Talk:Passing (sociology)

message: Overall, the article as it now stands is excellent, but as a major contributor to the Melungeon article, I have to take issue with some specific statements about that group:
1: "...the Melungeons (the only large group to have self-identified as White over the centuries, rather than as Indians)."
That's not exactly true.  The Melungeons have historically self-identified as "Portuguese and Indian", though they were marked as "mulatto" or "free colored" on early records, gradually being counted as "white" on censuses during the 19th & 20th centuries.  The racial designation on censuses up until very recently was the choice of the census-taker, not the person or family being counted. This led to some people being counted as different races on different censuses.  Individual Melungeons can be found as "white," "Indian", "mulatto," and "black" on different censuses & tax lists.
2: "Today's Melungeons, for instance, consider themselves White but are proud of their tiny—about 5 percent—African ancestry."
Actually, most Melungeons go out of their way to deny their black ancestry.  They prefer to claim, again, "Portuguese and/or Indian," or recently, Turkish or Gypsy or even Jewish.  They'd like to be anything BUT black.  
Whoever wrote the current version, please consider modifying those paragraphs accordingly. S9arthur 14:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this SJ? I (Frank Sweet) wrote the paragraphs. The historical part is based on the sources cited in the footnotes, especially Brewton Berry. The "present attitudes" is based upon my talks with you and Wayne and Brent. I was not aware that most MHA members deny African ancestry. If this is true, how come nobody at the conferences has a problem with it? If this is not SJ, then what is your source of information? If it is SJ, then you certainly know a lot more about present attitudes than I do, and I shall be glad to change the paragraphs as you suggest. This may be a moot point, however, since others seem determined to remove all mention of Black-to-White passing from the article. -- Frank W Sweet 13:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Melungeon 

message: "No other country has anything like it.", "it" apparently being the notion that e.g. black mothers cannot have white-phenotype children.  I think most people would hold that belief.  -k
:What sort of evidence would persuade you? Photographs of mothers and their children in other countries? References to accessible peer-reviewed scholarly studies? I can add either or both, but did not want to clutter the article unnecessarily. Still, I would be happy to do so, if it would convince you. Keep in mind that the section is about the United States, where virtually everyone considers Rita Moreno and Halle Berry Black, a majority considers Mariah Carey and Wentworth Miller Black, and a large minority considers Alexander Siddig Black. And yet all have more, some much more, European than African ancestry, -- Frank W Sweet 12:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unfounded assertion? 

message: Why was the following parenthetical clause removed: "(other than the ancient African ancestry shared by all members of our species, of course)"? Even MRE proponents accept that H. erectus (or ergaster) emerged in Africa, to say nothing of H. sapiens. -- FrankWSweet 22:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess you can say that's technically true, but not really relevant or notable: "Hispanic" is not a race; one can be black and hispanic, or white and hispanic. Your examples would be comparable to saying something like "black-to-gay" or "mormon-to-white". --Cotoco 16:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Factual Reality of Black-to-White Passing 

message: Why is there only Black-to-White Passing and not other passing such as white-to-black passing? Skinnyweed 22:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Limited scope of race section 

message: this article seems to go way more in depth than any other article ive seen in an encyclopedia, perhaps it should be split, or some of the information curtailed to the essentials
:Agreed. While the article does seem all to be relevant, the section on black-to-white passing is so extensive as to require (desperately!) its own page. It is an important topic, yet placing it as a long series of sections in this larger article does it a disservice. Those readers who are simply trying to get acquainted with what the whole term "passing" means are not necessarily going to want this longer segment, especially if they were looking for a variation, such as passing for another sex. I came to the article because I was looking for an appropriate link for a use of "pass" to refer to closeted homosexuals (article on lesbian literature of Ann Bannon). Someone who links for that type of reason is going to get lost in this lengthy discussion and not give it the time it deserves. 
:I think the best move would be to leave in a section that introduces the concept of "passing" in reference to black-to-white disguise (which is, after all, arguably the most prominent meaning), but then refers the reader to a separate article containing the full discussion of the phenomenon. Lawikitejana 06:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  too long 

