I've had that happen as well. No one I've had sex with has ever wanted me to wear a condom for oral sex (they found the idea very strange) and 2 or 3 people actually said "I'm on the pill, don't use a condom" for penetrative sex. Kind of strange.

The main issue with this idea is that culturally, White has historically has not been (and even now, really is not) seen as a race the way that Black is a race. Rather, White is the default, the unracialized body, the absence of race. So anyone who is racialized cannot be White. If they're recognized as even partially…

Not only are they wrong, but they're really, really cruel and vicious about it. But whatever this ignorant asshole insists that you identify as, you know who you are and who your family is. Just ignore them. And maybe be heartened by all the people who are calling them out?

Do you have any idea how ignorant you sound?

You are really just a terrible person. The only person in this thread coming close to Graham's argument is you. YOU CANNOT DEFINE SOMEONE AGAINST THEIR WILL. As the child of a Black parent and a White parent, Ms. Hatcher-May could identify as Black, White, Bi-racial, or any combination of the 3. The only person who…

Go fuck yourself.

You're absolutely right. The Irish are a colonized and historically marginalized people.

Do you think a White woman would have said this? Part of the reason Graham felt entitled was define Finney's race was because he was a man talking about a woman. The male privilege is there, even if it isn't the most important factor.

Absolutely. But there's a difference between acknowledging light-skinned privilege and policing the boundaries of who can be considered black.

I see your point, but it's it's dangerously close to the (conservative) argument that historical inequities don't have contemporary ramifications.

Yes, but you couldn't entirely divorce the two. His Catholicism was seen as inextricably linked to his white ethnic "Irishness."

I definitely disagree. Sex without communication sucks.

Eh...expecting minorities to answer questions about themselves from non-minorities really isn't that great. I mean, if it's a Jewish museum that wants to educate people, then OK. But if they just want to treat a Jewish person as an "Other" who can tell (non-Jewish) people all about their exotic life, that's…

Are you joking?

I think the real problem would be that most of the squares are different shades of gray, but most people who see them categorize them as black or white.

I'd say they're both offshoots of patriarchy, which can be both misogynist and misandrist. (Not misandrist in the way that MRAs use the term, though.)

I assume you're responding to someone who tried to police gender boundaries and your comment was misplaced. If so, this is a great response, showing how all of our ideas about the definition of a "man" are culturally determined (though they often become naturalized and are treated as natural).

Of course it's satire. But that doesn't mean it's not problematic. It's "hipster sexism," in the vein of "hipster racism."

First of all, systematic discrimination does follow from empirical observation. The facts on the ground, so to speak, show that women—as a class—are disadvantaged more than men.

Well yeah, that's the point. Discrimination is implicit...