"separate species is defined as two organisms that cannot cross breed to produce a viable offspring."....

"At least that's how I remember it."

My "short" response:

This definition of species is pretty murky in actual practice.

A recent estimate is that there are 8.7 million species on earth. Not all of these reputed "species" reproduce sexually (swap genetic code)....yet asexual forms are commonly designated as species based on educated guesses about various morphological features, behaviors or genetic markers etc. etc.

Many simple life forms, notably bacteria, with very different genomes and morphology, can accept or donate working chunks of genetic code that enhances resistance to antibiotics. A strict interpretation of the viable cross breeding definition says these are one species. This seems to me,and probably most others, as a forced interpretation of "one" species. A more reasonable interpretation is that lines of decent sometimes partially or even fully reconnect among different species (horizontal evolution). There is some evidence that this may apply to some of the working genetic code in Homo sapiens, but this is hotly disputed. The small fraction of Neanderthal DNA in some modern Humans can be interpreted as a past re-connection of the two branches, with subsequent loss of the Neanderthal line (de-connection with prejudice).

With several million species on Earth, how many times do we actually test the viably and fertility of cross species hybrids? Not in just one isolated breeding population, but across many overlapping, or potentially overlapping breeding populations. Populations move (and collide) as habitats change. It is often assumed that hybrids from different breeding populations will be of lower fitness than pure breeds adapted to a particular area. Human agriculture, which depends heavily on high yield hybrid stock that does well in engineered habitats (farms)shows how wrong this can be.

Finally, consider dinosaurs and other extinct species How do you know if two piles of reconstructed bones could or did mate with each other and produce viable offspring? Every new find tends to produce claims about a new species. All based on educated, but arguable assumptions.

Words can scarcely convey the full measure of how gleeful - er, I mean DISTRAUGHT that makes me feel!

From what I remember being taught, it is true that there is no biological basis for race. Race is a totally human sociological concept, and a very subjective one.

On the other hand, separate species is defined as two organisms that cannot cross breed to produce a viable offspring that can also reproduce. Either the offspring is not capable of being created at all in the first place, or the offspring is sterile. Hence the two parents are of different species. At least that's how I remember it.

Since yours is a cat themed column, I'd like to announce that Minerva, Grand Duchess of Kibble, Downton Tabby, Westminster Tabby and Founder of the Order of the Well Chewed Bird has taken on two "Royal Interns," Yoga Pants, Heir to the Title (Striped Tabby) and Sneakers, Lady in Waiting (Mostly black tortoise w/brown feet and forehead lockette). Proper Throne Names have yet to be determined. I thought about making this a column contest, but I'd only end up with something like Katty McKatFace, which would not amuse.

The kits are sisters about 3 mos old and are litter box pros. They have temporarily taken up residence under and in the couch/bed in my office. (We'll get them something nice).

Picked them up from my community pet adoption center (which places about 1600 dogs and cats each year}.

In cat years, Minerva is about as old as Queen Elizabeth, so we must look to a smooth transition within our Unwritten Constitutional Autocracy.

Even if there were any biological basis to 'race', it is thoroughly skunked as a classification.

I think the discussion is drifting where it should not. "Race" and "racism" have been woven into the American Narrative since the arrival of permanent European settlers to the Americas. The past cannot be undone, but it can sure as Hell affect our current and future affairs in ways that are not good. The only way forward is for people to "shoot straight and speak the truth." This especially true for high profile people such as politicians and actors (or actors thinking of becoming politicians). It is even more especially true in an age of "electronic media" which is primarily driven by click bait feeding ad revenue.

As a card carrying biologist (actually, no card, I just have ceremonial credentials hanging on my office wall and preprints in boxes in the closet) I detest the term race. It has no accepted biologically based definition.* Race is mostly short hand for ethnicity and social position. Genes flow merrily in and out of the ethnic and social labels. Back in grandparents day, their census said they were not White. My parents were censused as White. I marked White last time, or maybe Other, but only because there was no FU to tick.

The Governor of VA was not honest with the public, that's why I think he has to go. Knee jerk litmus testing of everybody is just dancing to the tune played by the click bait electronic media. It puts revenue in their pocket.

I don't recall ever meeting a black person until I went to summer camp (good ol' YMCA). I'm sure I used the N word at some point in my childhood - and I'm very certain my parents told me not to use it EVER the first time they heard it. I cannot be more specific. I went Trick or Treating as a bum with a bindle in the early to mid 60s, and semi-blacked my face with burnt cork to make a beard. This was insensitive to homeless people, but Red Skelton was doing it once a week, and kids ape what they see on the TV. I dressed up as Ayatollah Khomeini for a Halloween Party in Oct. 1980. I drove in costume with my wife (Robin Hood) to the party, and was stopped on the way by other students costumed as terrorists who had set up a road block in the street. I was waved thru to chants of "Allah Akbar." There may be video tape of this, the local News Crews were out because Halloween is newsworthy in a college town.

* I'm not comfortable with a universal concept of "species," either. Or clades for that matter. Genes are opportunistic little buggers.

Lal:
Why would they wish to be unkind?

Lt. Cmdr. Data:
Because you are different. Differences sometimes scare people. I have learned that some of them use humor to hide their fear.

Lal:
I do not wish to be different.

Star Trek sometimes really manages to sum things up in a nutshell.

Fear and insecurity are something we all have to deal with. But some bullies deal with it by attacking others in order to make themselves feel better. And others of us fall into the trap of internalizing that negativeness we experience as self hatred rather than taking being unique as a gift.

"What if I was going as Blazing Saddles’ star, Cleavon Little, in his portrayal of “Bart” the black sheriff who infiltrated the KKK wearing the white rob and hood — would my wearing the black makeup underneath the white hood be OK? Would doing the two together cancel each other’s stigmas out?"

I would say no. Because it would still be a white guy pretending to be a black guy but still a white guy wearing a KKK outfit. If he was revealed to the other KKK members they would probably think his being in black face as hilarious and he would be in no real danger, while Cleavon Little would be in extreme danger because he would obviously be infiltrating their group for a totally different purpose. Context, again, is what I am trying to get at.

"Can anyone tell me why “blackface” (which apparently now is defined solely as someone putting on makeup to appear a different race but how they portray that race is irrelevant) is racist, but drag queens aren’t sexist?

Should any straight actor who ever portrayed a gay guy as a flaming queen be blacklisted?"

Ok, I will take a stab at it. To quote Data and his daughter Lal from Star Trek Next Gen:

Lal:
Then, judging from their laughter, the children at school found my remarks humorous. So without understanding humor, I have somehow mastered it.

Lt. Cmdr. Data:
[... ] Lal.

Lal:
Yes, Father?

Lt. Cmdr. Data:
The children were not laughing with you, they were laughing *at* you.

Lal:
Explain.

Lt. Cmdr. Data:
One is meant kindly, the other is not.

Another factor to consider, besides context, I.E. Drag Queens are not trying to demean women but actually just the opposite, otherwise they would not chose so many Icons to celebrate like Cher, and would not try to be glamorous but would instead exaggerate features to the point of being deliberately ugly and stereotypical.

The same with the straight guy portraying a gay man as flaming. Was the character he is portraying a real individual who was actually like that in real life, or is that simply his notion of how all gay men are regardless, and for what purpose is he doing it?

Finally there is the difference in power dynamic involved. A white male majority with all the power vs an oppressed minority with very little power at all. That's why blackface tends to be inherently racist.

I think appearing in a KKK outfit complete with white hood is pretty clear, and totally without defense.

Appearing in black face can simply be insensitive and ignorant, especially among someone in their teens or twenties, given the context of trying to portray a well known public figure of another race in an entertainment performance, without the more sinister connotations of putting on a full blown minstrel show or a generic costume meant to poke fun or ridicule.

For example, on the show Designing Women when the ladies portrayed and sang as the Supremes and Suzanne thought she had to don blackface to do it but the other ladies did not, they just wore the costumes and hairstyles but stayed as themselves.

Can anyone tell me why “blackface” (which apparently now is defined solely as someone putting on makeup to appear a different race but how they portray that race is irrelevant) is racist, but drag queens aren’t sexist?

*shakes head*

I can be infinitely boring, and my nickname is "Queen"... as in "her royal highness." Does that make me a drag queen? ;)

I dressed up like Cher once and had to wear darker makeup and quite a bit more cleavage to achieve the look. Would that make me a drag queen in blackface, darling? As a teenager, I once spent 90% of my summer vacation outside and came back to school darker than a few of my non-Caucasian friends. You should have seen the looks on their faces. They took turns with me playing "who is darker" and asking me how I achieved my "tone." I explained to them that I'm part Native American, and that's just what happens to my skin the longer I spend time in the sun. No one demanded proof of my ancestry or hurled Indian slurs at me. I will be running for political office in 2020 or never, whichever comes second. ;)

Should any straight actor who ever portrayed a gay guy as a flaming queen be blacklisted?

Define "flaming," and wouldn't that depend on the queen they portrayed? My money is on Rami Malek to take home the Oscar in goldface for his portrayal of Freddie Mercury... my favourite Queen... as in the band "Queen." And why do they call it blacklisted anyway?

Should we require the FBI interview every sexual partner a political candidate has ever been with prior to allowing them to be on a ballot?

Oh, Hell no! Make the CIA do that shit. ;)
_______________________

Seriously, though, Russ and Paula make a lot of great points. In my opinion, Kirsten Gillibrand started all this when she saw an opportunity to neutralize her competition and then everyone piled on Al Franken during the Roger Stone right-wing hit job. Speaking of Stone, he will flip or die in prison like the rest of them. Back on topic, everything has just snowballed from there with the PC BS going absolutely haywire on the left while Benedict Donald feels free to hurl racial and sexist epithets to his hearts content... all while wearing orangeface with zero regard whatsoever for the feelings of the Oompa Loompas. Oh well, at least his prison jumpsuit will match his face. :)

Nope! Gotta disagree with you on this one! The “new moral rules of conduct” go against everything that we claim defines “justice” in our society. There is no “innocent until proven guilty” when we demand the accused be punished without allowing them the opportunity to defend themselves.

Not to mention that this is about a photo from 1984... and everyone seems quite willing to destroy a person’s career and reputation while completely ignoring their accomplishments and political service to their state over the past three decades.

Could the costumes be a guy dressed as Bubbles the chimp and the other dressed as a pup tent? Could they have been part of a seminar on “Cultural and Racial insensitivity in America today” and were meant to demonstrate unacceptable outfits?

What if I was going as Blazing Saddles’ star, Cleavon Little, in his portrayal of “Bart” the black sheriff who infiltrated the KKK wearing the white rob and hood — would my wearing the black makeup underneath the white hood be OK? Would doing the two together cancel each other’s stigmas out?

Can anyone tell me why “blackface” (which apparently now is defined solely as someone putting on makeup to appear a different race but how they portray that race is irrelevant) is racist, but drag queens aren’t sexist?

Should any straight actor who ever portrayed a gay guy as a flaming queen be blacklisted? Should we require the FBI interview every sexual partner a political candidate has ever been with prior to allowing them to be on a ballot?

Kavanaugh’s opposition should have put all of the focus on him being a black out drunk back then — which means that he cannot say that he knows for certain that the accusations against him could not be true. Had Kavanaugh admitted to drinking to the point of blacking out, then he could have said that he has no memory of committing such a horrific crime and while he can offer no defense to the allegations against him, it sickens him to know that his accuser suffered for decades because of him. Kavanaugh could have promised that he would strive to be a better judge when it came to cases of sexual assault. That should have been enough for him to still get confirmed while acknowledging her suffering.

We cannot become a society where the facts do not matter when allegations of wrongdoing have been made. There is great irony in the fact that those calling for Northam to resign also oppose mandatory sentences and 3 strike laws!

The same goes for lesser sexual incidents (begging the question of what is 'lesser'.)

As far as truth and reconciliation goes, that has to be offered by the oppressed group, not the dominant one.

On Twitter I've seen several thread where people are giving examples of all kinds of racist stuff going on on their campuses in the 80's, 90's and aughts. U of Alabama de-segregated their Greek system in 2014.

What we're going through now is a transition and it's painful. Lots of dirty linen coming out. Reckonings are messy and claim victims who may not deserve it along with those who do. The hope is that you come out the other side in a better place, and certainly, America's racism problem can't be addressed unless it's exposed to light. Racism's twin is white privilege and changing that means lots of people have to look at behaviors/beliefs they've not examined and no one likes having to do that. But there it is.

Problem is, we're also going through a genuine crisis in our democracy and our bulwark against the Blotus-led/GOP enabled lurch into Putin-favoring authoritarianism is the Democratic Party.

Not sure what "the answer" is, but it isn't trial by media. If I ruled the Democratic Party I'd already have a task-force developing some rules of engagement to use when allegations of bad behavior are alleged against a seemingly "good" Dem office-holder. A big element, for me, would be a review of their actions in office - how did they actually use their powers? I think that's especially important for a Northam or Herring who are being accused of what are essentially "thought crimes" i.e. wearing blackface means they harbored racist thoughts/beliefs vs. simply being insensitive, etc. (On my personal scale, wearing a KKK outfit is worse by orders of magnitude than donning blackface - we don't know which, if either, Northam did.) Fairfax, if guilty, did something worse (I think) in that he DID something to someone else.

But to me, what people "think" isn't what's important in politics, it's what they do. The Repubs constantly claim to think all sorts of defensible, even theoretically noble things, which they betray through their official actions (as well as statements that contradict their claimed beliefs).

So it's one thing if Northam was a racist in Med School and then spent years being an active racist vs. him graduating, going out into the world and NOT being an active racist. Ditto Herring. In those cases I think some form of truth & reconciliation is possible, assuming these guys are sincere and have, in fact, evolved.

I do think people can grow and change and can atone. Maybe Northam bungled it too badly to survive, but I think Herring did the right thing and has a shot at surviving politically. And, from a purely pragmatic standpoint I can appreciate Herring getting out in front of this even if it's ultimately self-serving. It means he grasps the zeitgeist which is something good politicians need to do.

At any rate, what I emphatically do NOT want to see is the governorship of VA flipping to a Repub. However this shakes out I hope cool heads somewhere find a way to ensure that doesn't happen. I neither want Northam or Herring to fall on the swords in homage to demands for perfection nor Dem leaders to demand that perfection if the price is to put a Repub back in charge. In my view that would ultimately create far more harm to far more people than would allowing these guys to do penance and stay in their jobs until they can be replaced by other Dems.

Also, if I were in charge of Dems I would be hammering down on vetting/background checking across the board - certainly going forward.