Transracial: Rachel Dolezal on BBC Newsnight

March 28, 2017

69 Responses to “Transracial: Rachel Dolezal on BBC Newsnight”


  1. The world has gone insane. “Feelz” does not take the place of reality. What the ****–is it in the water? The air? Junk food? Maybe Starbuck’s has doctored their coffee? Somebody help me, please. Just too much, too much.

    • Charlotte Says:

      I sometimes wonder if the generation raised as a disembodied internet avatar, where persona and appearance change at a mere click, helped foster this delusion that what one currently “feels”, is what one “is”.

      For older folks, the internet was a tool/playground of occasional research and socializing, but life offline is the definitive reality. For younger folk raised with this technology the internet is as “real” as the offline world, and in that “internet reality” they can have their various personas unchallenged. That normalized the expectation, and so they want it just as easily carried into offline and are shocked to find a good deal of the population doesnt share that.

      • GallusMag Says:

        Image has replaced reputation so completely that we have… Donald Trump.

      • pollyhannah11 Says:

        Corporations are people, people are avatars…

      • hearthrising Says:

        They also have the ability to believe a person is who they want them to be based on what they type. They don’t know your income, your ethnicity, your physical abilities, etc., but if you disagree with them you are always a “white feminist.”

      • Oak and Ash Says:

        I said just about the entire contents of your comment to someone (in real life, even!) last week, that young people who’ve grown up being able to choose whatever avatar they wanted see their personae as more real than their embodied selves (as opposed to those of us who might view avatar choice as merely a metaphor).

        This gender nonsense almost makes me nostalgic for the days when the young were declaring themselves Otherkin.

      • Hecate Says:

        Otherkin is still alive and kicking. To complicate it, trans otherkin! Because one delusion is just not enough for some peeps.
        http://theweek.com/articles/552648/meet-peoplewho-dont-identify-human

      • Oak and Ash Says:

        @Hecate–Thanks. I think I might have seen this article last year, but I forgot about it. There’s a bit that would apply equally well to both the otherkin and trans phenomena:

        ‘Dr. Marc D. Feldman, clinical professor of psychiatry at the University of Alabama and inventor of the term “Munchausen by internet,” told me that otherkin didn’t seem like a good fit for mental health treatment.

        ‘”People in advantaged countries like to think of themselves as especially complex, colorful, and special,” he wrote in an email.’

        My problem with all this nonsense boils down to the difference between “identifying as” and “identifying with.” If the young woman at the beginning of the article said she identified “with” wolves (and didn’t wear a tail to the mall!), I’d just think she’d found a useful guiding metaphor for her life, and I could see it being equally helpful for a young person to identify “with” androgyny, for example, if they’re trying to avoid gendered expectations.

        There are metaphors connected with trees I find inspiring, but the idea of identifying “as” a tree seems completely absurd. Although maybe I could declare myself transarboreal or treekin and demand people use leaf/leaf/leafself as my pronouns.

      • GallusMag Says:

        Leafself is ableist as not all arboreals produce foliage. 😛

      • Oak and Ash Says:

        “Leafself is ableist as not all arboreals produce foliage.”

        You’re right, Gallus Mag. Thank you for helping me be a better ally to my leafless sisters. #notalltrees


  2. Reblogged this on stop trans chauvinism and commented:
    Remember that this woman who claims that, while in college, she was often perceived as “mixed or albino or light-skinned or black” because she was so often “fighting for racial and social justice”, in 2002 “sued her alma mater, HBCU Howard University, accusing it of discriminating against her because she was white“.

    ‘Dolezal also accused the school of being “motifivated by a discriminatory purpose to favor African-American students” when it removed some of her artwork from a 2001 student exhibition, a court opinion detailed, the report notes. ” (same source)

  3. Margaret Says:

    This woman is certainly delusional but probably not more so than your average transgender activist. Her dysphoria needs to be treated, but not pandered to, as is the case of transgenders.
    Sleepers awake! Or women’s rights will be lost forever in the surge to believe the emperor is indeed wearing new clothes.

    • Oak and Ash Says:

      She clearly needs help. It’s common for children mistreated by their parents to have fantasies about rejoining their “real” family, but she not only hasn’t let go of the fantasy, she seems to have worked for her entire adult life to reify it.

      It’s infuriating, however, that so many of tthose who’ve attacked Dolezal support the trans fantasy. I hope that some people who watch this interview may begin to see the similarities between her claims and those of the transcult.

  4. fxkatt Says:

    It’s hard to think of a more potent form of infiltration than trans, whether sexual or racial. It’s as if men and whites cannot dominate the OTHERS effectively enough from the outside, that they must resort to the inside. Where they can more deeply define and control the space, culture, and identity of the threatening other. These infiltrators may be fakes, but no matter because they, unlike their new associates, are practiced at the arts of domination and can quickly rise into positions of power and influence. And oh how remarkable they are to themselves for having achieved so much with so tawdry an identity.

