Is Transgender an Ethnic Group or Race ?

[Kelly DeWinter]

Ethnic group
, a social group
or category of the population that, in a larger society, is set apart and bound together by common ties of race, language, nationality, or culture.

Race
[rās] a class or breed of animals; a group of individuals having certain characteristics in common, owing to a common inheritance. race
(rās) n. 1. A group of people identified as distinct from other groups because of supposed physical or genetic traits shared by the group.

Biology by Degrees - we all (everyone in the world) have a genetic makeup that is different by degrees than every one else.

I'm an armchair biologist , I read a lot about biology and have no formal education in it.

I hear and read a lot about CD/TG "Identifying" as the opposite sex, but I can't help thinking it's more than that. As human our biological makeup includes not only organs, but a chemical soup that if different from person to person , group to group. ethnic group to ethnic group.

A read a article about a female athlete who was told she could not compete as a woman unless she reduced her naturally occurring level of testosterone and a male swimmer who was praised because of his extremely low levels of estrogen in his system. Just two examples of average people with unexpected chemistry for their sex.

Even within a race of people there are shared chemical levels with the body that act differently. Natives of polar regions have trace levels of naturally occurring
antifreeze protein from Pseudopleuronectes americanus, the antifreeze mechanism of the type-I AFP molecule.

Tropical races have
Molecular photoprotection of human
keratinocytes as infants to protect against the sum

It seems as if nature evolves humans for different niches to fulfill a purpose.

One of the most comprehensive studies of provides Evidence on the BIOLOGICAL nature of Gender Identify

"
The researchers conducted a literature search and reviewed articles that showed positive biologic bases for gender identity.
These included disorders of sexual development, such as
. penile agenesis,
. neuroanatomical differences, such as grey and white matter studies, and
. steroid hormone genetics, such as genes associated with sex hormone receptors.
They conclude that current data suggests a biological etiology for transgender identity."


Evidence Supporting the Biologic Nature of Gender Identity

Aruna Saraswat, Jamie Weinand and Joshua Safer
Endocrine Practice (https://journals.aace.com/loi/endp) Feb 2015, Vol. 21, No. 2 (February 2015) pp. 199-204
Abstract (https://journals.aace.com/doi/abs/10.4158/EP14351.RA?=)
| PDF (443 KB) (https://journals.aace.com/doi/pdf/10.4158/EP14351.RA)
| Track Citations(RSS (https://journals.aace.com/action/addCitationRss?doi=10.4158%2FEP14351.RA)


The research suggests as many as 1 in 100 people have Gender Identity.

I submit that the evidence that so many people identify as transgender is evidence to entertain that probability that as a group they can be considered an ethnic group if not a race.

Any thoughts ?

[Patience]

No.

Next question.

[Aunt Kelly]

Here we go again. Let's redefine a term that has broadly accepted definition already...
Look, I get that the cited definitions appear to allow someone so inclined to slide some or all TG groups into the set of races, but why the hell would we do that?

[April Rose]

A stretch.

[Tracii G]

Everything in that study you referenced is opinion as are most studies.
Just because it gets published does not make it fact.
So the answer is no.

[Robertacd]

No and no as TG is present in all races and ethnic groups.

[Stephanie47]

Roberta, excellent point.

[Jaylyn]

Kelly I believe that's a no because all the applications for jobs, applications for admissions, applications for credit, and a numerous other info sheets only have two boxes [male] [ female] check one. I have not seen a tarns box yet and most forms don't even have a race box anymore.
Now my hunting license does have a gender box Buck or Doe ,

[Tracii G]

Really hate to see studies like this that continue to further divide people.
We are one race the human race.

[Becoming Brianna]

I agree with Kelly. This is foolish. A community yes an ethnic group no.

[Shelly Preston]

No and no as TG is present in all races and ethnic groups.

I think this sums up the answer in one sentence.

The only think we really share right now, is no one has come up with a definitive answer as to why we are the way we are.

[Crissy 107]

I agree with Roberta and Shelly.

[Micki_Finn]

It’s a gender... like it says in the name...

bi-racial isn’t a sexual orientation. Why would Transgender be a race?

[Jodie_Lynn]

Firstly, the term "race" is misleading. As far as I know, there is the human race, which is the dominant lifeform on this planet.
Yes, yes, the term has been diluted and conflated to mean "people who look different than me", but, in my view, that is total BS, since there is only one human race.

An 'ethnic group' share many traits, such as language, customs, genetic heritage, geographical proximity, religion, and other commonalities.

To equate transgendered individuals as an ethnic group is not logical, since we only share one trait, to varying degrees. It would be akin to saying that all redheads are an ethnic group. Or all albinos. Or all Christians.

