Race and Genital Size

The BBQ Pit
81

I’m in the WTF camp. But I’m an idiot, apparently. I got lost at the truth/untruth part. Here is Biggirl’s brain, not rising to the challenge of intrepreting Izzy

The fact that you are a scientist weakens your arguement. You are only looking at this as a scientist. But something can be true (or untrue. . . .)
O.K., this is the point of Biggirl Brain Freeze. Are you saying that philosophically women’s clitorises can be sized by race? Or since people think black men have comparitively massive dongs then it can be true? WTF?

My interpretation is in bolded italics here because I don’t have the stamina to quote it the correct way:

Is my interpretation correct? I don’t see how you’d think so Izzy because, quite frankly, my interpretation makes no sense-- hence the request for clarification.

82

Just to add a bit of a proverbial commonplace: “Some are show-ers, and some are grow-ers.” Locker-room data may be useless.
(Any stereotype I might have had about the size of mens’ wienies was shattered in college by seeing my friend Hiroshi in very tight pants. Egads!)

83

quote:

Originally posted by edwino
If something can be true without being a scientifically valid concept, please give me an example

To which IzzyR responded:

“We don’t have far to go: race.
<snip>
But then it must be borne in mind is that the fact that the concept is not meaningful scientifically does not mean that statement is false. The truth continues to be that the group known as Blacks is more prone to SSA than the group known as Whites. To use the lack of validity of the Black/White genetic breakdown as a wayt of denying this truth would be wrong. It is my position that by insisting on keeping the focus purely on the genetic/scientific aspects of the racial issue, you and your allies are partially obscuring this issue.”

To which I responded:

Now if I understand you correctly, and I’m not sure I do, you’re arguing that Black and White as racial concepts should be considered as valid OUTSIDE the confines of the science that has shown that Black and White as genetic markers are invalid. Well, OUTSIDE of science, the only way that I can think that Black and White as categories of identification are valid is as cultural identity markers. This leaves me wondering: So? And? Your point is? Of course, looking at Black and White as cultural identity markers can get really tricky when you consider that there are at least as many definitions for Black and White as there are folks who self-identify under these categories. Again, I’m left wondering: So? And? Your point is? If cultural anthropologists, sociologists, or John Doe on the street corner wants to take the time to try to record some features of Black and White culture, fine. But, really, what is there to debate here?" Please help me understand where you’re coming from.

Basically I don’t understand WTF you’re talking about. I self identify as black–I have Native American and European blood too–but as far as I know I’m not prone to Sickle Cell Anemia. I have a good friend who also self identifies as black and who is a carrier for Sickle Cell Anemia. So in your non-scientific world does my lack of the Sickle Cell trait negate my blackness or make me less black than my friend who’s also part Native American? Race IS NOT a valid scientific concept. However, IT IS AN ARTIFICIAL CONCEPT that was imposed on peoples of African and European descent due to the illogical underpinnings of the slave trade and its subsequent atrocities in America and in other countries. Whatever it’s pseudo-scientific origins, race has been and remains a socio-political concept. The only validity race could have outside of science is as a cultural identity marker, but I will say again that there are at least as many definitions of Black and White as there are folks who self identify under these categories. So beyond this, what are you trying to argue? If you’re looking to establish what is definitively Black and White, good luck. You won’t be doing that anytime soon. If you’re saying that the concept of race is valid because folks have believed it and bought into it for centuries and it has stood the test of time, I still say: And? So? Your point is?

84

I guess we’re even. :smiley:

Biggirl,

Statements such as “Blacks are more likely to be afflicted with sickle cell anemia than are Whites”, or “the average size of sex organs differs between Blacks and Whites” are true/false statements. They are not philosophical or dependant on public opinion. They are, again, either true or false in some absolute sense. They are also of interest to some people, not necessarily including yourself. However, they may (and apparently do) have little or no bearing on the science of genetics. Therefore they are not valid scientific concepts that “could be put to use in a scientific fashion” regardless or their true/false status. Therefore, to imply, as did Edwino, that the truth of such statement does contain the implication that they are meaningful scientific concepts is misleading.

No. I don’t see where I’ve implied this. What I did say was that if someone like yourself went to the doctor with symptoms similar to those of SSA, that doc would have to be quicker to think of that possibility than he would if a “Caucasian” person did.

Do you agree that people who identify as Black have, on average, darker skin than do people who identify as White? If so, this would seem to contradict your assertion.

What I am trying to argue, again, is that factual assertions about race are not necessarily dependant on whether of not the concept or race is valid from a scientific perspective.

85

Yes, I do understand now. Let’s take something even more “black and white” than dick size or sickle cell. Blacks are darker than whites.
True.

Not all blacks are darker than all whites, but it can be said that, on average, black skin color is darker than white skin color.

Well, since this is how we define white and black, that would make sense. This is the definition imposed by culture, not by science. And we can’t tell what a “black” person is scientifically, but we can see with our very own eyes who is black and who is white.

So, using this cultural definition of who is black and who is white we can come to other conclusions as well, like-- black women’s clitorises are veritible cucumbers as compared to white clitorises. Even though there is no real, scientific and genetic difference between the two.