  5. rheapdx1 Says:

    The US version of this aired last night and this poor excuse for cells was unapologetic, arrogant, self-centered and had ‘the stare’. All while explaining why she felt she was black ‘all along’, even to the point of creating a false background and family. Gee…..where have we all seen this shit before? Hmmmm

    Oh yeah…..the majority of the t brigade. What made air was line for line, about the same BULLSHIT that many t folks will come up with, to justify the usurping of space, laws, disrespect of privacy as well as making a mockery of those they wish to emulate. All that was missing were the forced feminization tropes, the renaming of body parts and in turn, using that to commit assault.

    But this was textbook BULLSHIT. Watch and take copious notes….if only due to the fact that …with very few exceptions, the t faction acts like this cretin. And in airing this interview, by proxy…another way to dismantle the cult has been served up.

  6. Oak and Ash Says:

    Rachel Dolezal clearly doesn’t understand the difference between a lie and a social construct, and there’s no doubt what she did was appropriation, but I’ve read about her bizarrely religious, abusive parents, and I feel some sympathy for her. Someone (male?) raised that way might have engaged in worse. (And on the subject of worse, how is it that guys who’ve committed actual sexual assaults can still find people to support them and offer them jobs, but she’s now unemployable? The reason couldn’t be misogyny, right?)

    What strikes me most are the parallels between her background and the backgrounds of some women I’ve met who’ve decided they’re transmen, in that she shares with them childhood experiences of abuse and trauma. Perhaps declaring themselves transgendered or transracial is a way for some people to dissociate from a traumatized self. (Although I don’t for one moment believe that applies to the genderqueer special snowflakes or the AGPs demanding the right to expose themselves in our private spaces! They’re more likely to cause trauma than suffer from it.)

    • kamilla1960 Says:

      Yes, it is important to bring into the foreground the probable effects of trauma in creating delusion. Then the deluded person is used as a football by the media (and the powers behind the media) to create confusion and conflict.

  7. Mark F. Says:

    Hey, at least she is not demanding that black lesbians have sex with a “sister.” Not yet, anyway.

  8. dejavublonde Says:

    I love this woman’s existence in this time. Please don’t mistake that for me having any positive feelings towards her personally, just her existence in this time. She really brings the trans discussion into places I never see it, not just the rare, lone voice but long time, well liked commenters on popular sites. They were actually refuting the ‘science ” that gets trotted out regarding trans brains in the comment sections of some sites. She is vile, her timing however is impeccable.

  9. Medi Says:

    Mark F. —- “Not yet anyway” that’s next week’s fake news coming right at ya LOL

  10. genderskeptics Says:

    Watching people condemn her and praise TW = Olympic level mental gymnastics

  11. kesher Says:

    I’m really curious how her husband feels about the extreme likelihood that she’s only with him to prop up her fake identity.

  12. Keisha Says:

    Both are offensive, claiming to be another race and claiming to be the opposite biological sex your born as. I never see black women claiming to be white women because it never works in reverse. (Not speaking of biracial or multiracial women with various racial backgrounds). I have no sympathy for people, specifically men claiming to be women and other races of women claiming to be black women and taking our female identity, legal rights, or with race literally putting on our skin (tan, hair weave) like a costume. As an actual black woman and a lesbian, I find Dolezal especially offensive. Pretending to be another race, the fake black siblings/parents that agreed to be her pretend family, taking positions of power from actual black women, paid to lecture about black culture/history, disrespecting actual black women, faking racial hate crime stories to get sympathy which she should be legally prosecuted, paid to give interviews etc.

    In related news Michael jackson’s adopted daughter paris – not biological – is now claiming to be a black woman or biracial woman. Apparently when one race adopts another you then magically become that race.

    • kesher Says:

      Did Michael Jackson lie to the public about his children’s parentage or did people just assume they were his children (which was obviously not the case as the children started to grow up and obviously did not have a black parent)? I’m just wondering whether Jackson lied to the children as well. I don’t think he had a great grasp of reality either, and it seems entirely possible that detachment from reality also rubbed off on the kids.

    • k.jane Says:

      I agree. There’s no excuse for her behavior. Even if all the stuff about her family being completely batshit and abusive is true, that doesn’t make it okay for her to appropriate black identity and take a job that should have gone to a black woman. If Dolezal threatened to sue her university for discriminating against her on the basis of her being white, then she knows she isn’t black and knows on some level her behavior isn’t okay.

      (As a general rule, people shouldn’t be so eager to believe someone who we know has a history of lying a lot and sympathize with them.)

      The only thing I can say that’s good about Rachel Dolezal is that hopefully more people will see that it’s hypocritical to condemn her appropriation of an oppressed group while thinking that it’s totally legitimate for men to claim to be women and lesbians.

    • tnt666 Says:

      There is plenty to it. I know several POC who were adopted by white parents who identified as white their entire youth and only realised later in life they were not.
      This is why I’m not too fond on “inter-racial” adoptions, because the majority of parents fail at intelligent parenting and brainwash their children with lies of all calibers.
      MJ ID as white… is it any wonder his kids are fucked up?

  13. Medi Says:

    Fake race, fake sex, gold medal goes to total lack of critical thinking skills across the board here.