message: 1. Most of the article seems to be based on original research, which would violate Wikipedia policy.
2. The para that begins "Joel Williamson suggests yet another approach" replicates a methodological error that was pointed out back in the 1940s. See articles by Burma in 1946 and Eckard in 1947, both in the American Journal of Sociology. It's wrong and should be removed. As a consequence of this error, replicated by Sweet, the article vastly overestimates the prevalence of passing.
3. "Black-to-White passing is seen as reprehensible by most Americans today." This is unproved, and should be removed.
4. Are Melungeons really a large group? My impression is that this is mostly a fabrication of Brent Kennedy. He's taken an archaic pejorative term and misrepresented it as an ethnic group.Verklempt 23:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  some problems 

message: Proposals:  Please add your proposals below.
Rename to Passing off (racial):  The current Passing off page will also be renamed to Passing off (law).  Then Passing off becomes a disambiguation page with a link to here, of course, and to Passing off (law).  Add a link at Pass to Passing off.  Passing becomes a redirect to Pass.  This would, I believe, be consistent with all WP policies and practices.  Comment?  Paul Beardsell 09:38, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You've invented a new term to replace the historical term, and inserted it as the new title even though the commenters on the talk page have all disagreed with you. I think the word for this is "vandalism."Verklempt 17:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: where "all" = 1 ?  Paul Beardsell 13:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Have you read any of the sources cited in this article? Have you even read the article? It discusses three types of passing, but your name change only invoked one of those types of passing. All of the scholarly literature cited in the article uses the term "passing." The only alternative meaning you've raised is one car passing another, which is too trivial to warrant an encyclopedia article. I agree that you've argued at length, but you've also argued from gross ignorance of the topic. You need to actually read some of the literature cited.Verklempt 14:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text: "Passing off" is your personal neologism. It has no basis in the scholarly literature. You haven't "refuted" anything. You don't know enough about the topic to discuss it competently. This is not personalizing the argument. It is a simple statement of fact. You really need to read some of the scholarly literature, and learn at least a little bit about the field, before you start in renaming the entire field of study. I would note that of dozens of editors on this article, you are the only one who thinks a new name is required for this phenomenon. What gives you the authority to unilaterally rename an entire field of scholarly inquiry? I've seen a lot of displays of hubris and ignorance on WP, but yours takes the cake.Verklempt 15:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, ignoring the repeated ad hominem nature of your responses, what is your argument against "passing (sociology)"?  Paul Beardsell 21:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have several objections: 1)You haven't demonstrated any need for a name change. You haven't demonstrated that there is any confusion about the term in anyone's mind but your own. 2) "passing (sociology)" sounds like a cheat sheet for an undergraduate college class.Verklempt 22:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At to (2) I have asked you to suggest alternatives.  As for (1) I have made several arguments which you neglect to address except by criticising me personally.  To repeat:  No dictionary I have found or you are prepared to produce supports your view.  All references quoted have to immediately do some disambiguation, usually in the same sentence.  What might be understood by the term in Birmingham Alabama (or wherever) would not be what people in Birmingham England would understand by the term.  The meaning of the word which you seem to be claiming is the most commonly accepted use of the word (are you claiming this or not?) just is not that in English speaking places I have lived, which are several.  So, you do not like my suggestions, and you do not like the way I make them, but you seem to deny there is an issue to be addressed at all.  Paul Beardsell 22:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now you've got it: I deny that there is a pressing issue to be addressed, and challenge you to show evidence that there is a pressing need for disambiguation. Your dictionary research is superficial and imcomplete, and relates to an online dictionary, not an online encyclopedia. You appear to know nothing of the scholarly literature on the topic. You have yet to show evidence that there is any need for another article with the same title but a different meaning. Why don't you go write some articles on the other meanings of passing, and see if they survive deletion? If they do, then disambiguation might become necessary. But right now, it's not necessary.Verklempt 22:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again you do not address all the arguments I raise.  You say something.  I refute it.  You ignore the refutation.  And, coming to where you now divert us:  The article says already that etymologically the word "passing" is short for "passing as" or "passing for".  We are using a shorthand, a colloqial and localised use of the word "passing" in an encyclopedia which is supposed to be universally useful and applicable throughout the English speaking world.  Let's, in an encyclopedia, not use the colloqial shorthand.  The lawyers could have nabbed "passing" for themselves and I would be every bit as against that as I am this.  Have you not seen "overtaking" where, in the first sentence they use "passing" as a synonym for that term.  And that usage of "passing" is not colloqial and not slang.  I have now repeated some of the examples of WP articles you say do not exist.  Paul Beardsell 22:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New name for article 