So, to answer the OP, No. And, No.

[Kelly DeWinter]

"Human Race" is misleading , there is the Human Species as a whole group on Earth , there are multiple Races as a classification

[Jodie_Lynn]

Oh really? In biological terms, "race" denotes creatures that are in a genus, with the ability to breed.
Ever see a lion mate with a bear?

ALL humans have the ability to breed, regardless of the incorrectly utilized term "race".

In the canine "race", a Great Dane can mate with a chihuahua and produce offspring. And no, I don't want to imagine who does what to whom in that scenario.

An African can successfully mate with a Caucasian; An Asian can successfully mate with an African; A Caucasian can successfully mate with an Aborigine.

Not to sound like a rabid SJW, but, the term "race" as used by most people, is in and of itself, a racist term.

[Tracii G]

It sure borders on being racist.
I don't know why some insist on classifying everything or making up things and classifications that don't exist.
My major was anthropology and biology in college so we discussed all this kind of stuff.
We could never agree on anything with the professor and when I would question him he would just get angry.

[Jodie_Lynn]

@Tracii G

I don't think it 'borders on', I think it IS racist.

I don't mean to derail the thread into a political venue, but look at how many groups & organizations use the ersatz term "race" to justify bigotry and hatred. Not only today, but throughout history.

[Tracii G]

Quite a few.

[docrobbysherry]

R these divisive posts here because we aren't allowed to discuss politics or religion?:devil:

[Jodie_Lynn]

Which ones would you call 'divisive' Doc?

[sometimes_miss]

No and no as TG is present in all races and ethnic groups.
^this.


there is the human race, which is the dominant life form on this planet.
Nah. Birds, insects, bacteria, molds (and a host of other microorganisms) have us beat. They've been here since before we were, and will be here when we're gone.

We may believe that we're advanced enough to survive the next extinction event, but even today we waste enormous amounts of energy, even our lives, in an effort to reproduce our own genetic line.

[mbmeen12]

No.....it is not

[BTWimRobin]

No, it is neither an ethnic group or a race. It is a community.

[LaurenS]

It’s a software bug (feature!).

[GretchenM]

OK, I am a biologist and an ecologist and therefore well versed in classification and evolutionary theory. The short answer is that transgender is not a race or an ethnic group.

There is even a good deal of question about whether humans have biological races. That seems to fall under the category of "forma" which is a lower classification category than race. One of the interesting things about humans is that genetically they show an amazingly small amount of genetic variability for a species that lives most everywhere and in most every climate. This, if it is actually true (the full range of variability has yet to be determined), leads to a conclusion that humans arose in a very small group of people which leads one to what is called the founders effect. Some religious groups are derived from the founders effect. In the Amish (my relatives, but I am not Amish - one of my grandmothers was born Amish but left in her teens) communities were established by a single family and everybody in that resulting group are related to each other and the founder. It raises hell with the genetics producing all kinds of strange genetic disorders as a result of inbreeding.

What we call human races do not fit the definition of a biological race very well. They are far more small variations as adaptation to very specific differences in certain environments we inhabit - more like ecotypes than races. To be a race there needs to be more genetic difference which we generally do not find in humans. Our races are cultural, a consequence of our cherry picking differences between us that satisfy our strong tendency to grasp on to divisive Us-Them views of each other.

The Us-Them reaction is a major part of our behavior pattern and is basically founded in a knee jerk reaction to anything that is not like us - fundamental instinctive behavior. In most people the Us-Them reaction leads to a more rational consideration that turns off the highly protective Us-Them reaction. Protective? Yes. Like most animals, our initial reaction to something that is different is to turn on defenses. But humans (and some other species) have an ability to reason and ponder and ultimately decide that the different person is probably harmless. Some people never get that far - they include racists. Purely psychological, but very useful when living in the wilds. Not so handy in modern cities. It is a more "primitive" mode of reaction that has yet to be removed, but probably never will be as it is deeply set and a basic behavior life has - self preservation.

Thus, I think transgender is just a minor collection of people whose genetic-environmental configuration produces an unusual behavior pattern where two prominent and usually fairly distinct behavior patterns that appear to be sex linked are somehow blended into a single individual. Perhaps even community is a bit of a stretch as we don't even form groups; most are solitary and rather secretive because of some fear of the Us-Them reaction doing them harm. So, biologically, it is more a behavioral variant that is widespread, but uncommon, in a world wide species.

So that is the view of an evolutionary and ecological biologist who is also somewhat trans. In short, it is no big deal unless people make it a big deal.

[Ressie]

This has to be a rhetorical question. No?

[Patience]

Sadly, no.

There are folks who crave the dignity that comes with being an opressed minority even when they aren't one themselves.

Gretchen, be careful. You know how folks here react to all that fancy liberal book-learning. ;)

[Tracii G]

Amish are a religious sect so not a good analogy

[Kelly DeWinter]

To be clear, when I refer to race in this post, it is in reference to biologic and/or cultural evolution. In NO way am i or should anyone disparage anyone because of their race or culture.

As a croup transgender have certainly had a huge cultural impact world wide over the last few years. We can hope that that will continue.

Think also of the other thread here which reference clothing choices . In western society women's style have evolved to the point where their choice of clothing includes all style niches for both traditional womenswear and menswear.
while menswear is slowly moving towards similar choices, albeit at a glacial pace.

Research whether we like it or not IS exploring the question of Gender. There is nothing wrong about gathering data, except possibly with how you gather it,, but there can be questions with what you do WITH that data.

[Jodie_Lynn]

Research whether we like it or not IS exploring the question of Gender. There is nothing wrong about gathering data, except possibly with how you gather it,, but there can be questions with what you do WITH that data.

That's fine, but has dam all to do with the subject of whether or not TG/TS is a separate ethnic group or race.

[Donna St. Marten]

This is why I usually skip this section and go right to Clothing, Shopping and Beauty.

[Kelly DeWinter]

Thanks Gretchen for the professional input. Can you give some input into how culture fits in to human behavior ?

Jodi; Don't you think gathering data is a good thing to help understand the human condition ?

[GretchenM]

Tracii, first of all, the Amish is actually one of the best example of the founders effect anywhere in the world. The point was about the founders effect in creating genetic shifts within a larger population and the theory that all the humans today arose from a small group of people that were hit hard by the founders effect and some of our unusual characteristics today may be due to genetic variations originating in the founders effect that turned out to be highly beneficial. The religious aspect of the Amish has nothing to do with the argument because the argument is not about the Amish but the consequences of having a population that is derived from a single couple or a very tiny group of people.

Kelly, behavior is a blend of both genetic influences and environmental influences. Genetic factors form a framework, a basic pattern based on biochemistry. Keep in mind, genes do not create traits; they create the molecules that, when they react with each other or are utilized in the body, produce certain consequences that have various degrees of influence and importance. Genetics is all about chemistry. That is called the genotype.

What is really important is the phenotype. The phenotype is the expression of the genotype. For example, blue eyes result from a lack of pigment in the iris; there is no blue pigment. That is just the color that results from light reflected back through the iris. The genotype for eye color pigments is such that it turns off all pigment production for the iris. All other iris colors are the result of the blend of reflected light coming from within the eye passing through the iris which contains certain pigments. Like mixing paint, the amount and type of pigment, when combined with reflected light, produces various colors. Thus the iris can have many different colors through the interaction of the Effects of a blend of genetics (pigments) and environment (reflected light). So what does this have to do with cultural influences?

Basically, in most of life there is the genetics and there is the environment. The genetics are more or less fixed (genotype), the environment is whatever happens independently of genetics, and the two form the phenotype which is what evolution and natural selection works with. But in humans (as well as apes, some monkeys, as well as Cetaceans (porpoise and whale) and a few birds (crows, ravens, jays, certain starlings, and others), the genotype has created a characteristic in the phenotype to be innovative, experimental, exploritative, rational, and conscious (aware of its own awareness). When this is combined with a highly social animal, the result is culture. Chimps have culture (information that is exchanged and is passed on to future generations); orangutans are not very social and they have very evidence of culture, even though they are quite smart.

Thus, culture acts as an environmental factor that, with selection pressure, can show a preference for certain genotypic effects by either selecting certain genotypically derived behaviors and eliminating non-compliant behaviors or, much more commonly, using the rational abilities of humans to teach them "proper" social behaviors. Those are the behaviors that society decides are most important to maintain the social fabric. Sorry, but that is the source of politics. Enough on that; you can make of that whatever you want.

Thus, in conscious and rational creatures, environment (culture) can be a very powerful influence on the phenotype. It is a form of natural selection that tends to support the cultural element and keep it as the most important and influential factor in the future variations in humanity and influencing the ultimate consequences of that selection. In most creatures, there is no culture and behavior is largely based on the phenotype produced by the genotype - genes reign supreme for them. But in us, because we can choose in a presumably rational way AND are extremely social the phenotype tends to overpower the genotype in some ways and therefore culture can set the path for genetic evolution through a kind of directed natural selection.

In the history of life, this pattern is probably no more than 40 or 50 million years old which makes it still quite "experimental" in the grand scheme of things.

I know, really complicated stuff. But there is no species where culture is more influential on evolutionary processes than in humans; it patterns behavior within a predominantly social environment. That is why it is so very important to get the culture "right." In that sense, the "right" culture is the one that allows the greatest freedom to innovate in technology but also in behavior. Only then can culture grow and behavior become beneficial to the greatest good for those in the cultural environment. It comes down to culture being a tool to direct, within certain resource limits, your own evolution.

The real problem becomes selecting the most favorable cultural characteristics that contributes positively to the future of the cultural environment. That can get really contentious when there are a lot of different views. Those different views are beneficial, until they become more dictatorial. Then different views are restricted and when that happens a dead end is inevitable just as it is when genetics becomes too specialized. From an evolutionary point of view, and that only, thoughts and ideas that tend to move forward rather than backward while taking into account history so you don't keep making the same mistakes, will produce the best results. Keep in mind, only consciousness allows for a creature to be aware of its history - if there is no consciousness, history is confined to the recent, and learning and innovation is beyond reach. In that case, genetics is 90% of the game; with history, environment and adaptation to a constructive environment becomes dominant.

Hope I have answered your question, but if you want to learn more read Robert Sapolsky's "Behave" It goes extensively into this very subject. Quite an amazing book, but rather large. Great stuff though by a noted scientist in the behavior and culture.

[Kelly DeWinter]

Gretchen Thanks again for the expansive and thought out reply. I will definatly get Sapolsky's book.

One of the biggest questions in this forum and about our community is "Why" why do we do what we do, hence my original question(s). The problem about reading research papers, is that you cannont ask questions about points you don't understand, or as you stated it's "complicated stuff". I've had to do do a lot of searches on terms you used in your previous post, just to get a semi handle on what you wre writing.

When you say "
culture acts as an environmental factor that, with selection pressure, can show a preference for certain genotypic effects by either selecting certain genotypically derived behaviors and eliminating non-compliant behaviors" would it be fair to the selection mechanism is reproduction for eliminating non-compliant behaviors ?

I ask because western society is becoming more embracing of non gender specific behavior as evidences by new laws, accommodations, and general acceptance. (yes, I know we have a loooong way to go)

In your previous post you spoke of community. I think we defiantly are a community, In the recent pre internet era . We did seek out one another through clubs and meeting groups, in the internet era, that as defiantly increased to regional meetings and even in community groupings. (Baltimore has a small but growing area of likeminded home owners, Areas like New York and San Francisco ) especially with the younger generations. The older in the closet, semi in the closet generations are as you say loners)

Thanks again

[Jodie_Lynn]

Jodi; Don't you think gathering data is a good thing to help understand the human condition ?

Of course gathering data, and knowledge is a good thing. However, exploring what gender entails, has little to do with your original topic of discussion.

Are women a separate "ethnic group"? Are men? How about "women who have given birth? Are they a separate ethnic group from "women"? How about "Men who have had vasectomies before fathering children", are they a separate ethnic group from "men"? As I stated earlier, an ethnic group shares more than just a single trait.


Definition of ethnic (Entry 1 of 2)
1
a
: of or relating to large groups of people classed according to common racial, national, tribal, religious, linguistic, or cultural origin or background
ethnic minorities
ethnic enclaves
b
: being a member of a specified ethnic group
an ethnic German
c
: of, relating to, or characteristic of a minority ethnic group
ethnic neighborhoods
ethnic foods
2
: of or relating to the Gentiles or to nations not converted to Christianity : heathen, pagan
… ancient ethnic revels of a faith long since forsaken …
— Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

We could divide and sub-divide the human race to a point where it would be ludicrous (red-headed, left handed, brown eyed, republican, protestant humans), and it wouldn't improve the human condition, but would, in fact, make it worse.

If I may indulge in a bit of nerdy-geekery.....

In the Star Trek universe, the Vulcans have a concept called IDIC. "Infinite Diversity, in Infinite Combinations".

In that fictional universe, the idea that different people have different mores, features, customs, and traits, is something to be celebrated. Not condemned.

I know that your original post was not about condemning or downgrading others, but I have to ask, where is the concept that we are an ethnic group coming from?

As Transgendered people, or crossdressers, we have no common element other than we either fully identify as female, or choose to emulate what we think being female is. We have no other common element to ALL TG/CD people. We have different religious positions, different political stances, different nationalities, skin tones, languages, AND vastly different ways of expressing ourselves as female.

[Beverley Sims]

Being transgender is definitely a race........

I always race home to get changed. :-)

[GretchenM]

Beverly: I like that definition of race. :heehee:

Kelly: In most societies there is some tendency to eliminate undesirable social behaviors through a lack of reproduction with such people. This may have a smaller effect now than it did in the past, but it is undoubtedly still there. When doing the math for genetic shifts in populations (a process a bit like compound interest) one can see that it does not take much of a change in reproduction rates to have a significant effect on the overall genetic diversity of the entire population. Of course, for this to occur the behavior has to be rather heavily weighted toward the genetic side. If it has only a small genetic basis then it takes much longer for the influence of shunning to have a population wide effect. If the first principle of behavioral genetics is correct (that all behavior has some kind of foundation in genetics) then shunning has to have some influence. It is just a matter of how much of the behavior is due to genetics and how much is due to poor socialization in the eyes of the population.

In many societies today, there is a lot more tolerance on the whole than there was in the past. Shunning is still a big factor in a lot of societies. But with more widespread acceptance or at least tolerance of what used to be considered way out of line, populations are tending to become more behaviorally diverse. And this occurs because acceptance and tolerance is a more powerful force than shunning or intolerance. Dictatorships eventually collapse because the people eventually figure out what is going on and push back. The more primitive Us/Them reaction the dictator uses to maintain control is eventually overwhelmed by the counter circuit in people's brains and they don't buy the Us/Them argument anymore. The history of greater acceptance and freedom of gay and lesbian folks is a fine example of how a long standing Us/Them conflict faded away into widespread acceptance. There is still push back from the Us/Them centered folks, but their effect, for the most part is drowned out by the more rational way of viewing gays and lesbians. (see Jodie's post on the fictional Vulcan concept of IDIC -brilliant writing for sure.). This now seems to be taking hold in the trans world. There is a considerable amount of push back to more historically traditional views of transgender behavior, but so long as acceptance continues to climb in the main population, eventually that push back will be overwhelmed, even though probably not totally eliminated. Nature does tend to keep a reserve of "old ways" just in case they are needed sometime. Not quite a junk drawer, but almost.

Also, when reading Sapolsky's book, keep Google handy. You will need it. I sure did. It is really very well written by a person who is considered a major genius (and it shows), although at times I think he uses too many examples to illustrate a point. It is a BIG book. On behavioral genetics, Robert Plomin's book "Blueprint - how DNA makes us who we are" is highly recommended. Plomin is a leader in that field. This is probably the first book written for the non-specialist in the new field of behavioral genetics. He has been accused of being too deterministic, but I don't see where that comes from. He includes lots of room for the more traditional view that behavior is just a matter of choices. Choices are important, but like genetics, neither one can be the ring that rules them all. Together they form a process.

Jody: I think one of the problems with the term "ethnic" is its difficulty in defining it. It is such a generalized concept that it is really hard to define in a way that has much precision. It is almost a matter of "I know it when I see it even though I can't concisely define it." Community is also one of those words. We ecologists have a rather precise definition of a biological community. Unfortunately, when the community concept is based mostly on behavioral characteristics the ecological definition really falls way short and ends up sounding like those social communities are constructed machines. I think both concepts are quite useful, but I also think there is a danger that they can play into the tendency to pigeon hole everything into well bounded categories, as you point out. This is present because of the way western civilization and its languages tend to be object oriented. Eastern languages are more concept based and so there is less tendency to pigeon hole and classify everything to satisfy the influence of language on our thinking.

I really like the Vulcan view. My only criticism is that I think they went a bit overboard on the rational side and as the hybrid (Spock) shows, blending rational and emotional in a way that is a bit more rational than humans do produces a pretty good combination. Humans have gone overboard on the emotional and we tend to find ourselves in situations where we do ourselves serious harm. Neurologically, I think perhaps our prefrontal cortex needs a bit more development. It is the newest part of the brain and probably needs a bit more enhancement. That is probably occurring and at a pretty high rate. I just hope our behaviors are causing it to develop in a much more favorable direction than one that leads to behavior being self-destructive. Amazingly, self-destructive behavior can drive a species close to extinction and pure biology takes it from there and wipes the whole species out. On the plus side, sometimes a new species moves into that niche and it has a better balance because it may have come from the species that went extinct and in the process corrected some of the prior problems. Our common ancestor with a number of other apes is no longer around, but from that ancestor at least 3 species developed: chimpanzee, bonobo, and human. And all three form a sort of behavioral continuum from the very aggressive chimps to humans to the almost pacifist bonobos. Interesting for sure. But did it actually happen that way? We will never know for sure because behavior doesn't fossilize very readily.