    • J.D. Says:

      It’s extremist subjectivism. From Wikipedia:

      “Subjectivism is the doctrine that “our own mental activity is the only unquestionable fact of our experience”.[1] , instead of shared or communal, and that there is no external or objective truth.”

      Taken to an extreme… The objective world that everybody lives in? That’s not a thing. The science of that objective world? Not a thing. The people in that objective world that disagree entirely with your subjectivist worldview? Also not a thing.

      It’s an extremely problematic outlook on life because when taken to the extreme, it allows no room for the possibility of coexisting with others harmoniously. Because, if your own mental process is the only thing which exists, there is no objective world, no objectively existent people, no necessity to consider them, no necessity to follow objective rules, and so on. It amounts to living as if reality and other people don’t exist…which is a problem.

      It’s kind of like narcissism, but instead of it being about pursuing admiration to try to fill the gaping void where your self-worth should be, it’s more like pursuing being right to fill the gaping void where your brain should be. — So, instead of making rational conclusions that are supported by the evidence, they just claim “feelings” or “thoughts” and use that as a trump card to declare themselves right. But, they didn’t earn it. They never have to argue facts when they do things that way. They never have to think. They never have to actually examine what’s going on. They just scream “feelings” and “thoughts” until someone caves or puts them in a cell.

      That’s really why examination is so important, because what arguments they do bother making are so nonsensical that if you spend any time examining them whatsoever, it’s clear that they have no idea what they’re talking about. The real kicker is that all the words that they’re using make sense…like…when other people use them…but the way they string them together, they make no sense at all. So, they rely upon that trump card of feelings/thoughts or they try to ride the validity those words have in other contexts, when used by other people.

      I feel like it should be the material for an exam in a course on critical thinking or logic: Spot the Trans Fallacy. — Extra points if you can plot the 5-dimensional circular argument visually.

  14. fmnst Says:

    I just found put that there is a term, “transracial,” and Dolezal, and I, used it incorrectly.

    It refers to certain adopted children:

    “But transracial does not mean what some white Americans like Dolezal apparently wish it to mean. The term originates from adoptive and academic circles to describe the very lived experience of children raised in homes that are phenotypically and culturally different from their birth – people like my colleague Rebecca Carroll, who is black. She was raised in a white household and her white birth mother attempted to define her as “culturally white, and cosmetically black”.”

    – Syreeta McFadden, https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/16/transracial-definition-destructive-rachel-dolezal-spokane-naacp

  15. hearthrising Says:

    I’m embarrassed to admit that when the Rachel Dolezal story first broke, I enjoyed making fun of her. Then I realized I would not “go after” a transgender person with nearly the same glee. I would be called transphobic, and rightly so. I still don’t condone what Dolezal has done and I wish she saw the error of her ways, but I no longer take pleasure in slamming such a sick woman.

      • J.D. Says:

        Something in that review made me rethink the notion of race and gender as social constructs… I mean, they are social constructs, but they’re based upon biological facts. So, they’re not entirely social.

        In the case of gender, you have sex underlying it. In the case of race, you have heredity underlying it. But, just being of a certain sex or having a certain heredity are not, in and of themselves, supportable reasons for treating someone as less. But, the value judgments, the stereotypes, the social/cultural structures, and expectations all lopped onto sex and heredity in a social setting are what result in sex becoming gendered and heredity becoming racial.

        So, what started out as neutral qualities were turned into stereotypes and structures of power imbalance by the social aspects that they took on. Because, a woman alone, separate from society, is not, without any knowledge of femininity, going to opt to wear shoes that hurt her feet to walk in, clothing that doesn’t cover her enough to protect her skin or keep her warm, or feign weakness, stupidity, or submission on purpose — that would get her eaten by a wild animal really quickly. Likewise, a Black person separate from society wouldn’t be predisposed towards thinking of themselves as less, they wouldn’t think of themselves as more likely to commit a crime, or think that they should have less opportunities than anyone else.

        So, in each case, you have a valid biological truth that’s being used to justify ill-treatment. But, the truth is, if women were naturally submissive or weak or stupid, then no one would ever need to punish them for being otherwise, nor would they have to try to force them into that role (which they do). — And, if Black people were less or so much more predisposed towards crime, they’d never become lawyers and doctors, politicians, or talented authors, peace-makers, and artists, and no one would need to keep them from education or opportunities because they’d never be able to utilize them anyway (but, they do). All of that shows that these are socialized systems of power rather than inherent. And, a woman is no more ‘free’ in trying to shed her womanhood in order to be allowed to be strong or assertive, than a Black person is ‘free’ in lightening their skin in order to be seen as more intelligent or capable. That’s just locking yourself in further to the same stereotypes you’ve suffered from all along… Or, in short: it’s the system that’s the problem, not you.

        Thank you for the link. I like to find things that are thought-provoking. It’s not easy to find them, but it’s enjoyable when they’re found.

    • LC Says:

      That was interesting. I really don’t know what to make of her story, especially the parts that were verified as true. She has had experiences that most white people never do. Doesn’t make her black, but it does make her story a bizarre, and, as the reviewer put it, uniquely American one. It’s easier for me to sympathize with her than “Catelyn” Jenner… but I still don’t know what to make of the transracial question of it. In many ways, it seems far more ambiguous than transgenderism.