message: My proposal is to leave the title of the article alone.  The term has been used well past the 1920s, though as pointed out, not as often as it once was, particularly since the advent of the 1990s where it became less necessary to "pass" as a member of a socially more acceptable group.  The term describes a real social phenomenon that still occurs today.  True, it is not just limited to Black to white, though contextually, that is where the term occurs many times.  In fact, Nella Larsen used it as the title for her second novel "Passing" and those who read it, even today, are not confused by what the book is about.    http://www.amazon.com/Passing-Penguin-Classics-Nella-Larsen/dp/0142437271
I was the one who stated above that it was a term still used amongst family and friends and that we were definitely not all born or lived during the 1920s (but forgot to sign).  In fact, when it was "discovered" that junior Senator John Kerry was not Irish but had been attending the ST. Patrick's Day breakfast in Boston and had not mentioned the fact, commentators used the word frequently to describe what he did.  John Stoessel of 20/20 in fact covered this subject and again mentioned the term frequently. (That show aired about a couple of years ago)
I also mentioned that I agree with Verklempt in that there is no real need to rename the article.
 
Furthermore, if anyone is seeking another definition of the term "passing", that is as it relates to the noun or verb, then that is what the Wikitionary is for.  I doubt that anyone who is seeking that version of "passing" would be looking in an encyclopedia.  Also, about the online dictionaries or any dictionary for that matter:  they are not always all inclusive.  I did search "passing" them as had been done before, and encountered some of the same definitions.  I also searched for the "Great Migration" and found nothing, which means that not all historical terms are included.  
Ladydayelle 16:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Events such as the "Great Migration" are not usually found in dictionaries.  In what way is the "passing" as in the phrase "passing as a member of the opposite sex" different from passing as in the phrases "message passing", "passing off (legal term)"?  Why does your meaning of "passing" take preference over the computer science meaning, the legal meaning?  All the other meanings?  Imagine that the computer scientists or the lawyers or the counterfeiters had got here first and monopolised the word "passing".  I am simply suggesting that the sociological phenomenon of "passing as a member of a different group" be filed here as "passing (sociology)" and that "passing" become a disambiguation page.  Paul Beardsell 22:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Have a look at WP:NOT. WP is NOT a dictionary.Verklempt 23:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And I don't think it should be either.  But it IS a place where articles should be filed properly, and not under under their colloqial abbreviations.  Paul Beardsell 23:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you know it's a colloquial abbreviation? You haven't read any of the relevant scholarly literature. You don't know anything about the term's historical use or significance. The present title is perfectly correct. The alternate meanings you gave are dictionary entries, and not encyclopedic. They don't compete with this article, or at least they should not.Verklempt 23:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How do I know?  The article says etymologically the word "passing" is short for "passing as" or "passing for".  I have lived in SA, in the UK and NZ:  And if you asked anyone in the street in those countries:  "What do you understand by the word passing?"  you would get overtaking.  The concept of passing for a member of the opposite sex, another race etc is understood but the word "passing" is certainly not used on its own to mean that.  So, we are using a shorthand, a colloquial and localised use of the word "passing" in an encyclopedia which is supposed to be universally useful and applicable throughout the English speaking world.  Let's, in an encyclopedia, not use the colloqial shorthand.  The lawyers could have nabbed "passing" for themselves and I would be every bit as against that as I am this.  Have you not seen "overtaking" where, in the first sentence they use "passing" as a synonym for that term.  And that usage of "passing" is not colloqial and not slang.  Paul Beardsell 23:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First, you keep coming back to arguments from dictionaries. This is not a world english dictionary. You're making an irrelevant argument. Second, you need to read the source cited in fn2, in the para you're referring to. Note the title. Learn something about the topic first, and then perhaps you won't make as many foolish errors.Verklempt 00:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tell you what.  If we assume, for the sake of argument, that until the para 2 paras up (23:51 10 Oct) I have  never commented before in this discussion, you'll note that my first contribution to this discussion (let's pretend) does not even mention "dictionary".  As I have never commented before in this discussion, for the sake of argument (let's pretend), then you do not yet have reason (real or imagined) to insult me at every turn or to consider me as stupid as you obviously do; so once again:  Consider the argument presented two paras up, and answer that.  