Do you believe being Cis-gendered is a form of privilege? (1 Viewer)

[Intensesaint]

Just curious what people think.

I personally do not see there being any kind of special privilege to being comfortable in your own skin.

 

[SystemShock]

I'm still confused about how you fix the Spanish language to omit gender, when every noun in the language is gender specific . . . el arbol (the tree, masculine), la Paloma (the bird, feminine), la mesa (the table, feminine), el auto (the car, masculine) . . .

There is nothing to fix.

Unlike English, the Spanish language has a governing body, the Real Academia Española (in this context, "Real" means royal, not real). They are the Scrabble dictionary keepers of the Spanish Language

 

[Dadsdream]

There is nothing to fix.

Unlike English, the Spanish language has a governing body, the Real Academia Española (the "Real" means royal, not real). They are the Scrabble dictionary keepers of the Spanish Language

Ahhh . . . "el machismo" (masculine!)

 

[wardorican]

I'm not following. What do you mean by "apply some sort of privileged status, or non-privileged-status"?

Do you disagree with the statement that all other things being equal, a person's race is likely to have an effect on their job prospects, probability of police scrutiny, threat of racist violence, probability of being harassed in high end stores, etc? There is both anecdotal and statistical data which suggests that this is true.

In general I don't think the discussion about privilege is helpful, b/c it just makes people defensive which prevents empathy which is what a discussion of privilege should be about.

Yes, the phrase just ruins the concept.

If we just asked the question.. do you think Transgendered, or gender fluid people, are more likely to be victimized, or treated poorly? Most would answer yes. And we'd have a 'boring' thread.

If you asked someone if women are more likely to be the victim of a sexual assault, we'd say yes. But if we turn it by saying, is there "male privilege"? Well, sure, outside of childhood, men are less likely to be sexually assaulted. It doesn't mean we have a silver spoon in our mouths...

The idea is more about showing empathy for things you may not see or have experience with, because it doesn't affect you. People twist the "____ privilege" phrase to mean "you're spoiled and rich".

 

[JimEverett]

I'm not following. What do you mean by "apply some sort of privileged status, or non-privileged-status"? [,/QUOTE]

The idea I was responding to seemed to claim that a status - in this case "discrimination would be less meaningful" - attaches to people in a group, namely those "generally holding power."

Do you disagree with the statement that all other things being equal, a person's race is likely to have an effect on their job prospects, probability of police scrutiny, threat of racist violence, probability of being harassed in high end stores, etc? There is both anecdotal and statistical data which suggests that this is true.

You said that privilege was itself contextual. So, what does "All things being equal" mean?
I think it is fine to use statistical methods on the subject but to the extent people start acting as if they are not statistics is problematic. To me, the problem is obvious - ascribing qualities to a group of people simply on the basis of their race, or sex, or sexual orientation, etc.

In general I don't think the discussion about privilege is helpful, b/c it just makes people defensive which prevents empathy which is what a discussion of privilege should be about.

The problem isn't that it makes people defensive - it is that the concept makes no sense

 

[SystemShock]

Ahhh . . . "el machismo" (masculine!)

Ironically, "el feminismo"

 

[samiam5211]

Why would racism against whites be less meaningful based on what you are saying unless it comes from a belief that non-whites do not hold power in this culture or a culture that exists here. Is that what you are saying?

It’s not a hard concept to grasp.

In our society it is far more likely for authority to be held by a white person (hiring authority, policing authority, or some other form of state authority).

Even if you deny the current impact of how our system has historically favored white people, the above is true just based on population demographics.

Even if whites and non whites are equally likely to be racist, nonwhites would be disproportionately impacted just based on demographics.

You may try to quibble over the semantics of how we define “white” or “impacted” or “negative”, but that’s not really the point.

I think the general statement,“non-white people are more likely than white people to be negatively impacted by racism in the United States.” is true.

None of this is or will ever quantifiable, that doesn’t make it less true.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Your post was hard to quote due to a formatting issue you had while quoting my post, so I've formatted it a bit below

The idea I was responding to seemed to claim that a status - in this case "discrimination would be less meaningful" - attaches to people in a group, namely those "generally holding power."