      • GallusMag Says:

        It was interesting to see Dolezal’s racist blackface performance interpreted within the context of her whackadoo religious upbringing and the broader social movement towards what Elizabeth Hungerford has called “Identity Libertarianism”.

        Also the writing was delightful and very (darkly) amusing.

      • LC Says:

        Oh, absolutely, to all of that. I just also feel sad for her and wish she’d get help rather than media attention. Although, in a sense, the attention helps bring criticism to identity politics, it can’t be good for her personally.

      • GallusMag Says:

        She seems to like attention very much. Also, book money. 😉

      • tnt666 Says:

        To GM… Her “whackadoo religious upbringing” is not unique to her… it is pretty typical of most trans “gender” people too.
        Liberal minded people are certainly guilty of enabling trans lunacy, but Conservative people of faith are guilty of creating trans lunacy… Without sexist gender Conservatism, there would be no dysphoria.

  16. Bev Jo Says:

    I really agree, Keisha.

    It’s disturbing how Dolezal is not held accountable for what she’s done, including having the power through her job with NAACP to bully real Women of Color for not being dark enough. And yes, she sued Howard University for discriminating against her because she was white and “also accused the school of being “motivated by a discriminatory purpose to favor African-American students” when it removed some of her artwork from a 2001 student exhibition.

    She is not a victim, any more than men who demand we accept them as Lesbians and women are victims. Why is she getting any sympathy when she is a racist opportunist and has harmed Black women and Black people? We don’t even know the extent of what else she has done or did in her position in the NAACP.

    A friend read one of the recent stories about her and was sympathetic about the abuse she suffered in childhood. But is it even true? Why do women so quickly believe people who we already know has lied for years? And if it was true, there is no excuse for her appropriating Black identity, taking a job that should have gone to a Black woman.

    Even in this interview she complains she is recognized though she still is having her hair permanented. She clearly wants the attention.

    The only good thing I can think of about Dolezal’s story is that most people have vehemently said no to her claiming to be Black, which has caused a few to question men appropriating female identity.

  17. J.D. Says:

    How did she ever pass for Black? Like ever?

    I thought two eyes came standard on human beings.

    • Oak and Ash Says:

      Probably because there happen to be mixed-race black people who pass for white. In fact, it doesn’t seem as if Dolezal set out with the intention to pass for black, but began to do so once her involvement with African-American groups led people to assume she must be a white-passing African-American.

      Interestingly, the assumption that no white person would wish to become involved with these groups is a sign of societal racism, so, in a way, the beliefs of a racist society led people to think that only someone of African-American heritage would have made the choices she did. This is very similar to the sexist assumption that a man willing to subject himself to uncomfortable clothing and high heels must really be a woman, because no normally privileged male would do that.

      And I find myself left with a lot of questions that have analogues in the transgender debate. If Dolezal had her genetic ancestry checked and turned out to have African-American forbears, would it change the morality of what she did? If not, because she was raised culturally white, are African-American children raised by white parents not considered black? And, if those adopted children are black because they look African-American, are white-passing African-Americans not really black? And what about the case of a white-passing infant adopted by white people? Does that person then have no claim to their African-American heritage?

      This sort of moral reasoning applies to the idea of intersex people that transactivists keep throwing at us. If an XY male born with androgen insensitivity is raised from birth as a girl, with all that entails in our society, would any of us claim that person was simply pretending to be female and couldn’t use female facilities? Of course, only crazy logic thinks it then follows that we need to allow a 40-year-old guy who has enjoyed male privilege for decades to flaunt his junk in our locker rooms because he suddenly claims he’s a lesbian.

      But what about the case of a boy severely mistreated by his father who decides he wants nothing to do with being male, transitions (including surgery) early, passes as a woman, and then actually puts himself on the line for feminist causes? (I fully recognize the unlikelihood of this scenario!) What if he doesn’t correct people’s assumptions that he’s a woman? This is similar to what Rachel Dolezal did, and I admit I’d be much more ambivalent about him than I am about the AGPs or professional transwomen (Mock, Cox, et al.). And, while I’m making up extreme examples, what if it turned out he was one of those rare cases of an XX person born with a male phenotype because of an SRY translocation? Would we then accept this person as female? That would be analogous to finding out Rachel Dolezal really does have some African-American genetic heritage.

      If we argue that the guy in the previous extreme example is still male because he was brought up a boy, however badly treated, then can those whose parents transition them young claim they’re actually members of the opposite sex? I think about these extreme cases in order to solidify my arguments against the trans insanity, because they’re the sort of examples that can lead others down the slippery slope to claptrap–like claiming Dolezal is immoral and Jenner heroic on account of race being real while biological sex is just a social construct?

      • GallusMag Says:

        Re: “This is very similar to the sexist assumption that a man willing to subject himself to uncomfortable clothing and high heels must really be a woman, because no normally privileged male would do that.”

        and

        “professional transwomen (Mock, Cox, et al.)”

