Pick any color at random; you could probably describe it in a single word, regardless of what the object is. It's red or green, yellow, purple... you get it. But let that object be skin, and, all of a sudden, we get society twisted in knots trying to give it a demographic, count it, subdivide it, classify it, discriminate it, and either love it or hate it. When are we going to figure out that absolutely none of us, not one in 7 billion, is either truly black or white, or any other "color" we've devised for skin? So, why do we try to make that distinction? It says nothing of what or who we are, and not one of us determined it in the first place. So, so what?
Our skin
Posts
Total:
19
If skin colors are just skin colors and have no meanings, then have fun doing the gesture known as "Nazi Salute" because it is just a raised arm and the historical connotations within it should be ignored, and have fun saying the N-word because it is just a string of vibrations.
What "Skin color" means is actually a hint to culture/ethnicity. When we see a person with yellow skin, he/she/they would have ancestors from Asia, and when we see a person with Black skin, he/she/they would have ancestors from Africa. Essentially "racism" is a generalization of cultures, "our culture is better than yours", "our European culture is better than your Asian culture", etc.
Some "black" people appear white too. They suffer from albinism but resembles more of an African person than a European person in terms of DNA. Skin colors is also a indicator(just that, nothing more, nothing less, not even 100% accurate) of where the person might have came from/have ancestry in, which is in the end a generalization of culture and comparison between them.
Raising your hand while having lifted 10KG for 20 minutes may result in the gesture "Nazi Salute", and saying "you" in Korean or "that" in Chinese may result in something that sounds like the N word. Cancelling people for these reasons would be absurd.
The Nazi Salute is just prone towards a maleficent interpretation, same with the N word. All of those are prone to misinterpretation. I suppose I allow both, as long as they aren't being used to damage anyone or anything.
-->
@fauxlaw
"Everybody is colored, otherwise we wouldn't be able to see each other."
(Frank Zappa)
-->
@Mandrakel
Yeah, and that's about as far as any distinctions should be taken.
-->
@fauxlaw
Just my own opinion, since I imagine some scientist or sociologist has data or strong theories.
Because it's a difference that exists, as Intelligence_06, that shows where a person is from, of which skin color is not and has not been the 'only identifier of.
And 'I think people are often 'group minded, tribalistic, never mind if we have skyscrapers and jets.
Doesn't have to be people identifying and fighting other groups because of 'physical differences, behavior itself is enough to form cliques and parties.
People may enjoy unique experiences, new people from time to time,
But that doesn't mean they want their entire world to look like Cirque du Cheville or a goth convention.
People get used to what they grow up around.
There's also an element of loyalty 'I think, 'some people identify their tribe with a certain appearance, be it customs or skin.
When they imagine it replaced, by another skin color, it seems to 'them that their tribe as they identify it, has been wiped out, destroyed, assimilated, taken over by said 'other.
Wouldn't 'have to be skin as I said, I think some people identify strongly with customs.
But the point is that skin color is an identifier.
Though Earth is hardly the Galapagos, there 'are and have been 'slight differences between groups of people, more and less speaking.
Skin color's just another identifier.
-->
@Lemming
Skin color's just another identifier.
Yes, it is, but your explanation ignores a simple fact: my tribe may prefer to wear red hats with a fern frond, and yours, a headband with a peacock feather, and mine eats rabbits, skewered over a fire, and yours, wild boar, roasting in a pit on hot stones, covered with banana leaves. All of it says nothing to the possibility that I, too, can sample wearing your tribe's headband, and sample your roasted wild boar, and declare both a worthy alternative to mine that others of my tribe should enjoy. And you can do the same with still a third tribe wearing no hat, but gold rings on wrists, and they eat fried ostrich eggs seasoned with curry.
And no one complains that anyone is usurping another's culture. We're all celebrating our distinctive cultures, and waiting for a fourth to emerge with more differences to embrace.
So, who cares about skin color, again? Why must it be a distinctive identifier at all? It's just a difference to embrace as a biologic variant meaning nothing whatsoever.
-->
@fauxlaw
Societies and cultures 'do cooperate, 'do trade, 'do celebrate together at times.
I'm not ignoring that quite, but they also discriminate, hate, and war, at times.
You and I are not complaining about any usurpation in this forum, sure,
But I imagine that there exist people 'other than us, of different backgrounds and values.
The people who care about skin color are the people who strongly identify skin color with ethnicity, culture, identity.
German Reich supposedly had some type of 'Blood philosophy/propaganda.
Finding ways to 'tie a group together can be useful for leaders, and individuals of said groups.
I 'imagine, they have a 'sacred 'idea of how their 'group, their 'people are supposed to look and be.
So when they see their aesthetic 'die out, they are frightened, outraged, defensive.
They see 'their genes, their ancestors genes as something to protect.
. . .
Even disregarding racism, many people are skin deep.
Shapes of faces, weight, mannerisms.
Valuing certain types, 'wanting certain ideals more, trust based on appearance.
I'm not saying we should or shouldn't, but that material perception exists 'far more than you think in people.
Maybe.
-->
@fauxlaw
Skin colour/tone is a distinctive identifier, because it is a distinctive identifier.
It's a basic physiological process, thanks to the eye department.
Same with all sensory identifiers.
Why is music?
Why is sugar sweet?
Why is Sandpaper rough?
Why does S**t stink?
-->
@fauxlaw
So, who cares about skin color, again? Why must it be a distinctive identifier at all? It's just a difference to embrace as a biologic variant meaning nothing whatsoever...........
........Except that the first examples of man were black since they evolved in a very hot climate and their skin was adapted to their environment. As the species migrated to cooler climates so too did their skin pigment evolve, again to adapt to their environment.