What is so privileged about your colloquial abbreviation "passing" that allows this article to occupy this slot in the namespace and not some other more universal "passing"?  Psb777 04:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An intelligent person will understand the limitations of his ignorance. A stupid person will proceed without considering the implications of his ignorance. The title of this article is not an abbreviation. This article addresses the predominant historical and scholarly meaning of the word. Well-educated people already know this. Poorly educated people who are not stupid will take the trouble to learn about the topic before attempting to radically rename the field. The alternative meanings you are concerned about are either dictionarial, or variations on the term but not precisely the same. There is no other field of inquiry by the same name. "Passing off" is not the same term as "passing," and thus not competing for the same title. "Overtaking" is dictionarial, not encyclopedic. I see no competing meanings that could warrant equal access to this title.Verklempt 18:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case it seems I "understand the limitations of my ignorance" and do not "proceed without considering the implications of my ignorance".  Thank you.  The article itself says that the term derives from "passing as" or "passing for" and so the article's name is indeed a shortened version of the original term.  Abbreviated, by definition.  The term is localised as "passing" does not have the "race/gender passing for" resonance outside of some parts of the USA, if at all.  Colloquial, therefore, by definition.  "Dictionarial" is a term with which I am unfamiliar and for which I can find no reference and so, fully "understanding the limitations of my ignorance" but guessing,  that argument is without force or merit as the existence of the overtaking article is evidence that the term is not merely "dictionarial" (sic).  OK, all points dealt with.  Continuing:  There are several good articles already long established at WP which deserve to have a link to them from a "passing" disambiguation page.  These I have named before and somehow are repetitively ignored by Verklempt and include overtaking, passing off (legal term), counterfeiting, message passing, etc. I understand that "passing for" is not what Verkrempt wants this article called.  Fair enough.  Passing (sociology) it will be unless another sugestion is forthcoming.  Paul Beardsell 21:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact the the term is abbreviated does not mean that it is incorrect. Had you bothered to read any of the relevant literature, you would not have headed down this dead end. The fact that the term is colloquial to US English is relevant for a dictionary, but irrelevant for WP policy. "Passing off" is a different term from "passing," obviously. There is no competing article entitled "passing." If you rename this article "passing (sociology)" I will revert your name change. This article deals with literature, history, and demography as well as sociology. Had you bothered to read the article and learn something about the topic, you would already know that.Verklempt 21:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You acknowledge it is a "fact that the term is abbreviated".  That means there exists an alternative correct and more full name.  But that isn't really important so don't get wound up!  All I am proposing is disambiguation because "passing" is ambiguous.  Whereas you might consider the natural meaning of the term "passing" is that which relates to "passing as a member of a different sociological group" others most certainly do not, even many of those in the USA and certainly all those outside it.  (Hence my use of the term colloquial which is merely factual not derogatory.)  I have repeatedly given examples of other uses for which there exist several WP articles so I won't repeat those again.  How do you think we should cope with the disambiguation issue?  Or would you rather we should invoke the RFC process?  Paul Beardsell 21:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The term is abbreviated from an alternate usage. That does not mean there is a more correct version. Had you read any of the cites you would know that, and it's shameful that you would argue from such wilfull ignorance. The alternate meanings of the word are relevant for a dictionary, not for an encyclopedia, unless those alternate meanings require an encyclopedia entry. Since there are no other articles entitled "passing," nor are there any such articles on the horizon, the alternate meanings are irrelevant to WP for now. It's amazing that you have spewed forth this much verbiage and expressed so much ignorance on the topic at hand, and yet are only now getting around to asking for an opinion on alternate solutions from people who actually know something about the topic. A separate disambiguation page is unnecessary for the word "passing," since there are no competing articles by the same title. You're inventing an issue where none exists. Why don't you go work on something more productive and less trivial? You're wasting time here.Verklempt 22:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed name change (2) 

