Moreover - if you support the exploratory process, plight, and rights of trans-gendered people, why do you mock and belittle those who identify as transracial?

I'm not particularly interested in the conservative opinion here, whereby they think transgendered *and* transracial are silly concepts not worthy of equal rights under the law.

I'm more interested in the progressive opinion - whereby in one respect, the cause of transgendered people is championed, yet on the flip side, the mere mention of transracial is a crime worthy of condemnation and clowning.

Do tell.

-->

-->

and what does it mean to be white and feel that they are in the wrong skin
do they mean they feel they are maasai? or korowai?
is it skin is it culture?

is it biracial and choosing what side you fall on?

is it the priviledge of embracing something as an outsider looking in?

It's within the realm of sovereign individuality and what may
be true for one person, isn't for another.

I don't think you can look at two transgendered people and ask
them these types of questions in order to ascertain a consensus
on what it means to be in a woman's body but to feel like you are a man, per se.

Alike, I would imagine people who identify as "trans-racial" all have different
experiences distinguishable from one another that brings them to a place
where they reject normative racial identity.


-->

i hope its quite clear that i dont understand this concept
outside of the story of this white woman
and even in that story i havent seen her explain what it means to be black
(except i guess being a (supposed) target of racial crimes. that's not a black identity. thats a consequence of)
so when someone says they feel that they are in the wrong race
and e.g if embracing black, are they saying they feel they are geechee?
creole?
or are they assuming a black american identity is just skin colour?
or a maasai just likes to wear red in the savannah?

i dont understand what sovereign individuality means.
perhaps you can give some examples tranrace people describing what their dysmorphia is.

and the reason i am not equating it to the transsexual identity is because i think i understand what that means
for some its the physical, for others its the physical and societal
for others it may just be the societal (definition of gender)

>where they reject normative racial identity.

which is?

Pretty sure VEX can attest to this just like most of his fellow NYC hipsters.

And I still don't have it completely worked out. But I race is about ancestry. It's about history. There isn't really room for fluidity in ancestry.

>And I still don't have it completely worked out. But I race
>is about ancestry. It's about history. There isn't really room
>for fluidity in ancestry.

Why not? Is it not the case the overwhelming majority of us are comprised of a plethora of ancestral lineages dating back to our very first, original humanoid ancestors? Isn't that - as a matter of DNA composition - evidence of an ethnic fluidity within our DNA?

I would argue there's more empirical evidence to support a transracial theory than a transgender theory - although I consider transgendered to be absolutely legitimate because it is my belief that regardless of what sex you are born as (male/female) - you are comprised of both masculine and feminine principles - but this is much more difficult to empirically demonstrate than that of a simple DNA tests which proves the "racial"/ethnic fluidity of a human.


-->

and that's kinda what I'm arguing against.

It's about history. Who are my people. Where do they come from. What's their history.

Because since we know that there are more genetic differences within races than between them, once you bring that kind of science into it, it falls apart.

-->

is part of the problem the distinction between race and culture? I mean....what does it mean to say 'I feel like a black man'. Isn't that a way of saying "I identify with black culture". It doesn't mean 'I think I have black skin"

I guess it doesn't provide the distinction you're looking for though. A transmale does not say 'I think I have a vagina'. They say "I identify with the gender roles that have been assigned to people with vaginas".

I don't know. I can't make the distinction. I tried to tackle it from a couple angles and have to admit....kept coming up blank.

I imagine that the lbgt community has language that differentiates between gender and race identities. I'd like to hear it too.

Maybe another way to put this is that two white people can have a baby. That baby can be male/boy, female/girl, can be intersex, can be somewhere in between. And it's perhaps reasonable to believe that somewhere along the line, something didn't quite line up the way that person feels they should.

But

Two white people cannot make a black baby. They cannot because their parents were not black, who can't because their parents were not black. Etc.

Like I said, I'm still grappling with this and it's articulation. But I think what I'm getting at is perhaps that gender identity is intrinsic or that it comes solely from within a person. There is a piece of racial identity that is instrinsic and comes from within, but a whole lot more of it is historical "baggage" so to speak. Race is expression of those two things and therefore isn't as fluid.

>Maybe another way to put this is that two white people can
>have a baby. That baby can be male/boy, female/girl, can be
>intersex, can be somewhere in between. And it's perhaps
>reasonable to believe that somewhere along the line, something
>didn't quite line up the way that person feels they should.
>
>But
>
>Two white people cannot make a black baby. They cannot because
>their parents were not black, who can't because their parents
>were not black. Etc.

I'm not sure I quite follow where you're going with this. If we're saying that
a person's claim to being "transracial" is invalid because both parents are considered to be of one "race", does that mean that a gay persons's claim to being gay is invalid if their parents
are both heterosexual?

The idea of 'transracial' challenges the black/white radicalization dynamic at its root,
so it would reject those as grossly simplistic and insufficient in order to accurately portray one's own composition. In other words, to say that one's parents are simply 'black' or 'white' is insufficient as it doesn't account for the myriad of lineages that likely are found within that person's DNA that do not fit into square boxes of 'black' and 'white'.



-->

To straight people can have a gay baby. Two gay people can have a straight baby. We know these things to be true.

But again, because race is historical, two black people cannot make an Asian baby.

and to get to the second part. We live in a white supremacist society in which ones race has meaning, history, a lived experience, and material realities. I don't think transracial challenges the black/white "radicalization dynamic" in any way in that it's not challenging the white supremacist power structure of most of the world. So if one is "trans racial" and saying "I feel black" what is it that you're really saying that you feel? Again, I think you're putting race far too much into DNA and genetics and leaving out the history, which I would argue is the more important piece of it.

The distinction is that race is empirical and quantifiable. Whereas gender is not.

I'm thinking that's the answer....not sure what it's gonna mean for the 'race is a social construct' crowd.

But most of us (to my knowledge) also agree that while race is a social construct, there are material benefits/consequences for ones race. We have made those real.

If two black people can't have an asian baby....it seems on first glance that race can't be a social construct.

Black people as a whole (meaning globally) have all the traits to create a child that could be classified as Asian.

In theory two white people could as well. Because Asian is not a race. It is a collection of physical traits which have some degree of variance i.e. skin color, hair texture, etc.

This is yet another example of how race is really just a term/practice/system meant to divide people.

>In theory two white people could as well.

attillah, i agree with you... in theory. in theory, communism works. in theory.

>But most of us (to my knowledge) also agree that while race
>is a social construct, there are material
>benefits/consequences for ones race. We have made those real.

But u have articulated a key distinction.
Race though man-made does have a dependent relationship on lineage. But then what about mixed kids? They may or may not experience the historical context of their given lineage often based on self-identification and physical appearance. Physical appearance also has a close relationship with race which makes it murky again.

I can't add anything more, or refute any of what you just said.

Race is messy.

I am minimalizing patriarchy.

I think I would need to consult a feminist woc to help me flesh this all out more.

the only oversight is that there is in historical baggage in regards to gender as well

patriarchy

but you make a good point

i'm working on it though.

...in that I can culturally appropriate from races from further down the privilege pyramid, but they can't appropriate back upward, whereas transgender is a lateral transition that can go either way.

The norms and mores surrounding race are also profoundly different than those of gender, despite overlap and similarities.

>The norms and mores surrounding race are also profoundly
>different than those of gender, despite overlap and
>similarities.

For sure - they aren't exactly the same by any stretch. But there is a power dynamic of privilege embedded in both gender and race.


-->

>>The norms and mores surrounding race are also profoundly
>>different than those of gender, despite overlap and
>>similarities.
>
>For sure - they aren't exactly the same by any stretch. But
>there is a power dynamic of privilege embedded in both gender
>and race.
>
>
>-->

A black man has generally held privileged positions of power before white women. See: Supreme Court Justices, U.S. Presidents, powerful positions within the papacy/church, CEOs etc..)

But ok - let's say that's conceded, so what?

That doesn't invalidate the legitimacy of trans-racial identity.