        Let’s talk about the intersection between racism, homophobia and sexism that benefits gay black men who market a “Not Men” persona that cashes in on the popular white supremacist entertainment of “emasculated” black men, “corrected” gay men, and “womanhood” as a catch all for males who underperform masculinity. See: Laverne Cocks and Janet Mocks. Yep I went there.

      • GallusMag Says:

        “..can those whose parents transition them young claim they’re actually members of the opposite sex?”

        Children “socialized trans” are socialized as ‘special’ boys (MTF) or ‘special’ girls (FTM). Gender socialization is done on the basis of perception of sex, none of which escapes “transgender children”. See: David Reimer.

      • Oak and Ash Says:

        @GM–I completely agree with you on this:

        “Children “socialized trans” are socialized as ‘special’ boys (MTF) or ‘special’ girls (FTM). Gender socialization is done on the basis of perception of sex, none of which escapes “transgender children”. See: David Reimer.”

        It seems obvious to me, but I’m just trying to work out how to make as good a case as possible against men in our spaces for those who have trouble seeing past stereotypes and platitudes.

      • gchild Says:

        “If Dolezal had her genetic ancestry checked and turned out to have African-American forbears, would it change the morality of what she did? ”

        No. Genes are not the reality of race, skin color/complexion is. And its a “white” and “non white” binary. So anyone with dark, brown, black skin is “non white” and in our culture subjugated to one degree or another.

        Any white person CAN identify as non white, just as light/pale skinned “black” people can pass. But “passers” have limitations (bearing children, i.e Michael Jackson )

        The hierarchy works the same with race and sex. You can identify your way down, but not up.

        The only reason Dolezal successfully gets away with this shit (despite criticism) is because she is white. No brown skinned black person can identify as white (and out of racist oppression). Just as no female can identify her way out sexist terrorism.

        So all Dolezal is doing is exercising her white privilege. If heredity mattered in race politics/culture, all descendants of slaves in America could ID as white and be treated as such.

        And, as far as I am concerned, this is one of few instances I have seen where someone needs to tell this woman to check her fucking privilege.

      • J.D. Says:

        “If Dolezal had her genetic ancestry checked and turned out to have African-American forbears, would it change the morality of what she did?”

        From what I gather, she didn’t have any reason to believe that she was African-American, to any degree. As such, her decision to display herself as African-American, while not having any reason to believe that she was so, was either a delusion or a deliberate act of deception. If it was a delusion, then it wasn’t morally wrong because she wasn’t capable of making a moral decision. If it was a deliberate act of deception, then it was morally wrong.

        “…are white-passing African-Americans not really black? And what about the case of a white-passing infant adopted by white people? Does that person then have no claim to their African-American heritage?”

        First, let me clarify some terms that I’m going to use:

        Race: the social/cultural condition of being of a certain hereditary group

        Heredity: the biological/genealogical condition of being of a certain hereditary group

        I have a unique perspective on this because I’m mixed heritage (White/Hispanic) but appear completely White. Now, I’ve seen how Hispanic people are treated and it differs greatly from how I’m treated. So, in a racial sense, I am White. I know this. Because, in society, I’m not treated like a Hispanic. But, in terms of heredity, am I Hispanic? Absolutely. My heritage is an important part of who I am. People may not be able to see it from the outside, but they don’t see my sexuality, either. I’m not seen as a homosexual (people assume that I’m straight or bisexual for some reason), but does that mean I’m any less homosexual? Of course not. I only have relationships with people of the same sex and only have attractions to people of the same sex, so I am a homosexual. But, because race is about how others perceive you, when they perceive you as something else, they treat you as something else, thus changing your life experience. Likewise, my life experience as a homosexual is probably not the same as many others. But, such variations naturally exist. It is worth mentioning, though, that my knowledge of my Hispanic heritage and my homosexuality does change how the external treatment I receive is taken. After all, it is different to treat a mixed-heritage person as a White person than it is to treat a White person as a White person. It’s also different to treat a homosexual person as straight than it is to treat a straight person as straight. Sometimes it may be convenient to be treated as something you’re not (particularly if you’re in a potentially dangerous situation), sometimes it may not be. But, ultimately, it creates an issue to be treated like something you’re not, particularly when you know what you are is something else.

        “If an XY male born with androgen insensitivity is raised from birth as a girl, with all that entails in our society, would any of us claim that person was simply pretending to be female and couldn’t use female facilities?”

        This person is not female, they are intersex. If there are no intersex-specific facilities, it would not be reasonable to exclude them from the women’s room, or make them use the men’s room when they were raised as female. This is absolutely not the same situation as a transwoman who is entirely male, has no naturally intersex features, and was raised as a male.

        “But what about the case of a boy severely mistreated by his father who decides he wants nothing to do with being male, transitions (including surgery) early, passes as a woman, and then actually puts himself on the line for feminist causes? (I fully recognize the unlikelihood of this scenario!) What if he doesn’t correct people’s assumptions that he’s a woman?”

        That is called a lie of omission (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lying_by_omission). It is not morally supportable.

