Comment by sizzle | Hacker News Reader

Comment by sizzle | Hacker News Reader

Genuine question, what is stopping you from identifying as another caste in 2022 with the mass adoption of the concept of identifying with different genders?

Just like being assigned a sex of Male or Female at birth, those who don’t want to associate can identify with another gender identity or even transition their bodies to whatever sex they please.

I don’t buy the notion that once a Dalit by birth you are destined to a lifetime of suffering, especially if you made it to FAANG in the USA, you won the lottery are in the top 1% of Dalits that are in the cohort of successful, wealthy, educated technologists who can break down the walls of caste identification back home. With the protection of civil rights laws and freedom of religion in the USA, you can use your money and influence to start a movement that breaks the chains of caste identity for the oppressed community back home.

I know the college youth in Delhi are very progressive and champion Women’s rights and protesting as a movement emerged when the horrific rape trials were brought to global attention. Maybe tap into this educated youth cohort to be the change for future generations to come and break caste identity at a conceptual level.

Money and freedom in another powerful country = power and influence to change the narrative back home as a symbol and poster child of Dalit role models changing the world.

Sorry I’m rambling, but if you made it to FAANG and aren’t paying it forward to your oppressed communities back home, then is your inaction to take a stand against Caste discrimination benefiting your oppressors because the top 1% of Dalits who can affect change left India as part of the brain drain of skilled individuals trying to make a better life for themselves abroad?

Let casteism die with the older generations, start a movement with the youth to turn the tides in favor of fluid caste identity until it is no longer relevant conceptually.

Someone please help me articulate this stream of consciousness into a single concise paragraph that is actionable. Thanks for listening, I would love to help in any way I can.

> Genuine question, what is stopping you from identifying as another caste in 2022 with the mass adoption of the concept of identifying with different genders?

Since this is a genuine question, there’s something you should know about not conforming to the gender you were assigned at birth: we’re not accepted for our identity either. The concept of self-identification is separate from cultural acceptance of it.

Moving to a place, however unrealistic the prospect, where autonomy in identity is more common doesn’t automatically make it safe or practical. Generally speaking, people who would benefit from emigrating, and can, already do. And they’re facing much more entrenched biases of racism and xenophobia.

What would it take to plant the seeds of change in the youth to abandon casteism conceptually as technology allows us to be on a more equal platform with all the world’s information at our fingertips?

Hillary Clinton called 25-50% of the country deliverables, and it was basically well accepted by the media and most on her side. I don't think labeling the other is going away any time soon.

I have very little in common with either Clinton, but it’s hard to disagree with that assessment (even though it’s misconstrued), given the facts. Basically everyone that could be harmed by their coalition has been or is in their sights. Basically every bit of progress to make our society more inclusive has been under threat. The defectors from that program have been high profile but very lonely in their principled stands. I’m fairly privileged but I feel more vulnerable than ever that “then they came for me” is sooner rather than later. That’s more true for more vulnerable people I know.

Calling people out for what they’re doing isn’t anywhere near the same thing as assigning lifelong attributes to them for their heritage.

The problem is I feel the same way about your side, and even worse really. You're trying to take away my guns while leaving it for people that can afford security. You're trying to talk to my kids about sensitive sexual issues at crazy young ages. You're trying to make it harder for my kids to get jobs or go to college because they were born a certain color. You're trying to make it harder to lock people away for major property crimes. You're trying to make it easier for undocumented people to come to the US instead of being selective like even Canada is. I could go on and on, but I think the things the left is doing is flat out dangerous to society, while what the right does is maybe mean spirited sometimes but for the best.

> You're trying to take away my guns while leaving it for people that can afford security.

I mean this with a surprised but real sincerity. I’m a former gun rights advocate and this notion was a big reason why I was. Don’t get me wrong, I do want to selectively restrict gun access. I want to preserve it for hunters, and potentially for severe cases where individuals are acutely threatened. I don’t otherwise want private individuals or police or state organizations to have access.

> You're trying to talk to my kids about sensitive sexual issues at crazy young ages.

I understand the origin of this point but it doesn’t faze me. Know how I learned too early about sexual issues? My brand new step brother had been raped by his father who very much shares your views on this topic. He told me to warn me, at my mom’s wedding. That’s how I learned about sexual topics I wasn’t prepared for. His father had his record erased. My family kept it secret but I knew, every time it came up in hushed tones. Spare me keeping kids safe from talking about sex.

> You're trying to make it harder for my kids to get jobs or go to college because they were born a certain color.

I don’t know what this is even about, but I didn’t go to college so maybe enlighten me.

> You're trying to make it harder to lock people away for major property crimes

Not even slightly cheeky… huh???

> You're trying to make it easier for undocumented people to come to the US instead of being selective like even Canada is.

This one you got right. I emphatically agree with this characterization of my position and think it’s understated.

> I could go on and on, but I think the things the left is doing is flat out dangerous to society, while what the right does is maybe mean spirited sometimes but for the best.