-->

And I'm going to disagree that blk men are more privileged than white women. Blk men have been lynched so looking, being near and sometimes innocently murdered bc of how much white men value white women more than blk men.

if by "trans-racial" they mean "racism is over" - then yea, that's just an absurd concept and ceases to have any meaning.

if by "trans-racial" - they mean moving beyond conventional models of race classification in an attempt provide more robust and expansive models of self-identification - then that has validity (scientifically, socially, and culturally).

>And I'm going to disagree that blk men are more privileged
>than white women. Blk men have been lynched so looking, being
>near and sometimes innocently murdered bc of how much white
>men value white women more than blk men.

For sure - but you said "privileged." Privilege tends to refer to power/opportunity/access to positions of power/prestige - and black men have attained positions of power and risen on the ladder of hierarchal power within authoritative positions before white women in many instances in this country. But if we're talking about who is profiled and subjected to racism and prejudice? Obviously it's not even a debate.


-->

Post racial is more about race not being a determining factor but still acknowledging that race exists.

I personally don't believe in it as it's pretty self referential. The problem with this woman is that she took generalizations of what it means to be a blk women and that was stupid and short sighted. Her definition is so limiting. And at the end of the day she can run back to her whiteness and be ok. Same with anyone who's white that grew up around mostly blk folks. They might culturally identify as blk but they aren't ethnically and will not be treated as such in society.

It's easy to say that we are conventional to ideas of race when you're in a position of privilege and you are the majority. When we are given equal citizenship perhaps we can talk about fluidity.

>The problem with this woman is that she took
>generalizations of what it means to be a blk women and that
>was stupid and short sighted. Her definition is so limiting.

What was her definition?

>And at the end of the day she can run back to her whiteness
>and be ok. Same with anyone who's white that grew up around
>mostly blk folks. They might culturally identify as blk but
>they aren't ethnically and will not be treated as such in
>society.

well first of all, what does "ethnically black" even mean? Black
is not an ethnicity. Also, Rachel was considered to be racially black - because in America - we consider a wide range of hues/skin tones/features to be within the parameters of "black". Further, If we're saying that it's even possible to culturally identify with being 'black' then that's an admission that it's a concept amenable to fluidity.

As for her "running back to her whiteness" - what experience do you have with being perceived as 'white', identifying w/ something else - and then 'running back to whiteness'? How do you know what that's like such that you are qualified to speak on that? And you say that they "will not be treated as black in society." Well, wasn't Rachel Dolezal treated as "black" until this morning?

>It's easy to say that we are conventional to ideas of race
>when you're in a position of privilege and you are the
>majority. When we are given equal citizenship perhaps we can
>talk about fluidity.

Interestingly - this argument is never used in a trans-gender analysis. Meaning, I don't hear you (or others in this thread) saying things like: "it's easy to say we are being conventional about gender when you're in a position of privilege. When women are afforded equal rights in society then we will talk about gender fluidity."

Yet, women still aren't treated as equal and are subjected to patriarchal hierarchy and conventionalism, but that doesn't stop us from exercising a fluidity analysis as it pertains to gender.


-->

>>The problem with this woman is that she took
>>generalizations of what it means to be a blk women and that
>>was stupid and short sighted. Her definition is so limiting.
>
>What was her definition?

um, really? look at her. look at how she chose to represent herself, braids, headwrap, going "natural."

>
>well first of all, what does "ethnically black" even mean?
>Black
>is not an ethnicity. Also, Rachel was considered to be
>racially black - because in America - we consider a wide range
>of hues/skin tones/features to be within the parameters of
>"black". Further, If we're saying that it's even possible to
>culturally identify with being 'black' then that's an
>admission that it's a concept amenable to fluidity.

Black IS an ethnicity, i don't know why you would think it wasn't. we have a shared experience that is unique to us. rachel was considered to be racially black because that's how she presented herself and that's what she told people she was. she darkened her skin, put in braids, headwraps, all physical dressings that are associated with (but not representative of all) blk women.you are confusing culture with ethnicity, they are two different things. my husband is culturally american (and blk american) but he is ethnically blk w/roots from the south. white folks are always trying to define what black is to black people.
>
>As for her "running back to her whiteness" - what experience
>do you have with being perceived as 'white', identifying w/
>something else - and then 'running back to whiteness'? How do
>you know what that's like such that you are qualified to speak
>on that? And you say that they "will not be treated as black
>in society." Well, wasn't Rachel Dolezal treated as "black"
>until this morning?
>
please don't act obtuse about this. you are seriously going to tell me that if she took off the black face she wouldn't be treated like a white woman? she was treated as blk BECAUSE SHE PRESENTED HERSELF THAT WAY. she's a pathological liar. she lied about her brother being her son. she made all kinds of crazy tweets making statements about being a blk woman and being discriminated against. that chick has mental health issues.

and yes, i AM qualified to speak on this as i know what it is to be a black woman. what seems to be ignored is that she is making a mockery of blk women.

>>It's easy to say that we are conventional to ideas of race
>>when you're in a position of privilege and you are the
>>majority. When we are given equal citizenship perhaps we can
>>talk about fluidity.
>"
>
>Yet, women still aren't treated as equal and are subjected to
>patriarchal hierarchy and conventionalism, but that doesn't
>stop us from exercising a fluidity analysis as it pertains to
>gender.
>
>
transgender and transracial can no way be compared, and is in fact and insult to transgender people. to use my husband's example, if i were raised deserted island, i'd 1.still be a woman and 2. wouldn't be blk. that categorization is only true when i'm in a society of people that have chosen to define me that way because they see white as the default, when it can't be.

and we are going to have to agree to disagree because i still think white women are still have more privilege and power than blk men.

which is fine...

but note: nobody is trying to tell people how they should feel or self-categorize, except perhaps a number of people in this post telling this woman Rachel how she should feel and how she should self-identity.

The irony is that those same people stand in defense of transgendered people to have the open, creative space to self-identity and feel the way they feel, but when it comes to race - it's an entirely different philosophical process.

It's an interesting discussion - and perhaps not yet ripe enough to be made sense of on a larger, societal scale.

-->

>which is fine...
>
>but note: nobody is trying to tell people how they should
>feel or self-categorize, except perhaps a number of people in
>this post telling this woman Rachel how she should feel and
>how she should self-identity.
>
>The irony is that those same people stand in defense of
>transgendered people to have the open, creative space to
>self-identity and feel the way they feel, but when it comes to
>race - it's an entirely different philosophical process.
>
>It's an interesting discussion - and perhaps not yet ripe
>enough to be made sense of on a larger, societal scale.
>
>-->

guess we're back to square one.

-->

A feminist could just as easily say (and have done so) that a man who identifies as a woman can "appropriate from further down the privilege pyramid, but they can't appropriate back upward".

if you take from us, and we take from you...we still taking from you.

that right there...IS racism


does it really matter?

wonder what bin's doing?
http://i.imgur.com/phECCMp.jpg

***
I'm tryna be better off, not better than...

.

because let a nigerian come over here, Didier Drogba his hair and dye it blonde and start telling people he's white.

People from all sides will quickly shoot him down in trying to reap the benefits of whiteness.

All the more reason to have distinct language to shoot it down.

*have* passed? They were able to pass because they looked enough like white people to be able to do it, more than anyone granting them anything. I guess you could argue that that's a form of privilege, but it's not, really. I have family who could pass for Asian, if they really wanted to. Before the mid-20th century it was *not* a privilege to be Asian, though.

whatever that percentage is, they are part of white, so to claim one race and not the other isn't necessarily the same thing. And to that point, most ppl who passed were doing so to avoid hardships in life...this was prevalent during slave times and immediately
post-slavery. Currently very few people do this and those who do, do so to AVOID discrimination, not to use it as a platform to get more money.

-->

>because let a nigerian come over here, Didier Drogba his hair
>and dye it blonde and start telling people he's white.
>
>People from all sides will quickly shoot him down in trying to
>reap the benefits of whiteness.

A 6'3" dude cuts off his johnson, gets boobs, starts wearing women clothes and tells people he is a woman won't people from MOST sides quickly shoot him in down in trying to reap the benefits of womanhood?


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson


"One of the most important things in life is what Judge Learned Hand described as 'that ever-gnawing inner doubt as to whether you're

so they're going to develop a more female-aligned physiology, save for bottom surgery.

As of current, there's nothing science can do to change your ethnic/racial makeup at that deep of a level. Maybe one day.

>As of current, there's nothing science can do to change your
>ethnic/racial makeup at that deep of a level.

Give it some thought.

___________________________________________________________


DJTB YOMM

.

______________________________
http://i.imgur.com/81XSukd.jpg <-- Happy trails

.
.
.
"Romans 10 : 9 says, "If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,”
and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead,
you will be saved."

.
.
.
"Romans 10 : 9 says, "If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,”
and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead,
you will be saved."

i think if we are going to fight for identity as individually-defined in personal and emotional ways...it defeats the (already questionable) purpose of those divisions in the first place

one random small example...transgender MtF woman MMA fighter beat the living brakes off a genetic female woman and it was controversial as hell

that division has purpose and use...to make that division so malleable is problematic imho not bc i care that his genetic male wants to live life as a woman without having to actually face the female life choices that are closely tied to womanhood to some extent

i think both are problematic bc nobody seems capable of letting the divisions go...

i'm ok with the further deterioration (shit, im all for it) of gender roles...and possibly race related cultural traits as well but I think there are societal impacts that should be thought out with less #TEAMConservative and #TEAMProgressive and more balance, pragmatic, and a big-picture rather than an individualist and emotional ideas about how identity should be treated and it's purpose in our society in general

It's entirely possible that our approach to sexual identity creates scenarios that are ripe for opportunism. (ie the UFC thing) More clearly, just because someone manipulated gender identity to their benefit does not mean that society will not be better off, as a whole, by seeing gender identity as fluid. I guess what I'm saying....a few particular situations and examples should not guide our worldview.

And sports, by their nature, are NEVER 'equal' anyways. Our genes and DNA pre-determine a large majority of it even when gender advantages are neutralized.

>i think both are problematic bc nobody seems capable of
>letting the divisions go...

The divisions make sense of the world for some people - and in their minds - they think that being 'male' loses meaning when a woman can simply choose to become male.

But is that person correct? I'd say no, they are trying to project their own experience of what it means to be 'male' as what the consensus opinion should be on what's male/masculine < always a recipe for disaster because of how wholly distinctive and individualistic each of us are.

>i'm ok with the further deterioration (shit, im all for it) of
>gender roles...and possibly race related cultural traits as
>well but I think there are societal impacts that should be
>thought out with less #TEAMConservative and #TEAMProgressive
>and more balance, pragmatic, and a big-picture rather than an
>individualist and emotional ideas about how identity should be
>treated and it's purpose in our society in general

Agreed - and it wasn't the best way to phrase the debate (as being conservatism versus progressivism) as that's a duality polarization in itself. However, I do find it interesting when progressives apply wholly different philosophical processes when embracing transgendered rights on one-hand, and flatly rejecting transracial theory on the other.

-->

..the concept of race doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
We use race as a proxy for ancestry/ethnicity...except
for when we don't. See also the black vs Black dustups here.
That said, if someone wants to identify as black, and they
can get everybody else to view them as black (because
arguably the distinguishing feature of being black in this
country is that everybody else sees you as black), then
it's fine with me. It's not like race is some sacred,
super-scientific designation.

I think in this recent case though, the issue is that
non-crazy people don't tend to do this sort of stuff.

>..the concept of race doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
>We use race is as a proxy for ancestry/ethnicity...except
>for when we don't. See also the black vs Black dustups here.
>That said, if someone wants to identify as black, and they
>can get everybody else to view them as black (because
>arguably the distinguishing feature of being black in this
>country is that everybody else sees you as black), then
>it's fine with me. It's not like race is some sacred,
>super-scientific designation.

Right - in fact, how we presently apply "race" via societal census
is decisively unscientific.

>I think in this recent case though, the issue is that
>non-crazy people don't tend to do this sort of stuff.

lol


-->

nm

with the capital B embracing a cultural and social identity
that is a consequence and result of having lived in a different society
from us continental blacks, who actually dont understand what black as an identity means
(shit, im dinka. there's tribe. that is an embrace of a culture and lineage that the B, who no longer has that
says, well we got a culture and lineage too that we want to distinguish from others
i think that's valid. its not an individualistic claim. its a communal claim.
much like tribe is communal.

>..the concept of race doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
>We use race as a proxy for ancestry/ethnicity...except
>for when we don't.

exactly. in this country it is a proxy for a shared identity - much like we use tribe as a proxy for a shared identity
even when its skin deep. but even within that there are a multitude of sub-communities
black-geechee, black creole or whatever else
and whatever the white equivalent is
so it even ends up not being necessarily skin deep

...and instead everybody in this country saw each other in
terms of specific ethnic tribes.

Would black tribes and Black tribes still fuck with each other?
Would white tribes and White tribes still fuck with each other?
Would tribalism be as bad as racism?
Or would history repeat itself because for this country race is inevitable?

>
>with the capital B embracing a cultural and social identity
>that is a consequence and result of having lived in a
>different society
>from us continental blacks, who actually dont understand what
>black as an identity means

black in that regard is more of a cultural identifier than a racial one - which is why people like Rachel Dolezal claim association with that cultural identity - whether people deem it legitimate or not. Still, she likely has more familiarity with that identity than a continental african - whom by your own words, "actually doesn't understand what black as an identity means."

-->

>>
>>with the capital B embracing a cultural and social identity
>>that is a consequence and result of having lived in a
>>different society
>>from us continental blacks, who actually dont understand
>what
>>black as an identity means
>
>black in that regard is more of a cultural identifier than a
>racial one - which is why people like Rachel Dolezal claim
>association with that cultural identity - whether people deem
>it legitimate or not.

it is both a cultural identifier and a racial one. Dolezal claimed associatiton with both.


Still, she likely has more familiarity
>with that identity than a continental african - whom by your
>own words, "actually doesn't understand what black as an
>identity means."

in an academic sense perhaps. but she claimed it as a racial identity as well, which she does not, and can not, have more familiarity with.

>That said, if someone wants to identify as A WOMAN, and they
>can get everybody else to view them as A WOMAN (because
>arguably the distinguishing feature of being A WOMAN in this
>country is that everybody else sees you as A WOMAN), then
>it's fine with me. It's not like GENDER is some sacred,
>super-scientific designation.

They want to be identified as a woman or man just like a transracial person (this is going to be a thing by the end of the day lol) wants to be identified as black, white, whatever.

A major fight is over how they are recognized

race is an artificial and unscientific construct. gender is not.

end of story.

d

I guess that's why this is such a slippery slope argument

If someone says that they are missing an x chromosome that sounds very similar to someone saying that they are missing a certain amount of melanin

Free love y'all

besides skin color, there aren't any identifying traits that make someone black.

Considering humans all start off as female in the womb, there are legitimate arguments about the biological aspects of transgender folks.

Transrace people aren't born that way and won't be.

Transrace is where I turn into a bigot.

If I have to identify which Ron I'm talking about at work, I'm not going to call Ron "transracial Ron." No nigga it's white Ron, not the black Ron.

>besides skin color, there aren't any identifying traits that
>make someone black.
>
>Considering humans all start off as female in the womb, there
>are legitimate arguments about the biological aspects of
>transgender folks.

Like sex, I am pretty sure all fetuses are indinstinguishably by race early in their development and develop racial characteristics later in development.

>
>Transrace people aren't born that way and won't be.
>
>Transrace is where I turn into a bigot.
>
>If I have to identify which Ron I'm talking about at work, I'm
>not going to call Ron "transracial Ron." No nigga it's white
>Ron, not the black Ron.

I am going to say usetabe white Ron.

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson


"One of the most important things in life is what Judge Learned Hand described as 'that ever-gnawing inner doubt as to whether you're

are we calling this transrace? as an example
because this to me is imitation (and perhaps the best form of flattery)
but in no way shape or form would i consider this some sort of transracial identity
for numerous reasons, one being that its based on a conception of what 'african american' is, that is divorced from the
every day reality of what being black in america is/may be

http://www.vice.com/read/b-style-japan-desir-van-den-berg-photos

designed to look like American ghettos.

I remember there was a white hip hop group called 'Young Black Teenagers'. When asked in an interview about their name....they responded 'Being black is a state of mind'.

'Being black is a state of mind'.

yet another way to minimize the black experience

aka levels of priviledge

I din't know that was actually him. He's the same guy that said 'Being black is a state of mind' in the interveiw I saw.

The Japanese do not have white supremacy, slavery, or Jim Crow in their history. Anything they accept as black will be viewed from a completely different angle and be completely devoid of the things that charge the issue here in the U.S.

Also darkening skin or teeth has been a thing in their culture for many years and in some cases centuries.

>The Japanese do not have white supremacy, slavery, or Jim
>Crow in their history. Anything they accept as black will be
>viewed from a completely different angle and be completely
>devoid of the things that charge the issue here in the U.S.

it won't be completely devoid of those things, it will just be seen through the lens of what they get from portrayals in media//pop culture. which is generally not a good portrayal.

>Also darkening skin or teeth has been a thing in their culture
>for many years and in some cases centuries.

darkening their skin? japanese women have been lightening/avoiding the darkening of their skin for centuries.

then i bet the farm that no one would be able to successfully go/claim/become white

and no

im not pointing out whiteness on some "the whitemans ice is colder" shit

im talking about it purely from a social benefits standpoint

they would not give that shit up. it would never be granted.

no model minority asian would be allowed in. ever.

But a society might choose to not acknowledge a trans person's identity as well. The whole point is that we're trying to encourage society to do so. So the counter argument would be 'Then we need to convince society to see these transrace black/asian people as white out of respect for their identity' (just like we need to convince society to see Caitlyn Jenner as a woman).

Tell them that it will be commonplace and widely accepted to refer to a man as 'she'.
We don't know what kind of world we will be living in in the future.

see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-Spirit

for example


i mean....shit, im trying to see the future with todays eyes and i cant see it

i wont be an angry denier because if this picks up steam then i will have to go with it

There's a cognitive dissonance here. We want people to be able to define themselves.....but we don't want someone like Chet Haze taking advantage of our framework by claiming victim status for an identity that he does not (by our perception) 'truly' identify with.

So why don't we sacrifice the rule that we HAVE to take people at their word?

If a trans person stands to gain something tangible (ie they are a 'born male' who wants to compete in ladies basketball) then it's OK if we question their motives? If a white person wants to identify that they're black because they romanticize a perceived victim-status in doing so....then it's OK if we question them.

Perhaps the problem is that we didn't leave room to call people out when we think they are manipulating our framework. I can't see any tangible reason why Caitlyn Jenner would proclaim a new identity other than that she genuinely feels that way. So I have no reason to question her sincerity. But that doesn't have to be the case. We should feel free to call bullshit when we see it.

the reason I made this post is because I think it's interesting when people are accepting of one's identity in one instance, but wholly judgmental in another instance.

This is a fascinating topic because it challenges people's philosophical foundations on social identity.


-->

meaning - many tend to recognize the autonomy and sovereignty of an individual when it comes to expressing their gender/sex fluidity. If they want to identity as bi/gay/trans - we tend to say "it is their right to identify as they choose and identify with whatever resonates w/ them most" < and this is the appropriate, tolerant course of action.

But when it comes to race - it's far more sticky to most. We (we being general society) don't necessarily seem to want to afford that same autonomy and creative space to self-identity - because of a lot of strong personal beliefs and rigid definitions on what "race" means and how it functions in society.

Interestingly, we still hold on to and deem as legitimate the concept of "race" as it was constructed hundreds of years ago. We have challenged conventional norms of "beauty" - and now "gender" - but when it comes to "race" - we are still very rigid and conventional - and that likely has to do with it being arguably the most polarizing facet of american society.

But at the end of the day - if the principle is to tolerate and accept a person's right to self-identify, how is it ever an acceptable course of action to say "no, that's impermissible, we will decide for you who you are" ?

-->

While folks may get the side eye for claiming to be a different race than they appear to be, they're often free to adopt or embrace almost all of the cultural aspects of the race without much blowback. I think gender is different in that there are greater reprcussions for attempting to adopt gender non-conforming attributes.

>While folks may get the side eye for claiming to be a
>different race than they appear to be, they're often free to
>adopt or embrace almost all of the cultural aspects of the
>race without much blowback.

Sure - and a transgendered person (born male) who chooses to identify as "female" can
embrace all the cultural aspects of femininity and gender without much blowback, also.

So what?

-->

>But at the end of the day - if the principle is to tolerate
>and accept a person's right to self-identify, how is it ever
>an acceptable course of action to say "no, that's
>impermissible, we will decide for you who you are" ?

Answer: it's acceptable when we have reason to believe that they are lying.

So tolerating and accepting a person's right to self-identity does not have to be a hard and fast principle. There can be room for us to acknowledge when an individual attempts to manipulate the framework. Might that lead us into sometimes denying an identity to someone who genuinely deserves it? Perhaps. But there's no policy we can follow that isn't gonna be messy.

I'm not prepared to let everybody define themselves however they want. If Chet Haze insists that I refer to him as a black man....I'm not going to. I know this is a no-no in identity politics discourse but I don't care. I feel fine in not having to adhere to a strict principle of tolerance and respect. People lie sometimes.

>
>>But at the end of the day - if the principle is to tolerate
>>and accept a person's right to self-identify, how is it ever
>>an acceptable course of action to say "no, that's
>>impermissible, we will decide for you who you are" ?
>
>Answer: it's acceptable when we have reason to believe that
>they are lying.

that's messy. Who is the qualified arbiter equipped to determine if somebody is 'lying' about their gender/race self-identification?

>I'm not prepared to let everybody define themselves however
>they want. If Chet Haze insists that I refer to him as a
>black man....I'm not going to. I know this is a no-no in
>identity politics discourse but I don't care. I feel fine in
>not having to adhere to a strict principle of tolerance and
>respect. People lie sometimes.

This is kinda an over-reach to make a point. When has Chet Haze ever
insisted that people refer to him as a black man?


-->

>
>that's messy. Who is the qualified arbiter equipped to
>determine if somebody is 'lying' about their gender/race
>self-identification

Just as their identity belongs to them....my perception belongs to me. So that makes me the arbiter. If I'm wrong...they still have their identity and I have my wrong perception. I perceive Caitlyn Jenner to be a woman but it needn't HAVE to be that way.




>>I'm not prepared to let everybody define themselves however
>>they want. If Chet Haze insists that I refer to him as a
>>black man....I'm not going to. I know this is a no-no in
>>identity politics discourse but I don't care. I feel fine
>in
>>not having to adhere to a strict principle of tolerance and
>>respect. People lie sometimes.
>
>This is kinda an over-reach to make a point. When has Chet
>Haze ever
>insisted that people refer to him as a black man?
>

Isn't that what we're talking about? A transrace person? Forget I mentioned Chet Haze then. A white dude who says he identifies as a black male.

>Just as their identity belongs to them....my perception
>belongs to me. So that makes me the arbiter. If I'm
>wrong...they still have their identity and I have my wrong
>perception. I perceive Caitlyn Jenner to be a woman but it
>needn't HAVE to be that way.

Sure - that's fine, as long as we're not saying that equal rights under the law is contingent upon the whims and subjectivity of a person's personal prejudices.

In other words - should Caitlyn Jenner be allowed to identify as a woman, under the law? Or should we hold some type of special court to adjudicate whether or not we will allow Caitlyn to be identified as "female" on her driver's license, based on whether we think she's lying or not?


-->

And that is certainly problematic. I'm not sure how the law should work and it's relevant to things like status benefits and such.

assuming that's the reason someone would want to identify as transracial
transgender people from what I understand (admittedly very little) identify as such because of their inner feelings of masculinity/femininity/attractions so on
but i don't think people wake up and say they feel their race internally
what is that?
how does someone feel black without any societal context that identifies them as such?
if it's based on the things they identify with culturally (like music or clothes or taste in a partner), that doesn't require that a person's skin be a certain color to embrace it
so i don't think the comparison is an appropriate one.
or if it is, i can't wrap my head around it.

-----
No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public. (c) HL Mencken or some other motherfucker.

>but i don't think people wake up and say they feel their race
>internally
>what is that?
>how does someone feel black without any societal context that
>identifies them as such?

How does someone feel male/female without any societal context that identifies them as such?

It's not necessary that you understand how somebody might wake up and "feel like a woman" - most people accept that person's right to feel that way and afford them to creative space to self-identify.

Why is your comprehension necessary in order to validate somebody who feels like their census report "race" categorization isn't sufficient to identify them.

>if it's based on the things they identify with culturally
>(like music or clothes or taste in a partner), that doesn't
>require that a person's skin be a certain color to embrace it
>so i don't think the comparison is an appropriate one.

I think what's confusing about this topic is that we still don't really have a strong sense of what "race" is - likely because it's a flimsy construct that is wholly limited, which is why "transracial" theory even developed in the first place.




-->

if we're gonna make the transgender/transracial comparison
one i can wrap my head around (albeit a little bit)
because i can understand a person feeling femininity while existing in a body that we identify as male
or vice versa
however it's been described to me, it usually involves some iteration of feeling born in a body that they would like to alter

the other idea of being born in a race that isn't correct or wanting to change race i don't understand because i don't know what its based on
is it a feeling that the person should have been born a different race and that person spends their life knowing they should have been asian/white/black/italian whatever?
is there some inherent discomfort that plagues them that drives them to attempt to change their race?
is there such thing as changing your race (i.e. racial reconstructive surgery)?
i'm not trying to get anyone to prove or validate anything to me personally
i'm just trying to understand the parallel of transgender and transracial
if there is one

-----
No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public. (c) HL Mencken or some other motherfucker.

There was a time when people were similarly flabbergasted about the notion of transgender, and wondered how it worked, what it looked like, how they could ever make any kind of sense of it, etc...

>the other idea of being born in a race that isn't correct or
>wanting to change race i don't understand because i don't know
>what its based on
>is it a feeling that the person should have been born a
>different race and that person spends their life knowing they
>should have been asian/white/black/italian whatever?
>is there some inherent discomfort that plagues them that
>drives them to attempt to change their race?
>is there such thing as changing your race (i.e. racial
>reconstructive surgery)?
>i'm not trying to get anyone to prove or validate anything to
>me personally
>i'm just trying to understand the parallel of transgender and
>transracial
>if there is one

All valid questions - and a larger discussion should be had on this. Where we have traditionally encountered the concept of 'transrace' is with somebody like Tiger Woods, who chooses to identify with a certain percentage of his ethnic makeup moreso than other percentages. This is something that so called "interracial" people experience all of the time, and they often choose to identify with what's easiest and most accepted by general society.

But when they don't accept what's easiest and most accepted by general society, there is an immediate rush to judgment and an incredulous tone. However, what makes this discussion interesting is that we all (well, most of us) accept that race is an illusory construct, as such, it's a malleable concept that evolves as cultural norms do. The parallel is that we often refer to race as skin-tone as we do gender to sexual equipment/genitalia -- but just as that sexual equipment sometimes doesn't accurately reflect who the person feels like they are possessing that sexual equipment, a particular skin-tone (identified as 'race') may not accurately reflect who that particular person feels that they are. Why would people feel like this? Perhaps because the human lineage dates back thousands and thousands of years whereby our DNA is literally comprised of a myriad of ethnicities and "races" - such that the notion of identifying just as one becomes wholly limiting for some people.


-->

That's been repeated throughout this thread. It's just not true.

Sexual attraction may not need societal context but transgender ism is not the same as homosexuality.

Expression of transgender absolutely involves societal context. The transgenderism of Brazil is expressed very different from the transgendered of San Francisco or Thailand.



>assuming that's the reason someone would want to identify as
>transracial
>transgender people from what I understand (admittedly very
>little) identify as such because of their inner feelings of
>masculinity/femininity/attractions so on
>but i don't think people wake up and say they feel their race
>internally
>what is that?
>how does someone feel black without any societal context that
>identifies them as such?
>if it's based on the things they identify with culturally
>(like music or clothes or taste in a partner), that doesn't
>require that a person's skin be a certain color to embrace it
>so i don't think the comparison is an appropriate one.
>or if it is, i can't wrap my head around it.
>
>-----
>No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the
>American public. (c) HL Mencken or some other motherfucker.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson


"One of the most important things in life is what Judge Learned Hand described as 'that ever-gnawing inner doubt as to whether you're

-----
No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public. (c) HL Mencken or some other motherfucker.

if your chromosomes made you a male.

it's independent of any external influences


many trans people express from a young age that they don't fit into gender norms


for example: (1:35 mark)

a trans woman describes how, as a young boy in first grade, she would express herself as a girl
http://1drv.ms/1QUhrJR


so called "trans race," which is really cultural affinity, is
entirely dependent on your surroundings. no white child is born
with something inside of them that makes them feel "Black"

I think some examples are in order.

And still waiting for examples and how they define this
If it's black what does that mean exactly

The argument here seems to be based purely on vague hypothetical scenarios and, as you may notice, is only being advanced by heterosexual men. It's like they are frantically looking for a "Gotcha!" moment to hold over LGBT folks' heads. I'm a let them keep looking lol.

once upon a time there was no such thing as a transgendered person
walking around. People are using everyone from Tom Hanks' son, to this
NAACP woman, to Tiger Woods in this post to make varying points about
'transrace' - but it's a theoretical discussion - of course hypotheticals are
being discussed.

>The argument here seems to be based purely on vague
>hypothetical scenarios and, as you may notice, is only being
>advanced by heterosexual men. It's like they are frantically
>looking for a "Gotcha!" moment to hold over LGBT folks' heads.
>I'm a let them keep looking lol.

not sure how that 'gotcha!' moment would work for me as a heterosexual
male, because I have nothing to hold over LGBT folks' heads except
their constitutional, human, and universal rights.



-->

Although you're trying to isolate the discussion, we can't escape the fact that the only reason we're talking about transrace is because it's being wielded in defense of Rachel, whose story is being compared to that of transgender people. That comparison is most often an act of bigotry, meant to belittle the lives of real, breathing transgender men and women rather than to uplift transracial people, whom you admit only exist to you theoretically.

>once upon a time there was no such thing as a transgendered
>person
>walking around. People are using everyone from Tom Hanks'
>son, to this
>NAACP woman, to Tiger Woods in this post to make varying
>points about
>'transrace' - but it's a theoretical discussion - of course
>hypotheticals are
>being discussed.

But there have always been people who fit the characteristics of transgender people. Transracialism has been a recognized thing for a while, but not in the way that you are defining it. I think that when you look at the specific cases of people who adopt transracial identities, it becomes more evident the ways in which race and gender, although both social constructs, operate differently.

>not sure how that 'gotcha!' moment would work for me as a
>heterosexual
>male, because I have nothing to hold over LGBT folks' heads
>except
>their constitutional, human, and universal rights.

I don't doubt that your heart is in the right place, but in this post, the people on your side are hetero men who have previously expressed negative attitudes toward transgender identity; men who I think are opportunistically looking to strike back against the marginalized people who've challenged them in the past. Their participation, and the context in which it has arisen, makes it hard to trust the sincerity of this discussion.

Can we all admit that all the reasons listed here and in other place are really really weak and unconvincing? I mean don't ppl feel that little knot in your stomach telling you that you sound just like all those people who tried to make arguments against transgenderism?



I think the transgendered community is doing themselves a huge disservice and are being super short sighted working so hard to distinguish the two.

It comes off as if their arguments for the right to self-identify are completely self-serving and an argument of convenience.

My only issue with the concept of transrace is the idea of white folks taking advantage of programs that are set aside for minorities. Other than that why does anyone really give a fuk?


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson


"One of the most important things in life is what Judge Learned Hand described as 'that ever-gnawing inner doubt as to whether you're

>Can we all admit that all the reasons listed here and in
>other place are really really weak and unconvincing? I mean
>don't feel that little not in your stomach telling you that
>you sound just like all those people who tried to make
>arguments against transgenderism?

A lot of people in here who fancy themselves progressives would sound like outright GOP evangelical bigots if their transrace analysis were framed in the context of transgender.

-->

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson


"One of the most important things in life is what Judge Learned Hand described as 'that ever-gnawing inner doubt as to whether you're

against the idea that Jenner and this woman are separate situations, which is blowing my mind. Alot of people are basically in support of this woman, which o wouldn't have predicted, if you mentioned this to me as a hypothetical last week.

The thing I'm seeing now is some people just saying "Transrace is not a thing", and hoping the discussion just stops there.

-transracial.

People who fall into that group are the ones who I think are clearly hypocritical.

It's not surprising people who are anti-transgendered are also anti-transracial.

It's also not surprising to me that Black people are supportive of her because it seems the woman had a track record that spoke to her commitment to racial issues. She doesn't come off as opportunistic like say an azelia banks.


>against the idea that Jenner and this woman are separate
>situations, which is blowing my mind. Alot of people are
>basically in support of this woman, which o wouldn't have
>predicted, if you mentioned this to me as a hypothetical last
>week.
>
>The thing I'm seeing now is some people just saying "Transrace
>is not a thing", and hoping the discussion just stops there.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson


"One of the most important things in life is what Judge Learned Hand described as 'that ever-gnawing inner doubt as to whether you're

>against the idea that Jenner and this woman are separate
>situations, which is blowing my mind. Alot of people are
>basically in support of this woman, which o wouldn't have
>predicted, if you mentioned this to me as a hypothetical last
>week.
>
>The thing I'm seeing now is some people just saying "Transrace
>is not a thing", and hoping the discussion just stops there.


-->

this is easy. over complicating it makes it boring and stressful.

is that if race can be defined as skin colour than gender can be defined by genitals.

We don't want gender to be defined as genitals. So we need to show how race is somehow different from gender.

i know you are open minded and have LIVED, so, i know you won't let something like someone's definition of race of gender bother you, so why even engage? its a waste of time b.

My high school did not have ONE out gay person. My step-daughter attends that high school currently.....there are somewhere close to 100 out gay people there now. They have a school-sanctioned LGBT club there now. It's a beautiful thing. My gym teacher used to call students faggots.

Things have changed DRASTICALLY because of discourse. So it's not a waste of time to refine our discourse in the attempts to persuade more people to be tolerant and respectful. When an argument surfaces that questions our discourse....we need to find a way to address it. Lest we stop changing hearts and minds.

to me it just seems like there will always be a group of people that are naysayers to any idea. i'm telling you bro, if jesus/god himself climbed down from heaven and laid down the law, if there is any such thing, there would be a group of people that would disagree, give it a term, and than argue about it, lol. in my opinion, if you have a good heart, that is full of love, acceptance, and guidance for the young'uns in your immediate circle, that is more than enough to change the world.

Folks are certifiable and racist. Pass.

Out of respect, I'll refer to them as that, even if I don't necessarily subscribe to it.


I was trying to grasp an understanding of this comparison on Twitter and from what I heard, some transgenders and transgender allies are saying that genetics(chromosomes) determine your biological sex (male or female) while gender is a societal construct that is "learned". So you can be biologically male or female, but can choose to identify with whatever gender you feel closest to because these are taught and learned behaviors.

Idk, some mind fuck shit that I don't have the time or patience for.

wanna explore? see the world! climb mt. kilimanjaro? train-hop all around this great nation w/o incident?

nigga we can't even get in a funky-ass pool...

a white transgender is still going to be more readily welcomed most anywhere.

(for the record i support anybody's desire to do anything other than prey on children. i even support my opinion not mattering)

so i guess the answer is they don't fuck with us @ all?

Transracial ends up looking like this

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_mHze_WKcIpw/TCnpt2t_zMI/AAAAAAAABaQ/fHveaEXMRrk/s1600/vlcsnap-2010-06-29-14h19m14s71.png

I'll put what I put in the other post...

Transracial Its not a thing...
People are using transracial to delegitimizatize transmen and women. It's akin to the "you want to change one social rule, the why just not take away all rules then" argument. Is there legitimate transracial movement, activism, community groups or any of the things that would mean there is a real group of people that identify this way? No... Are there white folks out there talking about they felt that they were black when they were born and craved whiting when their teeth came in but were only served flounder by their white parents who didn't understand. No...
There is Chet hanks who wants to call us niggas and this white woman staging hate crimes though.
I'm surprised people are taking it seriously. The only people entertaining this are people who didn't fully grasp transgenderism and now want to spread their misunderstanding to other shit they don't understand.

I'll also add that the social stigma around being a transgender person is so crazy and dangerous the there really isn't much in the way of social benefit in identifying as trans, only personal benefit of being happy and healthy.

The opposite is true with race... White who pass are looking for a social benefit either from blacks or others...that is less about how they feel on the inside and more about seeking acceptance and what they gain from others.
___________________________________________________________


DJTB YOMM
___________________________________________________________


DJTB YOMM

But we're looking for a way of using language to differentiate between transex and transrace instead of just making accusations (however justified).

Don't you agree that we'd be better served with a discourse that shows why transrace is illegitimate?

>Transracial ends up looking like this
>
>http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_mHze_WKcIpw/TCnpt2t_zMI/AAAAAAAABaQ/fHveaEXMRrk/s1600/vlcsnap-2010-06-29-14h19m14s71.png
>

Transgendered ends up looking like this

http://cdn04.cdn.justjared.com/wp-content/uploads/headlines/2015/06/caitlyn-jenner-new-vanity-fair-video.jpg

You find transracial offensive yet cant understand why others find transgendered offensive.

Its hypocritical IMO.

people decided one is a thing and the other is not. But look at history so many things were not things, until people decided they were things.

Transgenderism wasn't a thing. Homosexuality and Lesbianism were not things (both terms are less than a couple of hundred years old).


>Transracial ends up looking like this
>
>http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_mHze_WKcIpw/TCnpt2t_zMI/AAAAAAAABaQ/fHveaEXMRrk/s1600/vlcsnap-2010-06-29-14h19m14s71.png


And transgenderism ends up looking like this:

https://loft965.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/dragraceleak.png

mainstreams depiction of either isn't what defines them.


>
>I'll put what I put in the other post...
>
>Transracial Its not a thing...
>People are using transracial to delegitimizatize transmen and
>women. It's akin to the "you want to change one social rule,
>the why just not take away all rules then" argument. Is there
>legitimate transracial movement, activism, community groups or
>any of the things that would mean there is a real group of
>people that identify this way? No... Are there white folks out
>there talking about they felt that they were black when they
>were born and craved whiting when their teeth came in but were
>only served flounder by their white parents who didn't
>understand. No...


Now I totally agree with you that folks are seizing on this too legitimize transgenderism. It is no coincidence that that woman's story is all over the news and peoples facebook streams.

But exploiting the issue doesn't make it less and issue and the opportunism of people on the issue doesn't undermine the logical and moral inconsitency of people supporting one form of self-identification and self-presenting and attempting to negate another form.

And you mock it (like GOP mocks LGBT) bu there have always been people passing and people who identifying with a race other than there own.

>There is Chet hanks who wants to call us niggas and this white
>woman staging hate crimes though.

And why do you think the woman was staging hate crimes? Because the police doubted her story? Weird intersection going on there because people ususally jump all other the police for treating a woman's claim of sexual harrasment so suspiciously. Because it's racial harrasment people have no problem dismissing her claims with little evidence based on police doubt.


>I'm surprised people are taking it seriously. The only people
>entertaining this are people who didn't fully grasp
>transgenderism and now want to spread their misunderstanding
>to other shit they don't understand.
>
>I'll also add that the social stigma around being a
>transgender person is so crazy and dangerous the there really
>isn't much in the way of social benefit in identifying as
>trans, only personal benefit of being happy and healthy.
>
>The opposite is true with race... White who pass are looking
>for a social benefit either from blacks or others...that is
>less about how they feel on the inside and more about seeking
>acceptance and what they gain from others.


Mayne y'all sound like Bill O'Reily talking about how there is there is this great benefit to identifying and presenting as african-american. Seriously, who else argues how being black is better than white in american other than white conservative shock jocks?


Folks should just admit that it's a value judgement. One I consider to be a thing and the other I don't consider to be a thing just because I am cool with one and not the other rather than going into all these contortions trying to craft a logic or moral argument around it.



>___________________________________________________________
>
>
>DJTB YOMM
>___________________________________________________________
>
>
>DJTB YOMM


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson


"One of the most important things in life is what Judge Learned Hand described as 'that ever-gnawing inner doubt as to whether you're

Its amazing how quickly someine can go from MSNBC to FOXNEWS and not even know it.

and now you think you know enough about transgender people to contrast and compare their experience to someone else's....
Please stop.



___________________________________________________________


DJTB YOMM

based on being the arbiter deciding whose self-identification is valid and whose invalid.

My position is based on the simple position, live and let live.

When that is your position you don't need to know jack about what it means to be transgendered to decide if it ain't hurting me let them rock. The same goes for the transracial.

I'd a thought live and let live would have been a guiding principle behind the transgendered movement but an element of that movement is revealing it's true self and showing that isn't the case.




>and now you think you know enough about transgender people
>to contrast and compare their experience to someone else's....
>
>Please stop.
>
>
>
>___________________________________________________________
>
>
>DJTB YOMM


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson


"One of the most important things in life is what Judge Learned Hand described as 'that ever-gnawing inner doubt as to whether you're

This issue has brought out a previously unearthed bigotry that is fascinating to observe unveil itself.

>There is Chet hanks who wants to call us niggas and this white
>woman staging hate crimes though.

lol. This is like saying, 'well there's this transgendered dude who likes to rape women and this other woman who sells meth but thinks she's a man" - and citing those two examples as your reasoning as to why you think transgendered identity is illegitimate. lol c'mon.

>I'll also add that the social stigma around being a
>transgender person is so crazy and dangerous the there really
>isn't much in the way of social benefit in identifying as
>trans, only personal benefit of being happy and healthy.

>The opposite is true with race... White who pass are looking
>for a social benefit either from blacks or others...that is
>less about how they feel on the inside and more about seeking
>acceptance and what they gain from others.

yikes. We're now telling people how they should feel and judging their own feelings?

This is a very familiar tactic: try to marginalize a group - as many people do w/ transgendered people - by positing a singular example of a troubled transgendered person to widely dismiss the entire concept.

Problem is - it never works. It's just a poor camouflage to mask bigotry and an unwillingness to accept a particular group.

-->

The history is there and these people are not acting without historical context. If anything they are acting purely out of a historical context of white privilege.
It's not about "being who you really are" It's about possession...of the black body and all the gross stereotypes that come with it that they desire.

Those who can enjoy blackness, participate in it are fine by me. Culture is meant to be shared... but for some people participation is not enough. Blackness must be bought and owned and benefited from like one of a million commodities.
Transracial is just a new way to soften the language of an age old obsession with black folks mixed with never ending need for ownership of black bodies.

___________________________________________________________


DJTB YOMM

Just as an evangelical wants to make transgendered identity and gay marriage about *them* and their conventional notion of what gender/marriage means, you are looking at the concept of transrace under a narrow lens whereby only your understanding of race is the legitimate one.

It's childish.

-->

We don't have to agree but calling me childish ain't gon clap.

End convo.
___________________________________________________________


DJTB YOMM

I mean the argument you made against the trans-racial is exactly the same argument that Elinor Burkett's NYT Op-Ed critique of Caitlyn Jenner and transgenderism.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/opinion/sunday/what-makes-a-woman.html?_r=0

Pertinent part below:

People who haven’t lived their whole lives as women, whether Ms. Jenner or Mr. Summers, shouldn’t get to define us. That’s something men have been doing for much too long. And as much as I recognize and endorse the right of men to throw off the mantle of maleness, they cannot stake their claim to dignity as transgender people by trampling on mine as a woman.

Their truth is not my truth. Their female identities are not my female identity. They haven’t traveled through the world as women and been shaped by all that this entails. They haven’t suffered through business meetings with men talking to their breasts or woken up after sex terrified they’d forgotten to take their birth control pills the day before. They haven’t had to cope with the onset of their periods in the middle of a crowded subway, the humiliation of discovering that their male work partners’ checks were far larger than theirs, or the fear of being too weak to ward off rapists....

THE drip, drip, drip of Ms. Jenner’s experience included a hefty dose of male privilege few women could possibly imagine. While young “Bruiser,” as Bruce Jenner was called as a child, was being cheered on toward a university athletic scholarship, few female athletes could dare hope for such largess since universities offered little funding for women’s sports. When Mr. Jenner looked for a job to support himself during his training for the 1976 Olympics, he didn’t have to turn to the meager “Help Wanted – Female” ads in the newspapers, and he could get by on the $9,000 he earned annually, unlike young women whose median pay was little more than half that of men. Tall and strong, he never had to figure out how to walk streets safely at night.

Those are realities that shape women’s brains.

By defining womanhood the way he did to Ms. Sawyer, Mr. Jenner and the many advocates for transgender rights who take a similar tack ignore those realities. In the process, they undermine almost a century of hard-fought arguments that the very definition of female is a social construct that has subordinated us. And they undercut our efforts to change the circumstances we grew up with.

The “I was born in the wrong body” rhetoric favored by other trans people doesn’t work any better and is just as offensive, reducing us to our collective breasts and vaginas. Imagine the reaction if a young white man suddenly declared that he was trapped in the wrong body and, after using chemicals to change his skin pigmentation and crocheting his hair into twists, expected to be embraced by the black community.

Many women I know, of all ages and races, speak privately about how insulting we find the language trans activists use to explain themselves. After Mr. Jenner talked about his brain, one friend called it an outrage and asked in exasperation, “Is he saying that he’s bad at math, weeps during bad movies and is hard-wired for empathy?” After the release of the Vanity Fair photos of Ms. Jenner, Susan Ager, a Michigan journalist, wrote on her Facebook page, “I fully support Caitlyn Jenner, but I wish she hadn’t chosen to come out as a sex babe.”



RE: White people wanting to possess blackness is as old as the day is long
>The history is there and these people are not acting without
>historical context. If anything they are acting purely out of
>a historical context of white privilege.
>It's not about "being who you really are" It's about
>possession...of the black body and all the gross stereotypes
>that come with it that they desire.
>
>Those who can enjoy blackness, participate in it are fine by
>me. Culture is meant to be shared... but for some people
>participation is not enough. Blackness must be bought and
>owned and benefited from like one of a million commodities.
>Transracial is just a new way to soften the language of an age
>old obsession with black folks mixed with never ending need
>for ownership of black bodies.
>
>___________________________________________________________
>
>
>DJTB YOMM


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson


"One of the most important things in life is what Judge Learned Hand described as 'that ever-gnawing inner doubt as to whether you're

If there is a legitimate case of a person who is transrace.....I can't conceive of it as of yet. My initial reaction that it would be one the scenarios you outlined. Either they have an ethnic romanticism type of thing going on.....or they want to lay claim to a burden that they don't actually experience (victim-hood seeking)....or they feel that their voice will carry more weight/taken more seriously....or they want access to a tangible benefit that they don't deserve (race-relevant scholarship/government tax benefit/etc). Most likely some combination of all four and none of them are legitimate or just.

