The differences between their experiences is smaller than the differences between that black individual (sidenote: I was recently told by a black guy that African American is worse than black when used as an identifier) and someone of the same race who grew up in a significantly different socioeconomic class. If we want to increase diversity, the best would be to do so by class first, gender second, and race third.
I think their point was that passive racial biases lead to class differences that can't be summed up in a hypothetical comparison.
The study is in "Can We All Get Along", by McClain and Stewart. Really interesting book that does a good job of making you think.
>(sidenote: I was recently told by a black guy that African American is worse than black when used as an identifier)
For some - it's putting the `African` before the `American`. For others, it is putting `African` at all (not all blacks identify or hail from Africa). Ultimately, offense is taken and not given. You'll also find people who take offense at being called `black` over `African American`.
Either way - I don't think you need to justify your use of calling them `black`, at least in this context.
One potential example would be that someone who has unfairly been targeted by the police may have higher privacy concerns and also be more aware of possibilities for the government to abuse information and even violate rights; things that can happen with regards to social media profiles.
For a more concrete example, a gay individual who grew up somewhere where being gay was punished (either codified in law or where the law turns a blind eye to the discrimination) is likely to be far more concerned about systems that can leak sexual orientation, for example an eye tracker/pupil measurer that makes an attempt to determine who a subject finds attractive or not. The average heterosexual may understand that leaking this information could be embarrassing for some, but they may not be as aware it could be life threatening.
Yes, an aware individual not of that background could develop the same concerns after thinking long enough, but they will not have the same immediate concern about any system that interrupts a person's ability to 'pass'.
Unfortunately I'm not able, in good faith, to take a stand for or against your argument. Consider this conceding the argument, but not being entirely convinced (allow me to explain).
Initially, I would like to reject it. Because as a libertarian-leaning trans, I fall under both examples you cited. Concern over potential abuse of PII, government overreach, and sexual identity (the concern over gender identity is similar in that regards). But I also fall under the "white, male" label.
However, I do understand the argument that a more targeted individual may be more capable of identifying potential issues. I feel this is contextual and often results in too many "maybes", "potentials", and "possibilities" to be entirely convincing.
"They maybe might have the potential to maybe see a possibility for something that might have the potential to maybe have the possibility of being abused." is not something I find convincing. Though it is technically correct and I have to concede that.