message: Paul Beardsell, I don't think you are stupid.  I do however think you are making circular arguments about something that really is not a problem.  Let's assume that someone comes to this as the initial page.   Then upon finding that it is not what they are seeking, they would either do a search or go to the disambiguation page and find the article they are seeking.  Even if your scenario about the computer scientists setting up an article entitled 'passing' that discussion the term in the context of prgramming took place, I think that the next person who wanted to write an article defining the term 'passing' and the context it is used in would simply differentiate the term in the title rather than campaign to change the title of the original article.
  
Again, many of your arguments are centered around what I would classify as things that belong to a discussion about a Wikitionary entry, not Wikipedia.  It is an article about a term that was and still is used by many people. If someone wants to find the American English equivalent of 'overtaking,'  then they can go to Wikitionary and be satisfied.
My point in using "The Great Migration" as an example is that you were a dictionary definition for an occurrence that would not necessarily be included in the dictionary resources that you used online, many of which offer certain basic definitions for free and more in depth information if you pay for their premium service. However, in the large Webster American Collegiate that is here at the office, both "The Great Migration" and the definition of "passing" as it relates to this article are included.
To me this is a dead subject.  No one else who feels strongly that this title should be changed has chimed in. It looks like it's 2-1 in favour of leaving it alone.  Ladydayelle 16:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whereas events such as the "Great Migration" are not in a dictionary, concepts such as "passing" (and "overtaking") are, and your usage of the term and the predominant use here, seems to be missing from all the dictionaries I have access to!  I think you mischaracterise my dictionary point but, if not, and if my dictionary argument is flawed, that isn't a central plank of my argument.  Just disregard it.  For the record, I am not saying WP is or should be a dictionary, just that the meaning of words used in the encyclopedia should ordinarily be in agreement with dictionaries.  So even if you found a dictionary that had your definition there remains an issue:  This is an encyclopedia for the entire English speaking world, and the vocabulary of a region or even one country should not be used when determining article names.  Also, the article makes the point early on, "passing" as used here is an abbreviation of "passing for" or "passing as".  So, it is correct for me to characterise the usage as a "colloquial abbreviation".  I do not understand why doing so seems to annoy anyone here.  Paul Beardsell 17:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: But please disregard all that if you continue to disagree with it, as I suppose you do.  Just consider from this point forward:  All I am suggesting is a renaming of this article to "Passing (sociology)" or whatever you like, freeing up this article's name "Passing" for a disambiguation page which will point to this article and to overtaking and to pass and to passing off (legal term) and to counterfeiting and to message passing and all the other uses of "passing" already documented in this encyclopedia and mentioned by me above.  Standard WP practise.  I'll make the 1st entry on the disambiguation page the reference to this page, if you like.  Paul Beardsell 17:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed name change (3)