You were quoting me and I didn't make any such reference, so I'm still not sure what you're going for there.

You said that privilege was itself contextual. So, what does "All things being equal" mean?

If you set up standard regression analysis using whatever attributes you care to assign. Income, family status, education level, etc. Race is a significant variable in a number of outcomes. This means, that if you take two people with any and all attributes exactly the same, with only the race being different, there is a high probability that the outcomes will be significantly different.

There have been a number of regression analysis that have shown this - from economic outcome, to medical procedure outcomes, to incarceration rates, etc. In all of these regression analysis, being white is determined to be statistically significant variable in producing better outcomes. Factors controlled for are educational opportunities, family socio-economic status, parental marital status, etc.

I think it is fine to use statistical methods on the subject but to the extent people start acting as if they are not statistics is problematic. To me, the problem is obvious - ascribing qualities to a group of people simply on the basis of their race, or sex, or sexual orientation, etc.

It's already being done. To me that's the point of the "privilege" debate.... recognizing that it's happening in society already. Or do you disagree that this was being done outside of the discussion of privilege?

The problem isn't that it makes people defensive - it is that the concept makes no sense

You disagree that various attributes that people possess can make their life easier or harder?

 

[JimEverett]

Your post was hard to quote due to a formatting issue you had while quoting my post, so I've formatted it a bit below



You were quoting me and I didn't make any such reference, so I'm still not sure what you're going for there.



If you set up standard regression analysis using whatever attributes you care to assign. Income, family status, education level, etc. Race is a significant variable in a number of outcomes. This means, that if you take two people with any and all attributes exactly the same, with only the race being different, there is a high probability that the outcomes will be significantly different.

There have been a number of regression analysis that have shown this - from economic outcome, to medical procedure outcomes, to incarceration rates, etc. In all of these regression analysis, being white is determined to be statistically significant variable in producing better outcomes. Factors controlled for are educational opportunities, family socio-economic status, parental marital status, etc.



It's already being done. To me that's the point of the "privilege" debate.... recognizing that it's happening in society already. Or do you disagree that this was being done outside of the discussion of privilege?




You disagree that various attributes that people possess can make their life easier or harder?

Here is how I understand the notion of "privilege":

You take two or more sets of people, in this case you have two sets of people each with a different quality - one set is all the people that are cis-gendered and the second set is all the people that are not cis-gendered.
Further, with the set of people who are cisgendered you are adding another quality they all share, namely that of being-privileged. This quality, the quality of "being-privileged" piggybacks onto the quality of being cis-gendered, meaning the two go together, although they are not the same.

Taking the idea of "being privileged" as something along the lines of better employment opportunities, less trouble with police, more educational access, more wealth, etc., then it is obvious that such an idea is false. Some non-cis-gendered people are "privileged" when compared to cis-gendered people: they have better educational opportunities, have more wealth, have access to better educational opportunities, etc. There is no way that the quality of "being privileged" piggybacks onto being cis-gendered.

And the statistical analysis does not deal with "all things being equal" - instead it deals with probabilities. Which does not help the idea that being cis-gendered has also a quality "being privileged." It may mean there is a higher probability of being privileged, but it does not mean that the privilege exists due to the quality of being cis-gendered.

 

[dtc]

Here is how I understand the notion of "privilege":

You take two or more sets of people, in this case you have two sets of people each with a different quality - one set is all the people that are cis-gendered and the second set is all the people that are not cis-gendered.
Further, with the set of people who are cisgendered you are adding another quality they all share, namely that of being-privileged. This quality, the quality of "being-privileged" piggybacks onto the quality of being cis-gendered, meaning the two go together, although they are not the same.

Taking the idea of "being privileged" as something along the lines of better employment opportunities, less trouble with police, more educational access, more wealth, etc., then it is obvious that such an idea is false. Some non-cis-gendered people are "privileged" when compared to cis-gendered people: they have better educational opportunities, have more wealth, have access to better educational opportunities, etc. There is no way that the quality of "being privileged" piggybacks onto being cis-gendered.

