themselves are less valid. You’re not a bigot for doing this. You are being an asshole nonetheless. And you don’t come off as more intelligent, just more clueless; even if you are in fact more intelligent.