I don’t think I have any chance of convincing you otherwise, I just have years of witnessing and experiencing violence to the contrary. Violence mostly directed at people who just wanted to exist, many of them politically involved in nothing at all. My “side” isn’t what you think. My entire political focus has been centered around advocating for people who are harmed for no fault of their own.

Anecdotes about bad things that happen to some people aren't going to phase me and change my mind out about large scale systematic damage the left wants to do.

Regardless though, my point is that there are 'sides' and 'groups' and thinking poorly about the other side isn't going to go away when someone running for president of the United States calls people basically evil.

People on the right think that people on the left are naiive and foolish. People on the left think people on the right are evil. So if anything, the left is doing what this entire thread is about.

> aren't going to phase me and change my mind

Already addressed that, try to keep up.

> Regardless though, my point is that there are 'sides' and 'groups' and thinking poorly about the other side isn't going to go away when someone running for president of the United States calls people basically evil.

There are sides. I don’t care for the good/evil distinction, but there is a clear conflict of values and it’s not going away with the actual president who doesn’t seem to muster any effort for the values he claims to represent.

> People on the right think that people on the left are naiive and foolish. People on the left think people on the right are evil. So if anything, the left is doing what this entire thread is about.

Looks like we’re discussing thoughtcrimes not facts. One participating party doing violence and the other perceiving them as resorting to violence isn’t equivalent harm done.

Correct, the left is the one that does the violence. You can look at jails and murder stats for that if you like, but in general is pretty obvious who the very intolerant ones are and it's the left.

Please go on, I can find no evidence of your claim but I’m listening.

You weren't able to find if most murderers vote Democrat or Republican? Doesn't that make you doubt if you're able to find anything at all? Should you even be talking about any of this if you can't even do that?

Not that I think there’s any value in continuing this discussion. But for posterity, it’s absurd that you extrapolated my point which was obviously about political violence, past violence generally and straight to a facile talking point gotcha used as red meat for people who already agree eat it up. Even if there’s anything meaningful to learn from murderers’ voting history, that’s hardly a representative sample of violence generally or of political violence specifically. I’d also point out it’s absurd to characterize voting for Democrats as “the left”, but I think we’re so far in the whatever spin zone that I don’t think it matters what I say so… take care I guess.

I truly don’t know and fully defer to people who are directly familiar for that portion of the discussion. My only point in responding was to say that increased (public) diversity of gender identity hasn’t been a panacea of acceptance.

If anything I’ve seen the opposite, much more transphobia and even just ignorant objections to parts of speech, in recent years. I can speak a little bit to that, but technology has mostly been more of a problem than a potential solution. A century of advances in access to information and how quickly it travels has nothing on a century of lessons learned mechanizing terror and pain.

I think where the activists went wrong was in trying to increase acceptance of gender identity, rather than acceptance of diverse gender expression.

We can see that distinction very clearly in the increasingly influential 'TERF' movement: being radical feminists who are deeply critical of gender stereotypes, they of course have no problem with men wearing dresses or other gender non-conforming accoutrements. But men saying they are women, that is where the line is drawn, as these men are identifying into an already existing, and marginalized, group.

"Stop bullying cross-dressers" would have been a far more effective model of acceptance than "men can be women if they say they are".

That’s fascinating. So my “activism”—spending my entire life in no way identifying as “man” other than being told I was, and very quietly telling my closest friends and family that’s how I feel, and inviting them to embrace that if they choose or change nothing if that’s more comfortable to them—that’s why I have to call women men? This is the most vocal I’ve ever been on the topic. And I never felt like I was a “cross dresser”. Hell, as much as I enjoy occasionally going out fem, most of the time I’m just quietly being nonbinary with my (really nice full) beard and keeping to myself. But I guess my activism of “being who I am” really ruined it for people who expect me not to. And I guess fuck people who have more at stake in who they are… how dare they exist? Right?

Imagine trying to identify as a midwesterner except you secretly grew up in Canada. Sooner or later someone is going to figure it out, eh?

It seems like the better choice is to claim that you're Minnesotan. Then after generations work your family down so they can fake being a Hoosier.

Not really. There are scores of famous Hollywood actors, musicians etc who most would never guess were Canadian.

You only see the ones who made it. Far, far more failed to do so.

caste has been described as "Tower without staircase", i.e. no ability to move up or down, regardless of your economic class, education, or any achievements. You don't identify with a caste, it is tied to your birth (family name, place of birth etc.).

it doesn't matter what you identify with/as, it matters how your bosses identify you.

It's a fair question. And I think that logically it's equivalent.

However, to maybe see why people don't do it (I imagine, I have no personal experience on this), let's put it in a US perspective. What if a visibly black person identifies as white? Or vice versa? Do you think it would be taken seriously by even the most ardent liberals?

EDIT: For context, let's remember the case of Rachel Dolezal [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Dolezal

Reply on news.ycombinator.com