What really makes you part of a community?
Why is it ok to identify as any gender but not as any race?
This edition is a follow-up to last week's topic. After posting last week on those who identify as a different race, age or species, and how these experiences differ from transgender experiences, I had some more conversations about what really makes you part of a race or ethnicity, or any other identity-based community for that matter. There is much more to it than what we were able to get into last week, so here's a follow-up edition.
Are all group identities always rigid?
Tribalism has always been a common feature of human societies. Those seeking to divide everyone into 'us' vs 'them' and to oppress others, will always find some reason or the other to do it. And yet, there are aspects of human identity where crossing over from one group to another has long been considered a valid choice.
Take religion for example. There are those who oppress others on the basis of religion. And those who make sub-groups within each religion, not just sects with different beliefs, but also groups based on real or imagined ancestry. And those who consider religious conversions invalid, at least when someone is leaving their religion. And of course those who use the labels of heresy or blasphemy to silence dissidents. Despite all this, converting from one religion to another has long been considered a valid choice, no matter how widely or rarely it occurs. There can be those who might not even accept conversions into their religion, not just out of their religion, but the concept of a religious conversion is mostly understood by people.
The same goes for nationality, or language. A national or linguistic identity can remain stable across many generations or centuries or even millennia, but eventually they evolve. Many may try to close the borders of their respective identities to stop others from entering or leaving, but again, the concept of someone adopting a different nationality, or being immersed in a new language to such an extent that it becomes their primary language, is well understood by everyone.
Why some types of identities are more rigid than others
If identifying with a different religion, nationality or language is considered possible and valid, then why not the same for race, age or species? In the case of race, we don't mean interracial identities emerging over generations through intermarriage, but an individual identifying as a different race within one lifetime. And even in the case of gender, though a gender transition and transgender identities are increasingly considered valid and acceptable, why is 'coming out' about it still such a big deal for so many?
One possible inference is that identities which have a biological basis – race, age, species, gender – are considered fixed, unlike those which are purely social such as religion, nationality or language. Therefore, even the acceptance of transgender identities is based on the assumption that they have some biological basis, that everyone has an innate gender identity which is fixed and the 'coming out' or 'transitioning' that we see is just someone becoming their 'true self'.
There are several problems here. First of all, even though race does have a perceived biological basis in terms of one's skin colour and certain physical features, even experts fail to agree on any deeper genetic basis for it. Moreover, racial classification can be very fluid, depending on social perceptions and political factors more than biology.
This image shows how ‘scientific racism’ considered Irish people closer to blacks than ‘Anglo-Teutonic’ whites.
Second, even though many transgender people do believe in a biological basis for their innate gender identity, many also believe that irrespective of any observable or non-observable biological factors, anyone can identify with any gender. In previous editions, we have spoken about some of these issues, and whether the fear of someone pretending to be trans for ulterior motives has any basis.
Third, caste can be considered a purely social construct, even if rooted in centuries of endogamy. So can someone simply self-identify as whatever caste they want?
Is it enough to simply 'identify' with any religion, nationality or language?
Of course not. Almost every religion or nationality imposes some threshold beyond just a simple self-identification. There may be certain rituals or beliefs or practices. Or a 'test' based on one's ancestry or knowledge or skills or ability to get a job. Or, in the case of certain nationalities, a significant amount of money involved.
For example, here is a discussion on what makes a Jew a Jew. Two points there which I found significant – "each different group will have its own standards for acceptance", and quite poignantly, "All in all, however, this is a luxury that Jews can only afford in relatively safe times. Our enemies have never made such distinctions, so we should probably all give each other a break."
So... every group or identity-based community can decide its boundaries for itself, and those that are under attack or being persecuted or oppressed, are likely to be more sensitive about who joins or leaves them. What does that mean in the context of race or gender? Is it possible to identify as 'trans-racial', or is it just another form of blackface?
Is it always wrong to use blackface?
John Howard Griffin was a white man who temporarily darkened his skin and travelled as a black man through the Deep South in the United States in the late 1950s, and wrote a book on it. His experience is remembered as probably the only benign example of blackface, and seen as a service to everyone concerned about racism. The hostility that he faced firsthand during his days of disguise, as well as the threats and violence from some white people even after publishing his book and talking about it, show that even pretending to be black can invite the same animosity from white people as actually being black. In 1984, Eddie Murphy tried going the other way round, pretending to be white in a comic skit.
Did Rachel Dolezal face any hostility and racism from white people in all the years that she pretended to be black? I am sure she did, but the much bigger narrative was of intentionally building up a pretense, of telling others not to blow her cover, and of suing a historically black university for discriminating against her as a white woman, before going on to build a career based on lies. Her pretense was seen as wrong while Griffin's was not, not just because of something innately different about racial identities, but because of her selfish motives and deceptive actions.
Moreover, there are many experiences of those who are multiracial, or who are raised in a racial community different from their own, or of those who align socially and politically with a race different from their own. There is much to be learned from all these experiences, without giving much credence to those identifying as 'transracial'.
So... how do we apply this lens to the question of gender?
We often say that non-normative gender identities and sexual orientations have existed throughout history. That is not enough. The definition of what is normative and what is not has also changed throughout history, as can be seen in examples here and here. The roles that different genders are assigned, not just within the binary but beyond it too, have also changed throughout history. Even in today's times when we say that trans women are women and trans men are men, governments claiming to advance trans rights are still going back to medieval stereotypes about the role of trans women in relation to cis women.
If we lived in a world where trans women (and trans people in general) were not more likely to be targets of violence than cis women, but were instead accomplices to cis men in actively oppressing cis women, would it be possible for trans women and cis women to identify with a broad definition of womanhood that included both of them? Aren't our opinions shaped by the numbers of people identifying with a particular label, and by vivid descriptions of the abuse and discrimination and trauma that they face?
Even in our world as it actually exists, how would we react if a known right-wing male provocateur or troll were to 'come out' and identify as a woman? Even if we could claim to respect their pronouns and their self-identified gender as a courtesy, we wouldn't be inclined to immediately welcome them into all kinds of spaces.
If I were to come across someone who I knew was abusive and violent and a bully, but who now claimed to identify as trans, would I be inclined to trust them? Maybe yes. But then if I heard them saying to someone 'Don't blow my cover', would I still trust them?
Our identities are valid, but only when others trust us. Last week, we tried looking at differences which make some identities valid and others not, but we did not mention the role of trust.
I am a woman, not just because I identify as one or because of my mind or body, but because others trust me when I say it. And that applies to all of us, whether we are cis or trans. We are who we are, because others trust us, and believe what we say about ourselves. That is what builds our identities, and our communities.
If you liked what you read, please consider supporting our work by clicking ‘Membership’ or ‘Support’ on:
You can also follow us on Instagram or Twitter, and subscribe to our newsletter so that you don’t miss any future editions. A new edition will be published every Saturday.
If you would like to contact us, you can message us on Instagram or Twitter or by replying to any edition of this newsletter, and we will get in touch with you.
An insightful and thought provoking newsletter as always, Chitra. Thank you. Especially loved the sentences in the end - " We are who we are, because others trust us, and believe what we say about ourselves. That is what builds our identities, and our communities." This is such a great truth and thought.