It is a useful identifier only in the context of how black men a different (from “normal men”?). Most of the time black men are just men, but there are a few ways they are different. If you are not specificity trying to bring out one of that cases where black men a different you are continuing the idea that black men are different which doesn’t help most of the cases where they are different. There are a couple medical instances where black men are different that should remain, but for the most part differences between black men and [normal?] men are just about discrimination and so if that doesn’t apply to what you are talking about then black men is a harmful lable.
But Black men are still men. They are discriminated against for being Black (or “black men”), but the root does not stem from them being men, as in they are not targeted for just being men but “black men” as a class. The lines are blurred when people treat trans men (or black men) as a different category of men, but such bigoted rhetoric doesnt first stem from them being men but “other men”, excluded from masculinity by patriarchy and bigotry.
They are different in how they are treated and their life outcomes due to their treatment. The same can be made about why leftists talk about trans men. We don’t care about the trans part, we care about the treatment they are put through by society.
Contrasting that with how racists talk about black men because they view that there are irrevocable differences between black men and white men, or how transphobes say trans men because they view them as women ‘faking’ manhood, and you can see how the same language changes meaning in differing contexts.
I’m not feigning ignorance. I’m trying to make the point that if it’s true it doesn’t need said with any kind of modifier. The distinction itself is the difference, and the people who are bothered about it aren’t any more crazy than I am with the phobias I have.
Black men are men too. It’s an identifier for a member of a marginalized community. Feigning ignorance like this isn’t funny or entertaining.
It is a useful identifier only in the context of how black men a different (from “normal men”?). Most of the time black men are just men, but there are a few ways they are different. If you are not specificity trying to bring out one of that cases where black men a different you are continuing the idea that black men are different which doesn’t help most of the cases where they are different. There are a couple medical instances where black men are different that should remain, but for the most part differences between black men and [normal?] men are just about discrimination and so if that doesn’t apply to what you are talking about then black men is a harmful lable.
But Black men are still men. They are discriminated against for being Black (or “black men”), but the root does not stem from them being men, as in they are not targeted for just being men but “black men” as a class. The lines are blurred when people treat trans men (or black men) as a different category of men, but such bigoted rhetoric doesnt first stem from them being men but “other men”, excluded from masculinity by patriarchy and bigotry.
They are different in how they are treated and their life outcomes due to their treatment. The same can be made about why leftists talk about trans men. We don’t care about the trans part, we care about the treatment they are put through by society.
Contrasting that with how racists talk about black men because they view that there are irrevocable differences between black men and white men, or how transphobes say trans men because they view them as women ‘faking’ manhood, and you can see how the same language changes meaning in differing contexts.
I’m not feigning ignorance. I’m trying to make the point that if it’s true it doesn’t need said with any kind of modifier. The distinction itself is the difference, and the people who are bothered about it aren’t any more crazy than I am with the phobias I have.