The Political Satire/Meme Thread

[TexRex]

Adoption is an option, but seeking to procreate with someone can hardly be described as a prejudicial choice - at least, that is not my interpretation of the word prejudice anyway.

I don't disagree.

That said, being born with and still possessing a penis and seeking out an individual who was born with and still possesses a vagina doesn't ensure an ability to pass on genes. Point of fact, the passage of genes itself may result in an inability for one or both parties to pass on genes.

If we're talking about procreation as a basis for openness to a sexual relationship to the point that initial sexual attraction [of a trans person] is disregarded, and I think it's been demonstrated that trans people can possess physical characteristics to which a cis person may be attracted, what of those genes that we're to be passing on? How selective of a partner can we be before it's indicative of prejudice?

"I want my child to be able to reproduce."

I'd imagine that one's fine, though it's likely to involve genetic screening. Of course it's still not guaranteed when you've got genetic disorders like Klinefelter syndrome that occur after conception, independent of each partner's contribution.

"I don't want my child to have a broad nose or to be darker complected."

Alternatively...

"I want my child to have my broad nose and dark complexion."

Are these preferences more likely to be indicative of prejudice?

Edit: Aaaaand...tree'd.

 

[Touring Mars]

if someone says "I won't date transgender people because they can't have children", for example, I think they're probably covering for some other bias.

Why? Seeking a life partner that can bear your children is not a bigoted or prejudiced thing, it's a choice based on a tangible fact that only biological women can bear children. Some people may well also be transphobic, but it is extremely unfair/just plain wrong to assume that someone who would wishes to procreate with a life partner is in any way transphobic.

Because they'd most likely not blink at someone else who is infertile.

If you mean that they would happily date someone they knew was infertile even though they wish to have children with a life partner, then I think you are wrong about that too. Again, it is not 'prejudice' or bigoted in any way to prefer a sexual partner who can conceive... perhaps it could be considered selfish or insensitive, but not 'prejudicial'. Of course, I'd imagine many people do not know they are infertile until they try to conceive, but that is a different issue.

I think the transgender dating question is roughly equivalent to the interracial dating question. Which is to say that you get to have your person preference for all kinds of things - but that the reasons for that preference can be bigoted.

I think they are fundamentally different things for the reasons stated above. I would not describe seeking a partner who can conceive a child as a mere 'preference'. Indeed, I don't know a single married couple who have not either discussed, planned, tried or had children, and in the cases of my good friends, I know they envisaged raising a family even before they met their current spouses, and yet none of them are transphobic in any way. Suggesting otherwise is to misrepresent what transphobia is IMHO.

 

[MatskiMonk]

At what point did sexual preference become a choice? Isn't that the idea behind conversion 'therapy'?

 

[Touring Mars]

At what point did sexual preference become a choice? Isn't that the idea behind conversion 'therapy'?

I think the issue here is not about sexual preference, but whether it is bigoted or 'transphobic' for a man to choose a biological woman over a transgender male, if, say, that man were to find both equally attractive.

I'd argue that it is not 'transphobic' on the basis that dating/selecting a life partner is not just about sexual preference, but many other things are equally (if not more) important, like the ability to have children. I don't think a man who would choose a biological woman over a transgender male on the basis that the former can conceive and the latter cannot should be labelled transphobic.

 

[Danoff]

Why? Seeking a life partner that can bear your children is not a bigoted or prejudiced thing, it's a choice based on a tangible fact that only biological women can bear children.

But a surrogate can bear your children, in same cases with your partner's DNA, and you can raise them with your selected partner. So why is this a factor? What's the hangup here, is it your DNA? Your partner's? Or the actual birthing? Each of those seems... questionable... when it comes to prejudice.

Some people may well also be transphobic, but it is extremely unfair/just plain wrong to assume that someone who would wishes to procreate with a life partner is in any way transphobic.

Absolutely. But if they're not transphobic (and some of them no doubt are), they're running straight at some other prejudices related to the DNA of their children. So the "prejudice" tag is still not far away.

If you mean that they would happily date someone they knew was infertile even though they wish to have children with a life partner, then I think you are wrong about that too. Again, it is not 'prejudice' or bigoted in any way to prefer a sexual partner who can conceive... perhaps it could be considered selfish or insensitive, but not 'prejudicial'. Of course, I'd imagine many people do not know they are infertile until they try to conceive, but that is a different issue.

...which does make you wonder how it can be of critical importance if it's not even known. Let's examine this scenario a little. Suppose you're dating someone and you have a strong preference for a partner who is fertile. Dating goes well, and you get married. You try for children and discover that your partner (not you) is infertile. You then divorce them, looking for some other partner. This example is just someone with a strong preference for a partner who can conceive acting on it in a tangible way.

So what's the issue? Is it that you can't have your partner's DNA? No. Obviously not. Terminating the relationship doesn't aid in that.The issue must be an attachment to your own DNA. Perhaps even a deep enough attachment that you need to date and truly get to know someone's DNA before it is considered to be a good enough stock to be mixed with yours. Are we getting close to prejudice here? What genes are we selecting for here and why? If it's not straight up prejudice, it's getting into territory where I think discovering that it was motivated by prejudice would be unsurprising.

I think they are fundamentally different things for the reasons stated above. I would not describe seeking a partner who can conceive a child as a mere 'preference'. Indeed, I don't know a single married couple who have not either discussed, planned, tried or had children, and in the cases of my good friends, I know they envisaged raising a family even before they met their current spouses

With what DNA? That's the question when it comes to fertility.

, and yet none of them are transphobic in any way. Suggesting otherwise is to misrepresent what transphobia is IMHO.

Transgender people are capable of raising a family.

 

[Touring Mars]

But a surrogate can bear your children, in same cases with your partner's DNA

... but not in the case we're specifically talking about. As a man, you cannot have a surrogate baby with a transgender woman (who is genetically male).

Absolutely. But if they're not transphobic (and some of them no doubt are), they're running straight at some other prejudices related to the DNA of their children. So the "prejudice" tag is still not far away.

...which does make you wonder how it can be of critical importance if it's not even known. Let's examine this scenario a little. Suppose you're dating someone and you have a strong preference for a partner who is fertile. Dating goes well, and you get married. You try for children and discover that your partner (not you) is infertile. You then divorce them, looking for some other partner. This example is just someone with a strong preference for a partner who can conceive acting on it in a tangible way.

So what's the issue? Is it that you can't have your partner's DNA? No. Obviously not. Terminating the relationship doesn't aid in that.The issue must be an attachment to your own DNA. Perhaps even a deep enough attachment that you need to date and truly get to know someone's DNA before it is considered to be a good enough stock to be mixed with yours. Are we getting close to prejudice here? What genes are we selecting for here and why? If it's not straight up prejudice, it's getting into territory where I think discovering that it was motivated by prejudice would be unsurprising.

I'm struggling to understand your point here... it sounds like you are insinuating that people wanting to have their own children is in some way 'prejudiced'. Forgive me if that isn't what you are saying, but if it is then I think it's absolutely absurd.

Transgender people are capable of raising a family.

It ought to have been clear from the context of what else I wrote that I meant having one's own children, and not raising a family per se, but never mind. Obviously transgender people can raise a family - but I'm specifically talking about wanting/having children with a specific person, and hence selecting someone who you know cannot possibly have children with you makes no sense if that's what you have your heart set on. It is in no way, shape or form 'transphobic'... either that or I literally don't know the meaning of the word.

Maybe we should agree to disagree on this one.

 

[Danoff]

... but not in the case we're specifically talking about. As a man, you cannot have a surrogate baby with a transgender woman (who is genetically male).

Should have read "some" cases.

I'm struggling to understand your point here... it sounds like you are insinuating that people wanting to have their own children is in some way 'prejudiced'. Forgive me if that isn't what you are saying, but if it is then I think it's absolutely absurd.

First, what do you mean by "own children". You mean specifically the propagation of your genes right? Second, no, not in all cases. Definitely in some cases.

It ought to have been clear from the context of what else I wrote that I meant having one's own children, and not raising a family per se, but never mind. Obviously transgender people can raise a family - but I'm specifically talking about wanting/having children with a specific person, and hence selecting someone who you know cannot possibly have children with you makes no sense if that's what you have your heart set on.

You're talking about having your heart set on genetics then... not having children, not raising a family... genetics.

It is in no way, shape or form 'transphobic'... either that or I literally don't know the meaning of the word.

Maybe we should agree to disagree on this one.

I've agreed that it's not necessarily transphobic - although it definitely could be covering for transphobia. How many people do you know who would not consider dating someone simply because they are infertile? How many people do you know who would not consider dating someone because they are transgender?

I think the issue you bring up is largely a red herring. People are not put out by infertility nearly to the extent that they are put out by a history of being the opposite gender.

 

[TexRex]

Desiring a child that possesses only one's own DNA and the DNA of the person one has chosen as a partner is...odd. It's also not remotely guaranteed. There are countless factors that would keep a cis-hetero couple from having offspring that is distinctly and explicitly theirs.

 

[Touring Mars]

Should have read "some" cases.

You said 'some' but I'm specifically talking about the cases that 'some' doesn't cover.

You're talking about having your heart set on genetics then... not having children, not raising a family... genetics.

I'd say it was about a lot more than genetics, but even if it was, so what? Is seeking to procreate with your own sperm transphobic now? This is really stretching the definition of transphobia to breaking point.

How many people do you know who would not consider dating someone simply because they are infertile? How many people do you know who would not consider dating someone because they are transgender?

The question is 'how many people who want to procreate would try to do so with someone that they know cannot possibly conceive'?

People are not put out by infertility nearly to the extent that they are put out by a history of being the opposite gender.

I'd like to see some evidence or numbers on that, but it's probably impossible since many people may only discover that they or their partner is infertile after they start trying to conceive. But again, you're attempting to conflate two different scenarios. There's a clear difference between finding out your partner is infertile and knowing in advance that they can't possibly conceive.

Desiring a child that possesses only one's own DNA and the DNA of the person one has chosen as a partner is...odd.

Is it? In any case, it doesn't make you transphobic if that's what you want. Again, unless you have a completely different definition of what transphobic means.

 

[MatskiMonk]

I think the issue here is not about sexual preference, but whether it is bigoted or 'transphobic' for a man to choose a biological woman over a transgender male, if, say, that man were to find both equally attractive.

I'd argue that it is not 'transphobic' on the basis that dating/selecting a life partner is not just about sexual preference, but many other things are equally (if not more) important, like the ability to have children. I don't think a man who would choose a biological woman over a transgender male on the basis that the former can conceive and the latter cannot should be labelled transphobic.

I'd tend to agree. But my gut feeling is a lot of the choices we think we make in this regard are underpinned by our own genetics, and are to a certain degree 'dumb' traits installed by natural selection. Framing the discussion in the context of modern society and science is almost irrelevant in the context of simple human attraction, IMHO.

 

[Danoff]

You said 'some' but I'm specifically talking about the cases that 'some' doesn't cover.

We weren't, but now I'm wondering what you were getting at originally. So now the issue is the partner's DNA? Because that's even stranger. You want to procreate with your partner's DNA, because you're super attached to your partner's DNA, but if you can't, you ditch your partner for some other DNA that you can procreate with? That's... bizarre.

I'd say it was about a lot more than genetics, but even if it was, so what? Is seeking to procreate with your own sperm transphobic now? This is really stretching the definition of transphobia to breaking point.

I think I've said 3 times that it's not, but that it is flirting with other prejudices.

The question is 'how many people who want to procreate would try to do so with someone that they know cannot possibly conceive'?

Yes that's what I said. Infertility vs. Transgender, which one puts off potential mates more?

I'd like to see some evidence or numbers on that

I don't have numbers for it, so feel free to assume that infertility is at least as much a stigma as transgender when it comes to dating and consider me wrong.

, but it's probably impossible since many people may only discover that they or their partner is infertile after they start trying to conceive.

...and they react just the same way they would if they discovered that their wife used to be a man.

But again, you're attempting to conflate two different scenarios. There's a clear difference between finding out your partner is infertile and knowing in advance that they can't possibly conceive.

There is, but it doesn't undermine my point, in fact it's why I wrote it the way I did.

I'd tend to agree. But my gut feeling is a lot of the choices we think we make in this regard are underpinned by our own genetics, and are to a certain degree 'dumb' traits installed by natural selection. Framing the discussion in the context of modern society and science is almost irrelevant in the context of simple human attraction, IMHO.

Simple human attraction is neither here not there when it comes to infertility or transgender.

 

[Touring Mars]

We weren't, but now I'm wondering what you were getting at originally.

The original question was "Are biological men that only date biological women transphobic?".

I'm suggesting that the ability to procreate is a legitimate reason for a biological man to seek a biological woman over someone who cannot possibly have a child. Seeking a life partner who can conceive is not transphobic because it is not based on anti-transgender prejudice, but a legitimate and reasonable desire to procreate.

You say that men are more likely to reject a potential partner on the basis that they are a transgender male rather than a biological woman that they know to be infertile, but I don't know what you are basing that assumption on, or how it relates to transphobia in any way.

 

[huskeR32]

Seeking a life partner who can conceive is not transphobic

Maybe the UK is vastly different from the US in this regard, but I don't know of anybody who has gotten fertility tests with their boyfriend/girlfriend to make sure they've successfully landed a fertile mate. Fertility problems are often unknown until a couple has been trying, unsuccessfully, for a long time to have a child. Long after they likely decided to commit to being in a long-term, even life-long, relationship.

In my experience, people's behavior does not suggest that fertility is a huge factor in their dating choices. They select partners based on attraction and love, and if fertility issues arise down the road, they deal with it then, whether through fertility treatment or adoption.

 

[Touring Mars]

if fertility issues arise down the road, they deal with it then, whether through fertility treatment or adoption.

I agree with what you are saying, but there's a difference between finding out you and your spouse cannot conceive and knowingly selecting a partner who you know cannot conceive. All I am saying is that is it not "transphobia" (an unreasonable and unjustified dislike/hatred for transgender people) to seek a life partner who is very likely able to conceive. Of course, there is more to it than that too, but the possibility of being able to procreate with someone is, IMO anyway, a reasonable and justified reason to prefer that person over someone who cannot, hence it cannot be considered transphobia.

 

[huskeR32]

I agree with what you are saying, but there's a difference between finding out you and your spouse cannot conceive and knowingly selecting a partner who you know cannot conceive.

There absolutely is a difference, I'm not disputing that.

My point is, though, that if a partner's fertile status was really all that important to people, they'd take steps to verify it beyond making sure the person still has the same genitals they were born with. Almost nobody takes such steps.

Actions speak louder than words, right? What do people's actions (or lack thereof) tell you about how much they actually value a guarantee of fertility?

All I am saying is that is it not "transphobia" (an unreasonable and justified dislike/hatred for transgender people) to seek a life partner who is very likely able to conceive.

I know enough people who've struggled to conceive that feeling confident that any particular person is "very likely" to be able to conceive based solely on biological sex is a fairly big roll of the dice.

Knowing for sure that one's partner cannot conceive may very well be part of someone's reasons for not dating a transgender person, but I'd wager it's almost never the only reason. It's just the shield they hold in front of the others.

 

[MatskiMonk]

Simple human attraction is neither here not there when it comes to infertility or transgender.

I disagree, we've not evolved with any natural mechanism to determine fertility, as such you're not predisposed to a fertile partner in the same way you are someone with the opposite sex organs to you.

 

[PeterJB]

Subconsciously fertility is a factor. On an evolutionary level, traits we typically find attractive in mates are ones that either imply fertility or an ability to safety raise children. Externally someone may not look infertile, but they can still display physical attributes that imply fertility.

 

[VolkswagenX]

Obviously I would agree with Touring Mars' above post... a cisgender person not being attracted to a trans person is not transphobic. People have largely innate preferences as to who they are attracted to. The reason for my "can't tell if serious" response above is that I honestly wonder if anyone thinks that it's transphobic not to be attracted to a trans person. That immediately came off to me as a strawman against "woke" or left-wing people to me.

It could be me not understanding correctly, but that what I got out of the conversation. Not intended as a strawman against "woke" or left-wing people.

@Touring Mars sorry for like spamming your replies

 

[Touring Mars]

Knowing for sure that one's partner cannot conceive may very well be part of someone's reasons for not dating a transgender person...

But it may well be the only reason. Either way, wishing to procreate using one's own sperm does not make one a transphobe.

...but I'd wager it's almost never the only reason.

Possibly, but not necessarily. But even if/when it is the case, you'd then have to establish what those other reasons are. Only if one of those reasons was 'I hate transgender people' would that person be rightly called a transphobe.

It's just the shield they hold in front of the others.

Not exactly sure what you mean by this, but the fact remains that if someone truly is transphobic, a genuine or even innate desire for a man to procreate (with a biological woman) is not a basis to declare someone transphobic.


edit: I'll probably move this entire discussion to a more relevant or new thread, since we are getting wildly off topic!

 

[HenrySwanson]

Can you give me some examples of this anti-white bias, as I've never experienced it personally in my fifty years on earth, I'm quite sure I would have noticed as well. Now the other way around, have I in that time benefited from being white in both the conscious and subconscious actions and attitudes of others, yet I've come across more of that than I would be able to even start listing. However, bias against me because I'm white? Nope, not in this country or the wider world.

It can manifest from the most extreme to the instiutional to the individual

That isn't the same as saying it's as big a problem as bias against minorities.

I've explained my view on them a number of times, you however seem to be avoiding presenting yours. Please stop doing so and apply that critical reasoning and present your view on them.

I'd say they're both as racist or non-racist as each other.

Why should looking for someone who looks like themselves (or the race they prefer) be any more acceptable if they happen to be a minority in that country....

 

[MatskiMonk]

Subconsciously fertility is a factor. On an evolutionary level, traits we typically find attractive in mates are ones that either imply fertility or an ability to safety raise children. Externally someone may not look infertile, but they can still display physical attributes that imply fertility.

This may well be true, but it's not an on/off switch for the ability to procreate. Same sex attraction without the intervention of society or science, is. As such I'd still imagine a much greater natural instinct/attraction based on what sex organs someone has, than traits they posses that may imply greater or lesser fertility.

 

[Scaff]

It can manifest from the most extreme to the instiutional to the individual

That isn't the same as saying it's as big a problem as bias against minorities.

Did you actually read any of those before posting them? The first actually states that a lot of these cases are white people who don't look white and white on white violence, the second is from someone with a history of racist comments and the last is a fairly loose allegation.

I'd say they're both as racist or non-racist as each other.

Which is it then and why, as without context, that's fence-sitting of the highest order.

Why should looking for someone who looks like themselves (or the race they prefer) be any more acceptable if they happen to be a minority in that country....

This would be when you apply that critical thinking!

Externally someone may not look infertile, but they can still display physical attributes that imply fertility.

Nope, they can display physical attributes that imply 'good genes', but that's quite different from implying fertility. The most brightly coloured peacock, who can shake his ass the best, doesn't mean he's the most fertile one.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Did you actually read any of those before posting them? The first actually states that a lot of these cases are white people who don't look white and white on white violence, the second is from someone with a history of racist comments and the last is a fairly loose allegation.

You wanted examples of anti-white sentiment. The first said 7 of the 24 were by other white people, your counter to the second is an ad hominem and doesn't address the fact that:

Last week the US Department of Justice (DoJ) found that Yale University discriminated against white and Asian applicants, for whom, said the finding, admission was between four and ten times harder than for black applicants with the same qualifications.

and the last is fairly loose because....?

Which is it then and why, as without context, that's fence-sitting of the highest order.


This would be when you apply that critical thinking!

I think it depends on the person who is using it. Saying that a white preference site is racist in principle while giving other racial dating sites a pass is wrong IMO.

 

[Danoff]

The original question was "Are biological men that only date biological women transphobic?".

You went back too far.

I'm suggesting that the ability to procreate is a legitimate reason for a biological man to seek a biological woman over someone who cannot possibly have a child.

What do you mean by "legitimate"? Do you mean non-bigoted? Non-transphobic? I'd agree (as I have 4 other times) that it's not transphobic. As for non-bigoted, that's a slightly more nuanced question, since there are quite a number of bigoted reasons for wanting to procreate with your particular genetics I guess I'd say it's not automatically bigoted.

Seeking a life partner who can conceive is not transphobic because it is not based on anti-transgender prejudice, but a legitimate and reasonable desire to procreate.

I've known almost no one to do this. Fertility as a requirement for a life partner has come up so infrequently that I honestly can't think of a time when I've seen it.

Edit:

Ah, I thought of an example... British Monarchy. Somewhat violent examples too.

You say that men are more likely to reject a potential partner on the basis that they are a transgender male rather than a biological woman that they know to be infertile, but I don't know what you are basing that assumption on, or how it relates to transphobia in any way.

Just personal experience, no data. I've never seen anyone have fertility as a requirement for a life partner. I've known of people who got divorced over infertility, but it wasn't because someone was infertile and it was a requirement. It was because infertility is stressful, and relationships die sometimes in stressful environments.

Transphobia, on the otherhand, is prevalent enough that a reality TV show was made of it. I don't know of any reality shows made about people who fell in love and were punked by finding out that the person was infertile. In fact, in the TV show (brought up earlier), fertility was not the reason, and not the expected reason, for the fallout - even though it could have been, and if it were just as prevalent in society, it might have been expected to be.

I find the idea that fertility is a main driver in not wanting to date a transgender person to be not credible, and likely a cover.

I disagree, we've not evolved with any natural mechanism to determine fertility, as such you're not predisposed to a fertile partner in the same way you are someone with the opposite sex organs to you.

You've apparently not evolved any natural mechanism for determining transgender people either, at least that's what many Thailand tourists have discovered.

Subconsciously fertility is a factor.

It's a subconscious factor that leads people to be attracted to attractive infertile and transgender people. It's a factor based on probabilities, and that fertile-looking girl of there is probably not a Thai ladyboy, at least as far as your genes are concerned.

 

[huskeR32]

Either way, wishing to procreate using one's own sperm does not make one a transphobe.

Only if one of those reasons was 'I hate transgender people' would that person be rightly called a transphobe.

Not exactly sure what you mean by this, but the fact remains that if someone truly is transphobic, a genuine or even innate desire for a man to procreate (with a biological woman) is not a basis to declare someone transphobic.

I never used the word transphobe, so I'm not sure why it popped up so often in your response.

I'm pushing back against the idea that people make decisions about their partners based primarily, or even in any significant portion at all, on fertility.

Alcohol, tobacco, excessive caffeine consumption, being too thin, exercising too much... All of these things have been linked to lower fertility. And yet these factors are often completely ignored in choosing a partner. Some of them are even valued! Not to mention that most people are waiting until later in life to have children, and age can be one of the biggest barriers to successfully conceiving.

So when I said:

It's just the shield they hold in front of the others.

What I meant was that it's convenient to hold up fertility as one's reason to not date transgender people. But most people's behavior does not support the notion that fertility is something they particularly think or care about in their dating life. There are probably other reasons at play. Transphobia is one possible reason, and I'm sure there are others.

 

[Touring Mars]

Non-transphobic? I'd agree (as I have 4 other times) that it's not transphobic.

That is the sole point I was addressing.

I never used the word transphobe, so I'm not sure why it popped up so often in your response.

Well, you are directly addressing me, and I was answering a specific question about transphobia.

 

[Danoff]

That is the sole point I was addressing.

Great... it's not a transphobic reason. It's also not the reason.

 

[MatskiMonk]

You've apparently not evolved any natural mechanism for determining transgender people either, at least that's what many Thailand tourists have discovered.

Aye, I know a dude that followed through on that too. Fair play.

Anyway, you are correct, we haven't, modern science and society makes it easier for us to get it 'wrong', but we still try, because we're wired that way and in the vast number of cases in human evolution, it's been relevant. We've never naturally done it with fertility, so I stand by my point... attraction naturally includes gender, but not fertility, therefore reaction to discovering a mate is transgender is not comparable to discovering a mate is infertile.

 

[Touring Mars]

Great... it's not a transphobic reason. It's also not the reason.

The reason being.... what?

I've pointed out one reason why a man may not wish to date transgender women that you've accepted is not a transphobic reason. But you're saying that if a man doesn't date transgender women, it's not because they want to procreate with a biological woman, it's because they are transphobic for a different (unspecified) reason?

Labelling someone as transphobic without a valid reason is grossly unfair. It also dilutes the seriousness/meaning of the word if you consider people transphobic just because you surmise they must be.

 

[Scaff]

You wanted examples of anti-white sentiment. The first said 7 of the 24 were by other white people,

You missed the other points.

I mean even your own source cautions against using it in the manner you are...

"Fahy also warned of caution in over-interpreting the figures. He said that the 24 white victims also included those who were Jewish, 'dark-skinned' Europeans or gypsies. In addition, seven of those were killed by white attackers, four by black, six by Asian, with seven whose racial background was not identified.

Police have suggested that some white-on-white killings may be a result of attacks between Scots, English, Irish and Welsh people.

Overall, there have been 10 black victims and 16 Asian victims. Of the 58 race murders, 18 have been where a white attacker has killed a black or Asian individual and another 14 where one member of a minority group has murdered another for racial reasons.

'This shows the complex society we are policing,' said Fahy."

...empahsis mine, as you clearly missed it!

your counter to the second is an ad hominem

Nope, it’s not

Last week the US Department of Justice (DoJ) found that Yale University discriminated against white and Asian applicants, for whom, said the finding, admission was between four and ten times harder than for black applicants with the same qualifications.

Nope, the DoJ dropped the suit, which was never ‘found’, but an allegation.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/03/doj...criminating-against-white-asian-students.html


So your claim is untrue in two counts.

Remind me again who was President when the DoJ attempted that, would it be the same person behind the 1776 project?

and the last is fairly loose because....?

Because like the Yale one it was an unproven allegation.

The scale behind racism and the possibility that a tiny number of people are biased against whites are so staggeringly different that it’s absurd to conflate them in the manner you are attempting. That’s true of many non-white majority countries as well.

I think it depends on the person who is using it. Saying that a white preference site is racist in principle while giving other racial dating sites a pass is wrong IMO.

Because, the likely motivation behind the two are rather different, particularly given that by default dating apps are already ‘white’. Which I already pointed out with the observation that white history month and straight pride are not required.