        “And, while I’m making up extreme examples, what if it turned out he was one of those rare cases of an XX person born with a male phenotype because of an SRY translocation? Would we then accept this person as female?”

        This person is not female, they are intersex. There is no reason to accept them as female when they factually are not. One might accept them as qualifying as “female” for social purposes, but that is at one’s own discretion. Depending upon those social purposes — for example, whether it is friendship or romantic/sexual love — there may be different criteria which a person has in regards to femaleness. But, factually-speaking, they are intersex and it would be more rational to simply treat them as such.

        “That would be analogous to finding out Rachel Dolezal really does have some African-American genetic heritage.”

        Yes it would, because both individuals would have misrepresented themselves either deliberately or through a personal delusion from the start, and then only found some factual basis for the misrepresentation later on. But, that doesn’t retroactively make their delusion/deception supportable. Either they were mentally ill and couldn’t make the moral decision, or they were deliberately manipulative and they made a wrong moral decision. It doesn’t matter if they find support later, it doesn’t retroactively change what happened in the past.

        “If we argue that the guy in the previous extreme example is still male because he was brought up a boy, however badly treated, then can those whose parents transition them young claim they’re actually members of the opposite sex?”

        No. Someone’s sex is determined on the basis of their reproductive capacity, not how they’re raised, treated, what they think, feel, or what they claim that their brain has the nature of. The definitions are about whether one produces sperm or produces eggs and is capable of giving birth. If someone is transitioned at too young an age, they may become sterile, and thus, sexually neuter. So, they will not have become the opposite sex, they will be sexless, according to the definition.

        “I think about these extreme cases in order to solidify my arguments against the trans insanity, because they’re the sort of examples that can lead others down the slippery slope to claptrap–like claiming Dolezal is immoral and Jenner heroic on account of race being real while biological sex is just a social construct?”

        Transgenderism used to be called transsexuality. But, then they realized that it’s not medically possible to change one’s sex, so the term “sex change” was slowly pushed out of the way to make room for “gender reassignment” — which is essentially the same exact set of procedures, just with a different name. Now, the problem with gender is that they assumed it to be a social construct…and it is. But, that’s not all it is. It doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Just like race is based upon heredity, gender is based upon sex. So, they can’t factually claim that it’s a matter of gender, either. Don’t get me wrong, they’re trying…they’re really, really trying. But, at the end of the day (and the dictionary definitions reflect this), gender is a social/cultural construct that is imposed upon you from the outside-in. The “gender identity” claims that people make are made from the inside-out by the individual. It is the exact opposite of gender. What these people are actually and factually referring to is a personal sense of identity that involves masculinity/femininity. It’s not gender. It’s their sense of individuality, their sense of self. Calling it “gender” or “gender identity” just seems like an attempt to ride the wave of pre-established, valid terminology…when it’s not even relevant. “Woman” as a gender is imposed on females because of their being female; “man” as a gender is imposed on males because of their being male. It ceases to have any relevance when mixed and matched. If anything, it doesn’t “trans” gender, it disregards it.

      • tnt666 Says:

        To gchild… Hundreds, thousands of pale people of colour have passed for white in the Americas. Of course someone can identify “up” if their physical traits allow it. Sure there’s always a risk of being found out, but until then, passing goes undetected.
        Same thing for females, whether in the macho far west cowboy days or sexist Islamic countries where females have no rights at all… females can eek out a life on their own, by pretending to be male, and until they’re found out, they lead a seemingly normal male life. Again, they “identify UP”.
        As for the females who have so much self-hatred that they identify as males in today’s world, my favourite female 90s author-musician-singer, Meryn Cadell (The Sweater) is now a tenured male professor in at UBC. She identified UP.
        Passing is crucial.
        The only way to get out of this marasm is to eliminate all identities. Create a just universal society, and identities will not be necessary.

      • afn Says:

        I disagree with @gchild on this. I don’t think that “You can identify your way down, but not up,” —you can’t identify down OR up, and doesn’t the Dolezal case prove this? She’s trying to identify “down” and it’s not working. No one, not even the most raging liberal, believes that Dolezal is black.

        Although skin color/complexion is a huge part of race, heritage is part of it, too. There is acknowledgment among all human cultures (as far as I know) that the history and culture of one’s “people” are part of one’s “birthright.” Who constitutes one’s “people” and one’s “birthright” is not a purely genetic, but also an historical fact about a person from birth.

        That fact about how race functions is why transracially adopted kids (e.g. black kid adopted & raised by white family, whether or not they can ‘pass’) ARE black and DO have a right to “blackness.” This is also why the fact that men are not women and don’t have a right to womanhood falls through the cognitive cracks for most people: most people don’t conceptualize females as a class or a distinct “people.” Of course, for feminists and woman identified women and lesbians, we DO believe that females have a shared history and culture, shared cultural knowledge (namely, feminism and woman-loving), and a heritage that is our birthright. It might do us some good to consider this as a movement.

    • Bev Jo Says:

      Yes, she did. She deliberately darkened her skin, permanented her hair, etc. I wouldn’t be surprised if she changed how she talked.