message: Add  * Support  or  * Oppose  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.
Oppose. This article touches on demography, history, and several other disciplines other than sociology.Verklempt 01:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: I feel that the discussion on the naming of articles to be split off needs to be separated from the above vote on renaming the page to make space for a disambiguation page.
The page is already 51 kilobytes long. As discussed above, it appears appropriate to split this page into smaller, more specific articles in accordance with Wikipedia:Article size.
The 'Race' section is likely to still be over 32 kilobytes long even after it is split off, and may need to be further split in itself.
There is mixing of 'Ethnicity' in both the 'Race' and 'Ethnicity and class' sections and I feel that this needs to be addressed, possibly by the creation of separate sections on 'Ethnic group' and 'Social class'. Presumably, the 'Race', 'Ethnic group' and 'Social class' sections would be cross-linked to each other.
Given that Race, Ethnic group, Social class, Gender and Disability are the names of articles on the relevant subjects, I propose that we maintain consistency with those existing names by lowercasing and bracketing them after 'Passing' to form:
*Passing (race)
*Passing (ethnic group)
*Passing (social class)
*Passing (gender)
*Passing (disability)
If is noted that only the size of the article on 'Race' is presently large enough to warrant splitting it from the main page but I believe that this discussion can help guide the future naming of the  other articles if and when they grow large enough to be split off in the future. --AliceJMarkham 04:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with all that.  Again.  Alice's is the most constructive approach possible, in my view, and will result in a set of articles which will improve the encyclopedia by providing for easier access to information by the provision of shorter and more relevant articles and also by easier disambiguation.  Paul Beardsell 08:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think "Passing (race)" to be too broad to be clear or helpful. I suggest that Verklempt's recommendation be adopted: "Passing (racial identity)". Lethiere 17:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine by me.  Paul Beardsell 22:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

text: If that is the consensus, I'm fine with that. I was going to ask whether (for consistency) you would also be proposing that Race be moved to Racial identity, then I checked and found that that redirects to Race, so it's sorta consistent. :) --AliceJMarkham 00:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page is large enough to need splitting. Need to decide on naming of articles to be split off 

message: The page has now moved to Passing (sociology). The former "Race" and "Gender" sections have been split out into separate articles Passing (racial identity) and Passing (gender) respectively. the "worldwide" tag has stayed with the race article.
The 'Passing' section of the disambig page from Pass has been shifted to become the new disambig page at Passing. I believe that I have updated all of the links that pointed at Passing that were relevant to change.
There are presently redirects at Passing (disability), Passing (ethnic group) and Passing (social class) which all point back to this article. I'm undecided whether to split those out into stubs or leave them in here for now. Opinions? --AliceJMarkham 22:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved and split

message: Usage of examples in certain context make it seem as though the article is written from a biased point of view, as in the first paragraph regarding the Muslim suicide bomber. This turned me off to the validity of the entire article once reading it. Other examples would certainly be more effective to a broader audience, regardless of your personal belief on whether or not that particular one should be valid. Just a bit of feedback. Thanks! Trisweb 19:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I picked up on this too. Regardless, I feel that it demonstrates an example of plain disguise as opposed to passing. To me, passing is a long-term thing, not just whether you can get into a hotel or not. 86.139.146.147 (talk) 16:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad biased example? 