This leads to the fact that it is possible, by looking at skin color, broadness of facial features, hair texture and whatever else goes into defining what a black person is-- to predict other, scientifically measurable differences between the culturally defined races.
I understand, but it’s still poppycock.

86

I think that Biggirl is getting close to the nub of things.

Is it ever possible to “predict . . . scientifically measurable differences between the culturally defined races”?

Based on IzzyR’s description of Sickle-Cell Anemia It seems to me that the answer to this question must be “yes.”

87

Geez lucwarm, I’m sorry I gave you that impression. I suppose what you can find out is if people in America who self-define themselves as black have bigger genitalia than those who self-identify as white. This would be interesting, now wouldn’t it. I mean if you find measuring dicks interesting.

I’ve already admited that I enjoy the view.
After this can we do the studies on the correlation of genitalia size to body size?

88

Biggirl, let’s let Dr. DVR Poosha of India field that one:

(I hope that Dr. Poosha’s grasp of biology is a little better than his (her?) understanding of English grammar.)

It’s interesting to me that while I was searching with [“penis size” + “body size”] as my terms, RACE still seemed to keep coming up. I did enjoy reading this question raised by “Clueless” who seems to at least have made a fairly accurate assessment of his own intelligence:

:eek: My god, I hope that this one never has the opportunity to disseminate his questionable deoxyribose nucleic acid. I am curious about the ‘donut’ things, though.
[sup]Mmmmmmmm… doughnuts…[/sup]

89

OK. I’ve successfully ignored this morass for several days, but IzzyR has brought up a point that probably occurs to others.

This sounds reasonable. However, SSA is startlingly easy to find with a blood test (and any of the anemia-related symptoms associated with SSA should trigger a call for a blood test). In addition, if the blood test was not being made (for whatever reason) and the doctor was concentrating on perceived incidences of SSA baced on perceived race, the doctor would very likely miss the diagnosis on his first examination if he was facing a Lebanese or Southern Italian person. In addition, since several regions of Africa are malaria free, “leaning” toward a diagnosis of SSA (in the hypothetical absence of the blood test) might cause the doctor to initially miss a search for leukemia because he was biased toward SSA.

This was the cause of the flap in the New England Journal of Medicine earlier this year. One researcher drew a correlation between the side-effects/ineffectiveness of a particular heart medicine based on race. The correlation appears to have been accurate. However, a re-examination of the data shows that a correlation could be better drawn between effects and lifestyles and that the study population (probably unconsciously) selected blacks with a “negative” lifestyle out of proportion to the whites studied.

In other words, the correct (as opposed to the perceived) correlation could be more accurately understood using the scientific evidence that was in mutual support of the genetic evidence.

90

If Cecil says the average erect penis is 6.25" long and the average vagina is 4" deep, that means that in Metro New York alone there are nearly ***3000 miles of unused cock! *** this is a vast natural resource which is totally untapped! We should…Hey! Stop throwing…OW!!! Hey!

:: d&r ::

b.

91

quote:

Race IS NOT a valid scientific concept. However, IT IS AN ARTIFICIAL CONCEPT that was imposed on peoples of African and European descent due to the illogical underpinnings of the slave trade and its subsequent atrocities in America and in other countries. Whatever it’s pseudo-scientific origins, race has been and remains a socio-political concept.

IzzyR responds:

Do you agree that people who identify as Black have, on average, darker skin than do people who identify as White? If so, this would seem to contradict your assertion.

How can my saying that race is an artificial concept that has been and remains a socio-political rather than a hard scientific concept be contradicted by the observation that folks who self identify as black generally tend to have darker skin than those folks who self identify as white? The point remains that these colors were deliberately used to redefine folks, one set of whom had been forcibly removed from and stripped of whatever African nationality, culture, language, religion they had. Black was originally designed as a way to also diminish the humanity of people of African descent, for it set up AN ARTIFICIAL DICHOTOMY based on the arbitrary assignation of one color to define a diverse group of people between those who were enslaved (black) and those who enslaved folks (white). Likewise, the concept of whiteness was established as a way for Europeans who came to America to divest themselves of their former countries’ nationalities and create a new identity in America. Whiteness, like blackness, is also based on the arbitrary assignation of a color to a diverse group of folks, and it also became a socio-political tool in the ARTIFICIAL DICHOTOMY of color to designate an artificial sense of superiority along class lines. Folks now self identify as black or white because of this artificial structure that has been in place, but their reasons for doing so vary.

Black folks come in all kinds of shades of color, and actually white folks come in varying shades of color too. No one is the exact same shade. If you open a box of Crayola crayons and take out the black and white crayons and hold them up to a random sample of folks who self identify as black or white, you’re not going to get very many if any folks who fit exactly that shade of crayon. Race from a hard scientific perspective is not valid. Race from a socio-political perspective is valid; however, it is tricky to define.

quote:

So beyond this, what are you trying to argue? If you’re looking to establish what is definitively Black and White, good luck. You won’t be doing that anytime soon. If you’re saying that the concept of race is valid because folks have believed it and bought into it for centuries and it has stood the test of time, I still say: And? So? Your point is?

IzzyR responds:

What I am trying to argue, again, is that factual assertions about race are not necessarily dependant on whether of not the concept or race is valid from a scientific perspective.

Alright, so you’re saying that even though hard science thus far shows that race is an invalid concept, that outside of hard science the concepts of race: black, white, yellow, red, still can be valid because of the deeply engrained socio-political meanings AND the stereotypes associated with them BECAUSE doctors and scientists may be influenced by the stereotypes associated with race. Well, I can see that, but I’d have to say be cautious how you go about arguing for this. I think it would be helpful for folks to study the historical underpinnings of concepts of race that we take for granted so that they can come to some understanding of why we function the way that we do and modify illogical and possibly harmful behavior.

92

I’ll add some stuff to tom~'s fine post.

I understand the SCD example. Sure, self-reported blacks in the USA have a greater incidence of this disease than whites. Sure, self-reported blacks have a higher incidence of dark skin and curly hair. Sure, they have a higher incidence of flat noses. There are two problems in saying this, though.

The first is that the definition of race is hazy at best. A large percentage of people self-reported more than one race on the 2000 US Census. So, for those people, you could not make any significant conclusion. We get into lots of problems as well – how about non-US populations? How about putting any types of limits as to who self-reports themselves as what? What percentage of blood is necessary to be considered black? Old-South “one drop” rule or Nazi 1/8 rule? You can see why I am reluctant to go there.

The second much more subtle. What we are seeing here are advantageous mutations in certain populations. All of the traits listed above (dark skin, curly hair, SCD, flat noses) along with a few lesser known traits (beta thalassemia, G6P deficiency and favaism, I known of a few others) have one thing in common: they are advantageous mutations for tropical, malaria-filled conditions. Look at populations around the world at that latitude and what do you see among West Africans, Andaman Islanders, New Guinea lowlanders, Australian Aboriginals, Sri Lankans, and Native Americans? Dark skin, curly hair, flat noses, and in places with malaria, hemoglobinopathies and other disorders giving rise to some protection. Just like you see loss of pigmentation and mutations giving protection to tuberculosis (cystic fibrosis, it is thought) and other diseases among higher latitudes.

What I am getting at is that it is possible to have a small set of shared advantageous mutations with no other genetic similarity whatsoever. This is the nature natural selection and the gene flow of advantageous mutations through populations. Basically, if something is advantageous, it gets not only propogated throughout a population, but other similar mutations are likely to crop up in other separate populations in the same environment.

According to all of the biometric measurement done in properly controlled acquisition sets, the similarity ends there. Penis size I would bet would go along with height, weight, and lung capacity, and show no significant differences between self-described races.

The mantra again: just because two arbitrary groups show a handful of similarities does not mean that you can conclude that they are genetically or scientifically separable. Cultural divisions exist and are important, but have no relation whatsoever to measuring physiologic data.

93

Key word there, in Cecil’s column*, is “flaccid.”
Jill
*[butthead]"‘Cecil’s column,’ heh heh"[/butthead]

94

celistina and edwino, those were brilliant posts that have changed the way I think about race. (And I didn’t think I could get any more liberal.) Thank you so much!

That being said, I’m hesitant to descend back into the gutter, but I can’t help it: I was curious about mr. clueless’s enigmatic remark: “I’ve also read that they gave out these ‘donut’ things to American soldiers to use in Vietnam,” and tried to find out what the hell he was on about. God help me, I think he was referring to Red Cross Recreational Volunteers, who were called “Donut Dollies.” :eek: (Beware, horrible midi on the page.) Please, someone tell me he was not objectifying women to that degree, and was talking about something else.

Billy Ruben, you should approach the NYC Chamber of Commerce about using 3000 miles of unused cock! as a slogan to increase tourism in these troubled times. Priceless.

95

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by IzzyR *
**

That’s fine. Frankly I’m not all that concerned with what you say. To each his own. But I do find it strange, given the forum, that a moderator would close a thread based on a declaration that directly contradicts a Cecil column.

First, It’s “I couldn’t give a fuck,” Collounsbury, sweetcakes. And Izzy, I closed it because I knew for sure it would degenerate to this and end up belonging in BBQ before I could get back from my camping trip.
Jill

Cecil’s column. heh.

96

“Contradicts Cecil’s column.” Heh heh.

97

[[I’ll add some stuff to tom~'s fine post.]]Edwino

Oooh, Tom’s fine post.
Watch it, boys. I’m a moderator and I can pull your posts!

So don’t get so bent out of shape here.

98

If I can…make it there, I can make it anywhere…

99

Ow!

100

Hey Mudd,

This persistent hijack thing, maybe it would make a good question for the Big Boss. Anyway, I was always under the impression that the Old Bailey powdered-wig types coined the “hanged by the neck until death.” I did a quick Google search for +“hanged by the neck” +“london” which returns a bunch of reports of the use of the term back as far as 1788.

Perhaps we should appeal to higher authority. I know little of grammar and English usage, nor how to reveal the information. For instance, is there a difference between “to be hanged by the neck” versus “hanged by the neck?”

Anyway, back to your regularly scheduled wooden one eyed foaming beef trouser snake discussion.