      Most people with awareness know that many African-descent people can look “white” and pass for Euro-descent. Working for the NAACP would add to that lie.

      But men who claim to be women are usually extremely obviously male, unless they are short and have had extensive facial reconstruction to alter their features.

      • gchild Says:

        “If it was a delusion, then it wasn’t morally wrong because she wasn’t capable of making a moral decision.”

        There is no need to speculate. She is not nor had she ever been deluded. She is not mixed race or transracial.

        Maybe she had a shitty childhood and wanted to identify her way out of it all.
        Fine.

        But if she really appreciated or loved black culture, or cared about that little black girl whose hair she combed and for whom she made all those black dolls (and with whom I think began her obbssession), she would NOT have exploited the struggle of black women for her own gratification and gain.

        And she certainly would not have posted naked pics of herself in blackface with ass- lenght microbraids and a jungle backdrop that looked like the lion’s den at the local zoo.

        Because she would care that black girls/women are often associated with and treated like actual animals–ugly, nappy-headed, unlovable, but very fuckable animals.

        Rachel Dolezal fetishizes being a black woman. She pulled all those made up oppression stories (lynch ropes, monkeys, die “nigger” letters) straight out of her wet dreams. That is all.

  18. silverside Says:

    Actually “Black” is hard to define, as many persons of color are interracial. In the US, even a tiny percentage of African heritage meant you were classified as Black back in the old days, meaning you were subject to the same discriminatory laws regardless of how “white” you looked. So, no, it’s not always easy to tell if somebody is “really white,” “really Black,” or something else entirely.

    • GallusMag Says:

      Interracial people don’t negate the existence of a genetically distinct population of African descent. See: Sickle Cell Anemia. They also don’t undo the demonstrable existence of a recognizable social caste of Black people exploited in America by a white supremacist culture that oppresses Black people for the benefit of whites. We may not be “back in the old days” but interracial people are still designated as “Non-White” the same way women and sex-role nonconforming males are designated as “Not Male”, in order to preserve the ruling class of “White” and “Male” respectively.

      Interracial and Intersex people don’t trouble those hierarchical castes, much less racist whites LARPing as Black and sexist men LARPing as women. And certainly not Blacks “passing” as white or Women “passing” as men.

      Not White and Not Male is the line.

      • rheapdx1 Says:

        What else needs to be mentioned is that, when You or I or others discuss how racism and sexism have morphed into something more insidious, the liberal default is: ‘we are not in the good old days’ or ‘our society has matured’.

        Granted, yes the society has made strides to remedy those sicknesses. No doubt on that score. But so has prejudice matured, as to where some have figured out, via trial and error…how to infiltrate and use the struggle of others, to further their own lives. And in turn, pat themselves on the back, with the ‘Duper’s Delight’ smirk when they look in the mirror. Case in point not just this transracial disgrace, but also the t folks who brag about ‘passing’.

        One other aspect that came across in the stateside interview. The stare….the look of ‘I have done nothing wrong and I am black, no matter what you say or any other evidence to the contrary’. If that seems familiar, it’s the LARP race version, of what the t brigade does. No logic in same, just repeating, ad nauseam the mantra.

        She, like Jenner are disgraces, but learning moments, as to how to spot narcissist-based delusional behavior.

      • Amareldys Says:

        A huge number of white Americans posess black ancestry,, particularly if their families came over early on… the one drop rules came along late in the game and by then a lot of mostly white mixed race peopke haf been assimilated into white society

      • hailie Says:

        I agree that interracial people don’t negate the existence of black people as a distinct group, nor do they negate the existence of genetically distinct populations (plural) of African descent. But these aren’t the same thing. Sickle cell is not a “black” (racial category) disease or an “African” (political and geographic category) disease, it is a “malarial” (environmental category) disease. Sickle cell is a disease about malaria, not race.

        If you were to look at a map that colors areas on Earth where malaria is red; and areas where populations with higher than average incidences of sickle cell come from blue; and areas where people with “dark” (“black”) skin are yellow … what you will get is a map that has a lot of purple, and a lot of yellow. That’s because where there is malaria there is sickle cell, but the global distribution of skin tone does not follow that same pattern.

      • GallusMag Says:

        Genetic adjustment to regional conditions: Ethnicity.

      • hailie Says:

        @rheapdx my go-to response to liberals who say “but we’ve come so far on women’s rights” is to ask them if they can name a few of the most important ways we have done that. Whatever they list (the vote, abortion rights, women entering the workforce, whatever) it almost definitely won’t include anything about a reduction in male violence against women. So all you have to do is point out that fact. Rape is still epidemic. Intimate partner violence is still epidemic. Sex trafficking is still epidemic. Men overwhelmingly commit violent crime against women. That’s what I say and it seems to give them pause.

    • rheapdx1 Says:

      In listening to this, one has to wonder why this person did not freeze their sperm BEFORE the operation.That way…even if the idea is repugnant to the person, at least a child (assuming there is a surrogate willing to engage in this) can be birthed.