And the statistical analysis does not deal with "all things being equal" - instead it deals with probabilities. Which does not help the idea that being cis-gendered has also a quality "being privileged." It may mean there is a higher probability of being privileged, but it does not mean that the privilege exists due to the quality of being cis-gendered.

I find myself wanting to quote Dr Spock and say that this post is "illogical".

You veer off into trouble when you start with "some non-cis.." and never recover.

Exceptions can be found to nearly every statistical trait and exceptions do not negate the existence of a pattern.

 

[JimEverett]

I find myself wanting to quote Dr Spock and say that this post is "illogical".

You veer off into trouble when you start with "some non-cis.." and never recover.

Exceptions can be found to nearly every statistical trait and exceptions do not negate the existence of a pattern.

Does the privilege apply to those people you are calling "exceptions"?

 

[dtc]

Does the privilege apply to those people you are calling "exceptions"?

What difference does it make?

Are you going to argue that because some blacks don't have Sickle Cell that it's not an issue for them to worry about? Some people don't die when they get shot so shooting people is ok?

 

[JimEverett]

What difference does it make?

Are you going to argue that because some blacks don't have Sickle Cell that it's not an issue for them to worry about? Some people don't die when they get shot so shooting people is ok?

The question was not "do transgendered have a problem with x, y, and/or z . . ." but rather whether cisgendered people have a privilege.

 

[samiam5211]

Does the privilege apply to those people you are calling "exceptions"?

Jim,

There are many forms of privilege, and they are cumulative.

Lebron James son is going to be privileged compared to a white guy born in Minden, Louisiana whose father is mailman. At least in many ways.

Lebron James son will have wealth and the privilege that comes with it, and anyone who recognizes him is going to give him special treatment.

That white guy in Minden is still less likely to be discriminated against because of his race by a police officer though.

In totality, Lebron James’s son may be more privileged than a poor white guy. It the net effect of all privilege was weighed, being Lebron James son would more than make up for not being white in most meaningful situiations.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Here is how I understand the notion of "privilege":

You take two or more sets of people, in this case you have two sets of people each with a different quality - one set is all the people that are cis-gendered and the second set is all the people that are not cis-gendered.
Further, with the set of people who are cisgendered you are adding another quality they all share, namely that of being-privileged. This quality, the quality of "being-privileged" piggybacks onto the quality of being cis-gendered, meaning the two go together, although they are not the same.

Taking the idea of "being privileged" as something along the lines of better employment opportunities, less trouble with police, more educational access, more wealth, etc., then it is obvious that such an idea is false. Some non-cis-gendered people are "privileged" when compared to cis-gendered people: they have better educational opportunities, have more wealth, have access to better educational opportunities, etc. There is no way that the quality of "being privileged" piggybacks onto being cis-gendered.

And the statistical analysis does not deal with "all things being equal" - instead it deals with probabilities. Which does not help the idea that being cis-gendered has also a quality "being privileged." It may mean there is a higher probability of being privileged, but it does not mean that the privilege exists due to the quality of being cis-gendered.

So, the issue here is you are looking at this completely different than I think the rest of us are, which is why I dislike the term and the framing of the discussion.

As I've heard the discussion, and the articles I've read about the subject, the idea of "white-privilege" (which is the framing I first became aware of the discussion in this context) was about eliciting empathy for racial minorities and showing why some of them feel alienated by society. The broader context of "privilege" to me is about discrediting the idea that equality of opportunity exists. Some people have easier paths than others.

The secondary goal should be what can we as a society do to create a system where people have more opportunities despite some historical disadvantages (race, socio-economic status, height, etc).

 

[wardorican]

Here is how I understand the notion of "privilege":

You take two or more sets of people, in this case you have two sets of people each with a different quality - one set is all the people that are cis-gendered and the second set is all the people that are not cis-gendered.
Further, with the set of people who are cisgendered you are adding another quality they all share, namely that of being-privileged. This quality, the quality of "being-privileged" piggybacks onto the quality of being cis-gendered, meaning the two go together, although they are not the same.