-->
@Mandrakel
And? We clearly do not exhibit a single color anymore. Not even Blacks. Again: So what?
-->
@fauxlaw
We clearly do not exhibit a single color anymore.
Did we ever?
-->
@Lemming
According to Mandrakel, per #10, yes. I don't happen to agree, but then, I don't think it matters one whit. On the other hands, Mandrakel's claim makes little sense. I am not Black. I have no idea if Mandrakel is, or not. Again, I don't really care. One of my best friends in high school was truly Black, and not a native of the U.S. but from the Ivory Coast. I asked him once, while at the beach [I grew up 4 miles from the beach in So. CA] if he ever sunburned. He said, "Of course. But I have no warning other than by the pain. My skin does not redden like yours does." That said, scientifically, darker skin, containing more melatonin, protects more than lighter skin, but it does not prevent skin diseases. https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/326378
-->
@zedvictor4
Skin colour/tone is a distinctive identifier, because it is a distinctive identifier.
By your analysis, "by the eye department," we should either be male or female, and not a wider variety. Apparently, however, the argument tends to drift from a binary department.
-->
@fauxlaw
Well I'm visibly male and my wife and daughters are visibly female.
How others might approach the issue, is totally up to them.
Rare physiological anomalies excepted of course....But males who think that they are female, despite efforts to the contrary, still have a tendency to look masculine and vice versa....Such is visual perception.....You can spot them a mile, off as it were.
A separate issue perhaps?
-->
@zedvictor4
Yes, it definitely is a separate issue.
-->
@fauxlaw
"The human brain differentiates early in development both structurally and functionally in a sexually dimorphic way (Swaab, 2007). Clear structural sex differences in the central nucleus of the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis (BSTc) have previously been found by our group, both in its volume—as delineated by its vasoactive intestinal polypeptide innervation (Zhou et al., 1995)—and in its number of somatostatin immunoreactive neurons (Kruijver et al., 2000). Interestingly, both structural differences were found to be reversed in male-to-female transsexual people; they were not influenced by alterations in sex hormone levels in adulthood and not related to sexual orientation in males (Zhou et al., 1995; Kruijver et al., 2000)." [LINK]
In other words, people's brains are chemically and structurally different depending on how your gender identity correlates with your assigned gender/sex. Transgender individuals have brain structure that highly correlates with the gender they identify with, and not the gender/sex they are assigned.
"A significant sex difference was found for brain weight among the four groups [(male, female, transsexual male-to-female and castrated patients, (Kruskal–Wallis P < 0.008)]. Male brain weight was higher than female brain weight (P < 0.001). Male-to-female transsexual persons had a brain weight (1358 ± 155.6) in between that of the males (1529 ± 231.4) and females (1244 ± 160.5) (Tables 1 and 2), that was almost significantly different from the male group (M > MtF: P > 0.053), but not different from the females (F = MtF: P > 0.130). The brain weight of the castrated group (CAS, 1387 ± 206.3) did not differ from that in the other groups (CAS = M: P > 0.917; CAS = F: P > 0.142; CAS = MtF: P = 1)." [LINK]
To summarize, usually people's brains are of different weight depending on the sex they are assigned at birth, and average the patients documented here who are: male, female, and transitioned from assigned male-to identify female - the transgenders individuals who identified as female had brain weight most similar to other females.
"The INAH3 subdivision in males was significantly (1.9 times) larger than in females (P < 0.013). The INAH3 volume values fully agree with the previously reported data (Table 4). Comparing the male-to-female transsexual group to the male group revealed a significant difference in the INAH3 subdivision (M > MtF: P < 0.018), while no difference was found when the male-to-female group was compared to the female group (MtF = F: P > 0.973) (Figs 5 and 8)." [LINK]
I could keep going, but I think you understand the pattern, neurologically speaking - individuals who identify as female are drastically more similar to people who are assigned and identify as female than male. To argue that "you can tell with your eyes" is drastically undermining the biology which tells us the differences between cis and trans gender peopled.
I think you understand the pattern
Well, I understand what you're presenting as a "pattern, but with so few samples in a group study, and being a statistical professional, I don't see a pattern with a minimal 42 as a combined sample population of either males, females, or m > f or f > m transexuals:
"Post-mortem brain material was used from 42 subjects: 14 control males, 11 control females, 11 male-to-female transsexual people, 1 female-to-male transsexual subject and 5 non-transsexual subjects who were castrated because of prostate cancer. "https://academic.oup.com/brain/article/131/12/3132/295849 [your source] Not even 42 of each sub-group would suffice to establish a pattern.
I am reminded of a famous study conducted in 1901 called the "21 gram experiment." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/21_grams_experiment
Interesting study that was meant to determine if the spirit, or soul of a person leaving the body at death had measurable weight. Yes, according to a Dr. MacDougall, who made the same statistical mistake as your cited study group, only worse: he had a sample size of 6 individuals. That is worse than pathetic. 42 samples is only pathetic. You get me? Many more samples are required to establish any kind of dependable pattern.
Not to mention that all samples should have approximately the same variables, even those not generally associated with what the experiment is meant to discover. Variables kill a statistical study. Yeah, all of your study's subjects were dead, and they all were castrated. Other than that, were they all of the same general weight and size, even within their sex? Did they all have approximately the same diet? I could think of a dozen variables that could affect the outcome, any one of which would skew the data. These must be accounted for in the design of experiment, and usually are not.
-->
@fauxlaw
It says nothing of what or who we are, and not one of us determined it in the first place. So, so what?
I am sure that we were placed on this earth the way we are so as to distinguish our roles accordingly.