      Also…with all the children (or even cats and dogs) needing homes, why is not ADOPTION a good option? Unless of course the narcissism is so deep, an obvious solution is not “viable”. So much for a thought of mothering instinct among the brigade.

      • Anonymous Says:

        While I share the general skepticism on trans, as well as some doubts about the damages paid for what was a voluntarily-sought procedure, it is worth noting that socialized medicine, as well as a lack of widespread practice of sperm and egg banking at that time, may have limited access to freezing of gametes.

        As for adoption, the scrutiny applied to prospective adoptive parents (including non-trans ones), as well as the psychological and physical trauma that many chjldren available for placement have suffered (not to mention the risk posed by international adoption of participating, however unwittingly, in the kidnapping and sale of infants) renders it a fundamentally different experience than procreating in a traditional or medically-mediated way.

        Even if one objects on feminist or other grounds to the practice of surrogacy or egg “donation,” one can at the same time recognize the desire to form a family minus the involvement of the social work apparatus, lifetime interaction with the birth family via open adoption, and/or the damage wrought by abusive or neglectful parenting in the family of origin.

      • Oak and Ash Says:

        It sounds as if he’s claiming he wasn’t “allowed” to freeze his sperm, but I wonder if he really means that the initial freezing and ongoing storage costs wouldn’t have been paid for by someone else.

        In this piece from Everyday Feminism (where else?), a transwoman writes about 4 ways to center transwomen in reproductive justice, including free and low-cost sperm storage, which he equates to paying for birth control pills for women!
        http://everydayfeminism.com/2015/11/trans-women-reproductive-justice/

        Those with weak stomachs should be warned that he refers to the return of his fertility after going off female hormones as becoming “pregnant with viable sperm.” Mercifully, he does not describe the process of giving birth.

      • rheapdx1 Says:

        This is another one of those ‘shake the head about the illogic’ moments.

        As much as I get there are those who are t and want to be parents (for an MTT to become have their body ready to give birth like a natal female is still in the realm of science fiction), one has to wonder if what was mentioned in the post, about the hurdles was/is an urban legend. Not being mean, but it read as such.

        Also…could it be that the reason why there are adoption barriers, has to do with the potential environment the child would be in? Before I get pilloried for saying that, considering that (pardon this, but it has to be said) quite a few POC MTT’s are not able to provide a safe environment due to less than legitimate work, those are reasons for denial. Yes we know there are straight/cis persons who should not be able to adopt due to said same reasons, but compared to the general population, they are not as numerous (stats on that can be found through the Census, etc).

        Also….when one looks at the ‘institutions’ that the POC t brigade have established to help take care of their own, would one want a child exposed to that, (seeing that these could be gateways to the world of the Mocks, etc) vis a vis a family structure that is more positive? Where there are more ladders and encouragement towards education and better fields of employment, etc?

        Then again….posing any of the above legitimate points would be called……’transphobic’. Oh the horror of sanity.

      • cerulean blue Says:

        Here’s the thing, @anonymous, no one– absolutely no one– has the right to have children. If a person chooses to mutilate himself that is his (stupid, shortsighted, narcissistic) choice. It does NOT mean the rest of us must pay to bank his sperm, or worse, provide an incubator to gestate his child a few years after his decision. Having children is not a human right, children– adopted or birthed– are not accessories, and uteri must not be available for rent because to do so is human trafficking.

      • cerulean blue Says:

        Ugh, and as for your last paragraph, if any or all of those are concerns, there’s a simple solution– don’t adopt. The way you are describing the adoption process sounds like someone complaining about the defects inherent in a used car. Yes, lots of adopted kids come with issues. But if a crappy “used” kid is not good enough for you, maybe you shouldn’t be a parent at all. Again, no one has the right to have kids.

      • Anonymous Says:

        Nowhere did I say that children are a right, nor did I endorse surrogacy.

        I am simply noting that the two experiences (adoption as it is practiced today) and assisted reproduction are not equivalent experiences. (I am not suggesting that adoption as practiced 40 or 50 years ago would be a better scenario for birth mothers, either.)

        I am supportive of adoption. While I might not see assisted reproduction as a morally viable option for myself, I still understand the impulse that motivates others to make that choice for themselves.

      • Dogtowner Says:

        @cerulean blue: Thank you very much for your wise and direct words. I am sick of the notion that somehow people have the right to reproduce themselves. People obsessed with bearing children or someone else bearing THEIR child are interested not in that unique being but in little copies of themselves, and then are often angered by the fact that the little copy has her own feelings and thoughts. No one coerced this man into mutilating himself, he was no longer a child, and Sweden must have too much money if they have enough to compensate these [fill in with your own choice of words].

      • cerulean blue Says:

        @Anonymous, please take your choosy-choice feminism somewhere else. “While I might not see confining impoverished third world women to barracks to gestate a stranger’s fetus as a choice that is absolutely right for me…” no, you didn’t say those exact words, but then again, it’s what you implied.

  19. GallusMag Says:

    From 2016. Dolezal did a TED talk they debated censoring.
    Here it is.
    http://blog.ted.com/rachel-dolezals-tedx-talk/


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: