White woman pretends to be black for prestige

[The Brain]

The royal wedding today used gospel music. The couple doesn't look very black to me.

[Razgovory]

I think it is about time you get fixated on some other sort of thing. You just look worse and worse as you continue this crusade against the transgendered.

Talking about it twice over the course of six months is now a crusade?

[Razgovory]

The hardship is real.

[garbon]

I think it is about time you get fixated on some other sort of thing. You just look worse and worse as you continue this crusade against the transgendered.

Talking about it twice over the course of six months is now a crusade?

I think you have more than two posts about this.

[garbon]

HuffPo and I agree to agree for once.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/12/rachel-dolezal-caitlyn-jenner_n_7569160.html

Why Comparing Rachel Dolezal To Caitlyn Jenner Is Detrimental To Both Trans And Racial Progress

When news broke that Rachel Dolezal, the Spokane NAACP chapter president and a professor of African-American Studies at Eastern Washington University, was a white woman who had pretended to be black for nearly a decade, the primary emotion people expressed was deep confusion, followed by denial and anger.

Black Twitter instantly descended on the story, hilariously deconstructing the situation with hashtags like #RachelDolezalPlaylist and #askrachel, while many -- including Dolezal's family members -- openly condemned her behavior. Her 22-year-old brother, Ezra Dolezal, told The Washington Post that what she's doing is effectively blackface, adding, "Back in the early 1900s, what she did would be considered highly racist. You really should not do that. It's completely opposite -- she's basically creating more racism."

And yet, despite overwhelming criticism, some commentators have questioned whether Dolezal has done anything wrong. Many have pointed to her living as a black woman as an example of something known as #transracial identity, even comparing Dolezal's story to Caitlyn Jenner's transition.

But let's make one thing clear: transracial identity is not a thing.

The idea that Dolezal's choice to publicly identify as a black woman --- one who occupied positions of power in spaces specifically designated for members of a marginalized group --- is the same as being a trans woman, simply doesn't add up.

What Dolezal did is culturally appropriative, and suggesting otherwise disrupts actual discussions about transgender identity and issues. (It's also worth noting that a white woman's decade-long deception has effectively hijacked the conversation about race, during a week where the nation was focusing on police brutality in McKinney, Texas.)

As Darnell L. Moore of Mic eloquently put it, "In attempting to pass as black, Dolezal falsely represented her identity. Trans people don't lie about their gender identities — they express their gender according to categories that reflect who they are."

Racial divisions may ultimately be a construct, Moore notes, but "skin color is hereditary." And it's skin color that primarily determines racial privilege, and the way others in the world interact with your racial identity.

Transracial identity is a concept that allows white people to indulge in blackness as a commodity, without having to actually engage with every facet of what being black entails -- discrimination, marginalization, oppression, and so on. It plays into racial stereotypes, and perpetuates the false idea that it is possible to "feel" a race. As a white woman, Dolezal retains her privilege; she can take out the box braids and strip off the self-tanner and navigate the world without the stigma tied to actually being black. Her connection to racial oppression is something she has complete control over, a costume she can put on -- and take off -- as she pleases.

While an undergrad at Bellhaven University in Mississipi, the now 37-year-old Dolezal was in Voice of Calvary, a "racial reconciliation community development project where black and whites lived together." After graduating, she applied to grad school at Howard University, earning a full ride scholarship, as a black woman, after submitting an art portfolio comprised solely of African-American portraits. It was around this time, Dolezal's parents claim, that she began actively presenting herself as a black woman, eventually working her way up to president of the Spokane NAACP in 2014. It seems that at some point, Dolezal's interest and fascination with blackness morphed into fetishization, exotification and actual erasure.

Amidst the many hilarious Dolezal-related memes, countless questions remain. Why would someone pursue this kind of deception for so long? And why did no one call Dolezal out until now? Details about the last 10 years of Dolezal's life have been trickling in, creating a hazy timeline of a woman seemingly determined to immerse herself in African-American culture. In an interview with The Washington Post, the Dolezals claim that their daughter's interest in black culture may have began during her teenage years, around the time they adopted two black sons.

Dolezal's Twitter account provides yet another public record of her desire to represent herself as black. She goes by @HarlemRenaissanc, tweeting things like "#Tyrese thinks #blackwomen are too independent. His reason for being single, or a preamble for why he's gonna choose white women?"

It's unclear what Dolezal believes her authentic racial identity to be -- she has yet to comment publicly, and actively dodged the question when a reporter asked her if she was African-American on June 10. "I don't understand the question," she answered, ending the interview abruptly.

But what is clear, is that she wanted to "pass" as black, in black-dominated spaces, going so far as to claim a black man -- to whom she is not related at all -- was her biological father on Facebook.

Dolezal's delusion and commitment to living as a black woman is profound. And it's inherently wrong. The implications of a white woman, donning blackness and then using that blackness in order to navigate black spaces is offensive. Her passing flies in the face of the countless black women who have had to pass as white in the history of this country, not because of a preference for or fetishization of whiteness, but purely out of survival. And comparing her life to Caitlyn Jenner's is an insult to Jenner's personal struggle. "I'm not doing this to be interesting. I'm doing this to live," she told Vanity Fair.

Dolezal is not trying to survive. She's merely indulging in the fantasy of being "other."

Perhaps the most unfortunate thing about the Dolezal story is that she has operated in activist spaces, and has consistently expressed a desire to actually help the advancement of black people. But as Twitter user @MoreAndAgain pointed out last night, Dolezal could have gone to Howard, taught African studies, and been a member of the NAACP without actively trying to imply through self-tanner and curly wigs that she was black. (The NAACP's statement, released this afternoon declaring that "one's racial identity is not a qualifying criteria or disqualifying standard for NAACP leadership," backs this assertion up.)

If Dolezal had lived her life as a visibly white ally, it would have been a powerful statement. Instead, she chose to actively lie about her identity, betraying the trust she had built within black activist spaces. There is the possibility, of course, that Dolezal's behavior goes far beyond mere white cluelessness and white appropriation, into the territory of mental illness. However, until she comments publicly, the drive behind her behavior remains a disturbing mystery.

Whatever the underlying motivations, comparing Dolezal's behavior to the real struggles of black and trans people is dangerous, irresponsible, and sets back the progress we've made in discourse on race and gender. Dolezal should not, and cannot, get a pass for passing.

[LaCroix]

Talking about it twice over the course of six months is now a crusade?

it's just kinda icky this time and feels uncharacteristic. you don't usually attack small, victimized groups often. libertarians and atheists arguably deserve attacks because they can be pretty ridiculous and have powerful supporters. trans people are still pretty dang fringe. it's like hating on eskimos.

[dps]

Talking about it twice over the course of six months is now a crusade?

it's just kinda icky this time and feels uncharacteristic. you don't usually attack small, victimized groups often. libertarians and atheists arguably deserve attacks because they can be pretty ridiculous and have powerful supporters. trans people are still pretty dang fringe. it's like hating on eskimos.

The thing is, I find it hard to intellectually refute his point.  As he said in the other thread, if someone thinks they're a giraffe, generally speaking we don't treat that with respect, we consider them deranged and try to get them help.  I don't see any compelling reason  that we should respond to someone who was born with a male body but thinks of themselves as female any differently.

I'm not saying that I agree with him--I'm not sure exactly how I feel about the whole issue--but just that I don't see any compelling logical reason to either agree or disagree.

[Razgovory]

Talking about it twice over the course of six months is now a crusade?

it's just kinda icky this time and feels uncharacteristic. you don't usually attack small, victimized groups often. libertarians and atheists arguably deserve attacks because they can be pretty ridiculous and have powerful supporters. trans people are still pretty dang fringe. it's like hating on eskimos.

It fucks with my filing system.  I also have a hard time shaking the feeling that we are patronizing people with a mental illness.  I don't hate these people anymore then I hate people with bulimia.  I am confused why one group of people wish to be recognized as something they physically aren't, is more worthy of respect then another group of people who wish to be recognized as something they physically aren't.

[LaCroix]

dps-

because there are more factors at play with sex than race or species. race is a social construct. there's nothing hard coded there. aside from one, slight genetic variance (skin color), an average black guy is the exact same as an average white guy. they think the same and act the same on a biological level. re: species, we're all human. nobody gives birth to a giraffe.

sex is different because there's an actual difference between males and females at a real biological level. studies are already suggesting that sexual identity for transsexuals forms at the same time as everyone else. i.e., transsexuals aren't suddenly deciding they should be the opposite sex later in life. at the same time the average guy starts to think he's a guy, the transsexual is starting to think she's a girl. as well, there are other studies that indicate transsexualism has a biological basis, not a mental basis.

moreover, the sexes act differently. mentioned earlier, a black guy acts no differently than a white guy because there is no actual difference between the two. that's not the case with sex. on a basic level, a woman will act (on some level) differently than a guy. so, it makes more sense that society should allow a transsexual who feels and thinks like a woman, by no fault of her own, to actually become a woman. it's correcting a mistake that occurred during development.

as an aside, some people think transsexualism is a mental disease like any other. we treat schizophrenia, so why not transsexualism? well, let's assume there is in fact a biological basis to transsexualism. the only difference then between a transsexual mind and a regular mind is this switch from (say) male to female in the mind. it's not the result of a deterioration of some component in the brain. it's not a deficiency anywhere that leads to erratic/eccentric behavior not seen in regular people of either sex. the transsexual thinks and feels like 50% of the population.

now, one could argue the mistake that occurred in development is the mind rather than body. after all, 99% (or whatever percent) of a transsexual's physical makeup is her actual sex, not the opposite sex. even if the transsexual is 1% female, everything else is male. this argument essentially places more importance on the body than the mind. if that 1% female caused the transsexual to think and feel like a female, than i think the 1% female is more important than the 99% that's male. i mean, the body is subservient to the mind - it's the mind's vassal. why is the mistake the person's selfhood than some body the self uses to interact with the world?

so, to sum it up, if a non-transsexual man decided at some point that he wanted to become a woman, i think that situation would be comparable to this white woman deciding to become a black woman. he would deserve mockery. but, i don't know how common that is - i suspect the vast majority of transgenders are true transsexuals.

[Admiral Yi]

First, no one, at least here, is saying gender reassignment surgery (or to use the new PC term, gender confirmation surgery) should be banned.

Second, what does it mean to say a boy felt like a girl and identified as a girl?  I certainly don't recall ever thinking to myself golly I feel like a boy and identify as a boy.

How is this distinct from homosexual impulses and effeminacy?

[Queequeg]

now, one could argue the mistake that occurred in development is the mind rather than body. after all, 99% (or whatever percent) of a transsexual's physical makeup is her actual sex, not the opposite sex. even if the transsexual is 1% female, everything else is male. this argument essentially places more importance on the body than the mind. if that 1% female caused the transsexual to think and feel like a female, than i think the 1% female is more important than the 99% that's male. i mean, the body is subservient to the mind - it's the mind's vassal. why is the mistake the person's selfhood than some body the self uses to interact with the world?

This.  By contrast an "effeminate homosexual" may just be signalling (think a male peacock signalling to another male peacock) or participating in a shared queer-trans culture. 

I generally find a lot of trans lit and rhetoric unconvincing and bizarre.  It's completely divorced from relevant cognitive sciences and steeped in a lot of new age "find myself" bullshit.  But if someone's brain is switched to one setting, their body to another, I don't feel like I am in a position where I can judge them for wanting to take what are to mind incredibly drastic measures.

[LaCroix]

First, no one, at least here, is saying gender reassignment surgery (or to use the new PC term, gender confirmation surgery) should be banned.

Second, what does it mean to say a boy felt like a girl and identified as a girl?  I certainly don't recall ever thinking to myself golly I feel like a boy and identify as a boy.

How is this distinct from homosexual impulses and effeminacy?

the argument was why we should accept transsexuals if we don't accept this woman, or that's how i saw the argument. i argued why - the person is female even if she was born male.

at least subconsciously, there's a point in childhood development where children start to accept their identities. with transsexuals, they accept the opposite identity. i suppose this is an instance where it's hard to really step into a transsexual's shoes because we were born non-transsexual. just like it's hard for some to imagine how dyslexia works. a person naturally tends to think that everyone thinks like him until he discovers otherwise. if you'd like a more in depth response, further research online might give you the answer: i don't know all the details.

homosexuality is muddled because "attraction" is really different than sexual identity. first, the number of truly hard coded homosexuals is probably smaller than the overall gay population. after all, bisexuals exist, and some gays might actually be bisexuals who for whatever reason preferred gaydom than straightdom. hell, bisexuality might be way more common than we think. i mean, history has shown that gay behavior can be somewhat common when a society is really into it. so, if a person is hard coded with the ability to make a choice to be gay, straight, or both, societal pressure could subconsciously influence that person to choose one option and never dabble into the other. i dunno.

also, we know attraction changes based on what we see. ide's love for facials probably comes from porn. porn influenced his sexual attraction - not to a different gender but to a certain sexual act. today, people are likely attracted to some different sexual acts than they were five hundred years ago. however, i have no idea whether attraction to a sexual act can extend to attraction to the same sex. i don't know whether it's possible for a "100% non-homosexual and non-bisexual" male to ever become conditioned to find a man attractive. sometimes, straight guys in prison actually fall in love with a man. while it's very probable this guy was actually a bisexual and just never knew it, who knows. my point is, there's a lot of shit going on with attraction, more so than with something so basic as sexual identity.

i think the stereotypical effeminate behavior seen in some gays is 100% constructed, either consciously or (more likely) subconsciously. some people have naturally dominant/submissive personalities, which could play a factor.

[Josquius]

The big problem with this woman is she isn't just going around claiming to be black. She is actively profiting from being black. She has based her entire career on it.
Transexuals tend not to do that.

[Valmy]

How can you be much whiter than that? What black person would say 'wrongskin'? Poser

[Razgovory]

Barack Obama has been passing as black for years.  He was a guy named Barry who went into the black community as an organizer and came out Barack.  Black people don't do that, they're already in the black community.