Gosh, one-sentence well-poisoning. That’s a thing of beauty, well worth highlighting.
Nothing of the sort. Non-whites can definitely partake of Whiteness. But Whiteness isn’t a racial identity, so nothing transracial about it.
If someone Nazis, I’m going to call them a Nazi regardless of what they call themselves. Ditto if someone is a transphobe and they think they’re just being a good feminist. Same-same if someone exhibits Whiteness in ignorance.
What about the second part of my statement, can whites be non-white?
I agree with that, I don’t think it is even a properly defined “thing” in the first place. But if that’s the case why did you even bring it up if it doesn’t help the discussion. The only reason I can think of is that you consider it a way of diminishing what a person has to say based on racist thinking. That only works if you use it as a pejorative. I hope you wouldn’t do that.
But seeing as you’ve just put it on the same level as transphobia and Nazi ideology…we can all make a judgement as to what your true feeling are.
Do you mean can Whites disavow Whiteness? Sure they can.
I think pointing out occurrences of Whiteness definitely helps the larger discussion. It’s doesn’t necessarily help the dialogue with anyone so invested in maintaining their White privilege that they would push back at the very idea it existed. But there are other readers.
And it’s your privilege to think that.
I do notice we’ve moved on from “racist response” to “racist thinking”. Are you sure you wouldn’t like to move this discussion to the Pit?
Whiteness is worse than either of those in its effects (and one is in any case just a subset of Whiteness). I’ve never made a secret of those feelings
You’d prefer I sugarcoat it for you?
And, of course, it’s peak White privilege to assume everyone in the audience is just like you, so it’s OK to speak for everyone.
No, that’s not what I mean, seeing as it is the topic at hand. Can a white person honestly see themselves as something other than “white”.
And that is a perfect example of the circular reasoning and non-falsifiability that the concept is built on. The concept is beyond challenge because to do so is evidence that the concept is valid. It is a neat rhetorical trick but academic rigour it is not.
The only thing I assume of the audience is that they are able to read your words and come to a judgement. Not my judgement, theirs. You have pretty low expectations of them if you assume they are going to definitely agree with me.
No, it was obvious that you were using that particular racial term as a pejorative. Good that you are honest about your intentions.
I would assume the “topic at hand” would be the discussion we were actively engaged in. Which was about Whiteness.
What do you mean by “white”, exactly?
I’ve given one example already where I think it’s possible for someone to be authentically transracial, but the conditions are quite strict. Still, knock yourself out, eh?
What’s falsifiability got to do with it? Did you make the mistake of thinking I was talking about science? People aren’t science experiments.
Sure, mate. That wasn’t a rhetorical appeal to your assumed peanut gallery at all, gotcha 
I know I always use “We can all read what you wrote” when I’m expecting everyone to agree with my opponent, yes sir…
It’s not racial.
But good to see you’ve swung around from fragility to backlash. It’s like you’ve read Yancy.
For the sake of argument lets say it is a light skinned person of multi-generational, purely european descent.
Oh it definitely isn’t science, it is nowhere near. It isn’t a theory, it is hardly even a hypothesis. So you should be very wary about making broad assumptions or predictions based on it. You can’t have it both ways.
I invite everyone to read your wikipedia cite and judge for themselves if it is racial or not.
It is more correctly called pushback and challenge but I understand why you choose the language you do.
I suspect that any response from me to rebut those specific accusations would just be taken as evidence of their validity. We are back to circular arguments and non-falsifiability.
For the hat-trick you’ve even thrown in another reference to literature as an authority and we have an extension of the Courtiers Reply.
Are they an amnesiac or otherwise raised by wolves?
This is a rhetorical question, since I already answered this line of inquiry elsewhere in the thread.
It never claims to be.
Well, that’s just absolute bullshit. Science isn’t the only field with predictive value.
No need to Whitesplain backlash to me.
It’s almost like Whiteness is a terrible thing you wouldn’t want to be associated with…
Gosh, can’t have literature. Heaven forbid…
And with that ridiculous attack on merely mentioning an author, I’m done. I’m not going to respond any further here, If you want a response on this topic of discussion, make a Pit thread.
Did I say you “can’t” make predictions? or that you should be “wary” when doing so?
Racist language again, just a means of avoiding any defense of your position.
I take it in the spirit it is intended, but ultimately I don’t think it is a thing. A direct analogy would be if fundamentalist Christians accused me of being a disciple of Satan. They’d be using it as a means of insult and condemnation but it ultimately holds no power for me.
Absolutely not the point, the content of the literature is what matters. The strength of the points being made, the research done, the structure, validity and soundness of the arguments being made and of the premises it is built on. Just chucking out a name as an appeal to authority won’t cut it.
I’m not sure that matters. If race is based on how others interact with oneself, it doesn’t matter what one thinks. If race is based on one’s self concept, it does. I’m not convinced which or both are correct.
We’re things that exist in the world and are subject to all the usual laws thereof. So we certainly can apply the scientific method to studying people. And we can reject as unscientific any theory which cannot be disproved.
You don’t say. 
Of course it does.
Both are part of it. But only one is necessary. And it’s the self-concept that’s necessary. I still have a racial identity even when I’m not around people.
Talking about Whiteness is not talking about studying people, like lab rats, despite the name “Whiteness studies”. It’s talking about being people, and interacting with other people, and explaining people to other people - that’s “explaining” as narrative, not scientific theory, just so we’re clear.
No, I do say. 
People listening, of course, is a different matter.
No, that’s not it. I think it’s obvious that someone at minimum needs to have an understanding of what male and female are in order to conclude they are transgender. And it’s also pretty obvious that the same person might come to a different conclusion about their gender depending what possibilities they are aware of in their particular society.
Here’s an example I was reading about. A medical experiment done on babies by doctors following the previous generation’s beliefs:
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa022236
BACKGROUND
Cloacal exstrophy is a rare, complex defect of the entire pelvis and its contents that occurs during embryogenesis and is associated with severe phallic inadequacy or phallic absence in genetic males. For about 25 years, neonatal assignment to female sex has been advocated for affected males to overcome the issue of phallic inadequacy, but data on outcome remain sparse.
METHODS
We assessed all 16 genetic males in our cloacal-exstrophy clinic at the ages of 5 to 16 years. Fourteen underwent neonatal assignment to female sex socially, legally, and surgically; the parents of the remaining two refused to do so. Detailed questionnaires extensively evaluated the development of sexual role and identity, as defined by the subjects’ persistent declarations of their sex.
RESULTS
Eight of the 14 subjects assigned to female sex declared themselves male during the course of this study, whereas the 2 raised as males remained male. Subjects could be grouped according to their stated sexual identity. Five subjects were living as females; three were living with unclear sexual identity, although two of the three had declared themselves male; and eight were living as males, six of whom had reassigned themselves to male sex. All 16 subjects had moderate-to-marked interests and attitudes that were considered typical of males. Follow-up ranged from 34 to 98 months.
This is the closest thing me we can have to a literal male brain in a (surgically created) female body. Of the 14 kids who were raised female, all had interests and behaviour more typical of boys. Four of them spontaneously declared they were boys, 5 were told the truth by their parents and 4 of those decided to switch back to their birth sex. I was wondering about the 5 still living as female. Presumably they don’t literally identify as male; that implies some sort of conscious feeling. Yet they may well feel they don’t fit in as girls or women, and this study suggests they might be happier if they switched to living as male. So what are their gender identities? Does it even make sense to say gender identity is a thing, separate from interests and attitudes and other attributes of the mind/brain that may make someone feel they don’t fit in as one sex or the other (or as either in some cases)?
But then that doesn’t explain why men with male-typical interests and behaviour, who do fit in fine so far as anyone can tell, would want to transition to female, and vice-versa. The conventional explanations don’t fit the world I see in front of me.
It isn’t clear to me what you mean by that. What has a “narrative” got to do with it? Saying something is so doesn’t make it true.
Now apply this to race. Let’s say you had 14 kids whose grandfathers were Black but they looked white, and were brought up in white neighborhoods with parents who fit right in with their white neighbors. Do you think they would all have interests more in-line with Black culture, and four of them would spontaneously declare they were Black?
Seems unlikely to me. I think you’re, once again, doing a great job describing the essential difference between transracial and transgender.
Happy to clear it up for you - in a Pit thread…
I won’t be doing that. You could explain it right here if you chose to do so, I’d like you to because what you said was confusing and may be important but if you won’t you won’t.
I choose not to. Happy to do it in a forum where I can appropriately respond to all the anticipated accusations of “racist thoughts” and “racist language” without running afoul of the IMHO rules.