Taking the idea of "being privileged" as something along the lines of better employment opportunities, less trouble with police, more educational access, more wealth, etc., then it is obvious that such an idea is false. Some non-cis-gendered people are "privileged" when compared to cis-gendered people: they have better educational opportunities, have more wealth, have access to better educational opportunities, etc. There is no way that the quality of "being privileged" piggybacks onto being cis-gendered.

And the statistical analysis does not deal with "all things being equal" - instead it deals with probabilities. Which does not help the idea that being cis-gendered has also a quality "being privileged." It may mean there is a higher probability of being privileged, but it does not mean that the privilege exists due to the quality of being cis-gendered.

I think you're crossing your digital with your analog. At least in how others mean the phrase.

Privilege isn't being used as a digital concept (1 or 0). It is being used as a probability concept (0-100, analog).

So, when some of use the term white privilege, or in the context of this OP, we are saying "a higher probability of privilege" in the way you're categorizing it. You can frame it with the "advantages" part of the definition or the "immunity" part of the definition.

Privilege isn't perfection. It just means a higher probability of positive influences, and a lower probability of barriers to success.

All other things being equal, i.e. control for race, then the cis-gendered will be more likely to experience privilege compared to the trans-gendered.

But, when you combine it with the totality of "differences" we have, cis-gender vs transgender may or may not stack up as big of a factor as generation, race, ethnicity, height, sex, etc. Or maybe it is. I'm not sure and I haven't looked it up.

 

[JimEverett]

I think you're crossing your digital with your analog. At least in how others mean the phrase.

Privilege isn't being used as a digital concept (1 or 0). It is being used as a probability concept (0-100, analog).

So, when some of use the term white privilege, or in the context of this OP, we are saying "a higher probability of privilege" in the way you're categorizing it. You can frame it with the "advantages" part of the definition or the "immunity" part of the definition.

Privilege isn't perfection. It just means a higher probability of positive influences, and a lower probability of barriers to success.

All other things being equal, i.e. control for race, then the cis-gendered will be more likely to experience privilege compared to the trans-gendered.

But, when you combine it with the totality of "differences" we have, cis-gender vs transgender may or may not stack up as big of a factor as generation, race, ethnicity, height, sex, etc. Or maybe it is. I'm not sure and I haven't looked it up.

I don't think I am confusing it in the way you say.

Does the privilege exist on an individual level or not?

I have read enough critical race theory to understand that the concept of the privilege is not clear. Is it a quality that all people with white skin share? Or is it some sort of sociological force (whatever that is) that affects all whites by bestowing certain benefits upon them. Neither makes sense if you make that quality or force probabilistic because there are presumably other variables that can account for the benefits and/or lack. The privilege ceases to be all-pervasive which is exactly the point.

Perhaps you, Jim, and others are using the term in a different matter than what its original meaning and the meaning as still used in academia.

 

[MT15]

Jim, I think you are taking a sociological, statistical concept and wanting to apply it to individuals. And then use the individuals to disprove the whole concept. Rather than looking at it demographically you want to tear it down to individuals. It’s about broad statistical trends, as I understand it.

The more you try to apply it to individuals, or try to use it to say all individuals in a group are the same, the less useful the concept is.

Of course, people who want to discredit the concept are likely to do what you are doing. Not you, but people who don’t want to admit that there are societal differences in the way people are treated along identity lines.

Do you think the studies that Ayo has talked about, which show that children of color tend to be punished more severely in school than white children who have misbehaved in the same way, are showing something that should be discussed?

There are also studies about the tendency for white people arrested for simple drug possession to be let off or put on diversion, while people of color are more likely to garner jail time.

We need to find a way to discuss these real differences, IMO, but it’s very difficult to do so, especially when it seems that there are people who like things the way they are just fine and don’t even want to admit there may be a real problem.

At least this is my view. If we cannot get past the semantics, we are never going to make any real progress.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Perhaps you, Jim, and others are using the term in a different matter than what its original meaning and the meaning as still used in academia.

That's possible. I have not read a ton of race theory, however I don't think there are many race theory academics participating in this thread, so it might be more useful to discuss what it means in a popular culture context.

As I've said, I don't think the terminology does much to advance the conversation forward, given that so many people seem to take it different ways.