message: I've rewritten the Ability section to give a more indepth discussion of visible and invisible disability. I've never actually seen it referred to as 'passing', that may be a purely US usage, but whether a  disabled person has a visible disability, an invisible one or both (I fall in the latter category) makes for a fairly complex and varying web of advantages and disadvantages which I've tried to briefly summarize while retaining some of the original section.
--Dgillon (talk) 19:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Passing_(sociology)&diff=prev&oldid=497168601 
The paragraph on disabilities and additions were removed by an anon for an asinine reason. 
Socially, invisible disabilities can choose not to self-identify as a "disabled person" and incurable disorders are considered visible disabilities, therefore society (i.e. government policy and workplace regulations) should always provide needed assistance for them. 
Asperger's syndrome isn't much a "visible" disability but Asperger's is marked with serious issues in socialization, but autism seems to be "invisible" and  "Low" functioning autism is a more pronounced sociobehavioral disability but so is the "high functioning" kind. 
Also some people considered Yuppies a form of upper-income class (which is the case of the 1980s cultural trend of what was back then considered "successful"), others said yuppies are more in the middle when they are office workers, and lately more white collar urban professionals find themselves feeling "poorer" from current economic conditions (the late 2000's and 2010's recession) but yuppieism is considered passe in the 2000s when it became more common in life to hold an office professional career than 20 or 30 years ago.
Then to explain why Mischlinge and Tzedek are previously mentioned: For people to identify with the Jewish religion and culture even when practicing another religion, but have one Jewish parent (according to Halakhic Law, Jewishness is past one only by the mother or matriarchal lineage) ... and Tzedek means a convert to Judaism from a previous different religion with or without Jewish heritage. 
And about the "Hapas" =  The Hawaiian term for persons of part-Asian (mostly East Asian ethnic-national groups like the Chinese, Japanese, Filipinos and Koreans), part-Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, and other race (white European-American) ancestries. 71.102.21.238 (talk) 07:26, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ability 

message: In the USA, to have any European ancestry and white ethnological traits: the person will become part of the "white" majority society, while those of African and other non-Caucasian ancestries due to lacking lighter skin, hair and eyes: have remained a class apart and lived in a segregated part of society. The sad fact of American history is rooted in a high level of racial classification categories and anyone who is African-American yet have lighter tone of skin wishes to become a "white" person in the days of Jim Crow segregation, and they know "passing white" might open doors to opportunities denied to Black people or African-Americans at the time. But the tendency for most Latinos and Asian-Americans to become more accepted among their "white" or Anglo-American peers, but they remain "minorities" in the eyes of most white/Anglo-Americans and placed under the minority umbrella term or as "people of color" to a certain extent. 71.102.21.238 (talk) 03:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assimilation and segregation 

message: I've been making additions to this page as part of a class assignment. I've included additional citations, expanded and/or reorganized sections, and added a section on Disability Passing. I would welcome any suggestions or feedback as I proceed. Ah728213 (talk) 03:11, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Contributions 

message: Hello, I've reviewed the article and see that the section on Sexuality and Gender needs expansion but I also noticed that the section on Race and Ethnicity could also include newer findings on "reverse passing" where whites will choose to pass as people of color.  I have some references I've compiled that I'll be digging into soon to help improve the page.  Any feedback you folks have? I'm very new to Wikipedia so I'm certain I'll be making a mistake or two.
<ref>Shippee, N. D. (2011). Gay, Straight, and Who I Am: Interpreting Passing Within the Frames for Everyday Life. Deviant Behavior, 32(2), 115-157. doi:10.1080/01639621003748514<ref>
<ref>Wickes, R., & Emmison, M. (2007). They are all ‘doing gender’ but are they are all passing? A case study of the appropriation of a sociological concept. Sociological Review, 55(2), 311-330. doi:10.1111/j.1467-954X.2007.00707.x<ref>
<ref>Pfeffer, C. A. (2014). "I Don't Like Passing as a Straight Woman": Queer Negotiations of Identity and Social Group Membership. American Journal Of Sociology, 120(1), 1-44.<ref>
<ref>Beydoun, K. A., & Wilson, E. K. (2017). Reverse Passing. UCLA Law Review, 64(2), 282-354<ref>
Amloper (talk) 21:18, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newer Contributions 

message: Hi, Generalrelative. Please explain how a term denoting a human physiological state is a gender? Are you stating that there is no difference between gender and sex? Are you claiming that human sexual dimorphism does not exist? 80.229.22.58 (talk) 19:28, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps Generalrelative was making the obviously true statement that "male" can denote a gender (e.g. a gender role or a gender identity) rather than a sex. At least, that is what the sources tell us. Newimpartial (talk) 00:27, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Male is a gender"