And just like you mentioned earlier.....those possible motivations are not as present for gender transitions. Yes, it's true that trans issues also have scenarios that might involve opportunism (males transitioning to females and then competing in a woman's sports league)....but those instances are EXTREMELY rare.

>There is Chet hanks who wants to call us niggas and this
>white
>>woman staging hate crimes though.

It's so funny that all of the Hannity, conservative talking points come out in all this.

These are examples of real live racist doing real live things. Its not like we're short on racism in this society... And expecting it from people that engage in this kind of race play is so far out the box.
___________________________________________________________


DJTB YOMM

Or are you talking about the unfounded fears of people transforming into other races for the explicitly to be racist?

To deepen her "black experience" and gain credibility.
If not that then she didn't believe black folks were evolved enough to allow her to do the kinds of work she wanted to do because she is white. She was paid to give speeches on growing up black! So yes she is a racist....yes.
Its like the guy from the Indian one tear commercial....
http://lparchive.org/Mega-Man-Battle-Network-4-6/Update%2049/31-crying-indian1.jpg
This dude is Italian and ran around passing as an Indian because it made him feel special, unique and different.
The shit is racist as it comes.
___________________________________________________________


DJTB YOMM

___________________________________________________________


DJTB YOMM

Is a man dressing as a woman automatically being sexist in that they are committing an act of imitation of a culturally traditionally subordinate group?

I love how people are who didn't know jack squat about transpeople only a month and a half ago now know so much about it that they can now assign that experience to other people who have yet to articulate it for themselves.
___________________________________________________________


DJTB YOMM

You don't know what blackface is.

Then you keep resorting to this "y'all think you know transgemndserism" what gives you this great insight into transgemndserism that you think we clearly don't posess?


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson


"One of the most important things in life is what Judge Learned Hand described as 'that ever-gnawing inner doubt as to whether you're

http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1497394.1382802244!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_970/107440pcn-julianne.jpg

Based on stereotypes and born out of fetishism as it always has been. Keep handing out passes for trans-blackface.

__________________________________


DJTB YOMM

to see the practice involving the genitals as entirely normative, while the one involving skin color is necessarily "born out of fetishism". That's totally strange to me.

>to see the practice involving the genitals as entirely
>normative, while the one involving skin color is necessarily
>"born out of fetishism". That's totally strange to me.


-->

That's pretty illogical
Context is important

~~~~
When you are born, you cry, and the world rejoices. Live so that when you die, you rejoice, and the world cries.
~~~~
You cannot hate people for their own good.

What bothers me about this woman is her attempt to hide her past. I can understand not feeling a connection to her past identity but her attempt to completely hide it seems cowardly in comparison to Caitlyn who continually revealed it to those closest to her and, eventually, the world.

I'm sure alot of transgendered men and women probably have pasts they want to forget and probably don't want the public spotlight but I'd think their transition would be something they'd at least share with their inner circles.

I believe this woman's husband knew she was white (just bc the parents were at the wedding) but if she didn't reveal this part of her to other close friends and confidants, I'd think she's a poor representative of trans-racials.

There are probably transgendered who move to knew cities and create new lives just like this woman.

lol she was doing it right but its just a concept that screams WRONG....WRONG © c. murphy

to know that it's made of shit.

Meaning there's a measurable difference in hormones and whatnot when it comes to
men and women, the brain causes different parts of the body to develop, etc.

For one, if transrace and transgender are comparable, somebody gonna have to come up off
that lie that race is just a "social construct" and admit we ain't so alike. So that's
the first order of business. Somebody gonna have to be honest and stop lying about
why all these experiments keeps happening on us and why they trafficking organs.

For two, all this comparing it to people passing is silly, because people "pass" when
they already look a lot like the race they tryna pass for, and as Sha pointed out, secrecy
is a major component of that. So to make this comparable, are we saying the only
people who can really claim transrace are people who are half or already appear to
be the race they wanna pass for? How does this compare to transgender folks when
they go through "gender reassignment surgery"? You can tell me all day that your
past doesn't make you a man or a woman or that experiences don't contribute to it,
but I'm really gonna need you to fall down telling me the same is true for race.

And that leads to number 3. The government decides what race you are. Look at
Mustafa Hefny who has been fighting for years to be called black. That's not even
him trying to change what he is. That's him trying to be recognized as what he is...
ACCORDING to this "social construct" called race. Understand why that is, and then
get at me with this comparison.
Does the government do this to women or men over here? Is anyone born with a
penis fighting to be called or man or born with a vagina fighting to be called a woman?
I can't take nobody seriously who ignores white supremacy in this discussion.

(I'm including you, because conservative outlets have been asking this same question
since the Dolezal controversy came to light)

White supremacy said all Black people were (are) less than. It wasn't limited to men
or women. For white men to turn around and ask why you can accept a white MAN as a white woman
but not a white woman as Black is some offensive bullshit for reasons I'm tired of yall
insensitive pricks trying to turn into something tangible or measurable.

But my understanding means nothing. If they like it I love it for them.

Moreover - if you support the exploratory process, plight,
>and rights of trans-gendered people, why do you mock and
>belittle those who identify as transracial?
>
>I'm not particularly interested in the conservative opinion
>here, whereby they think transgendered *and* transracial are
>silly concepts not worthy of equal rights under the law.
>
>I'm more interested in the progressive opinion - whereby in
>one respect, the cause of transgendered people is championed,
>yet on the flip side, the mere mention of transracial is a
>crime worthy of condemnation and clowning.
>
>Do tell.
>
>-->

here's an excerpt of Janet Mock discussing mahuwahine, fa'afafine, and fakaleiti--pre-colonial Polynesian terms for transgender:

(Kindle screenshot)
https://farm1.staticflickr.com/302/18759517411_236aa26d85_b.jpg

here are some other cultures
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender#Transgender_people_in_non-Western_cultures

also, science
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender#Brain-based_studies

For NOT engaging in intellectual dishonesty.

We cant impose our own parameters when it suits us.

If we're gonna be open minded, lets commit fully to the concept of respecting one's choice to self identify, no matter how weird.

This Rachel chick is not a good candidate cause she lied too much about everything but the story still raises questions that cannot be brushed off easily. Saying transracial is not a "thing" does not discount it. Things that were never things have to start their new life as a thing someday. I only just found out ablist was a thing two weeks ago...lol. And I'm not even sold on it fully.

I have always been fascinated by that awkward fuzzy area where identity briefly reveals itself as the absurd concept it actually is.

And yet I think post-racial thought is a crock of shit.

I actually found a lot to agree with in Elanor Burkett's op ed piece critical of trans genserism.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/opinion/sunday/what-makes-a-woman.html?_r=0&referrer=

It's a good read but she was thoroughly denounced for it.

But I can get down with the general principal live and let live so I don't even have to think too hard about understanding either of them.

I do think I am sympathetic to the white lady because she seems to have a long track record of supporting black causes. I wish more black people would join the NAACP. You should see all the comments of people taking shots at the NAACP when these ninjas fail to remember is there would be no integrated America without the NAACP.

Anyway, more than anything I hate hypocrisy and if folks came up with a decent distinction between the two I would acknowledge it but folks haven't and are being dishonest with themselves by not admitting that there isn't a good distinction.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson


"One of the most important things in life is what Judge Learned Hand described as 'that ever-gnawing inner doubt as to whether you're

>there would be no integrated America without the NAACP.
>


I'm of the opinion that we were better off segregated, and I'm definitely not the only one.

>>there would be no integrated America without the NAACP.
>>
>
>
>I'm of the opinion that we were better off segregated, and I'm
>definitely not the only one.
>
>
>
>


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson


"One of the most important things in life is what Judge Learned Hand described as 'that ever-gnawing inner doubt as to whether you're

and of course people sometimes don't realize they didn't need what they wanted
until they get it. That's just life.

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson


"One of the most important things in life is what Judge Learned Hand described as 'that ever-gnawing inner doubt as to whether you're

Black unemployment levels?
Number of Black folk killed by police...
etc?

if your birth parents aren't black.

If you think a transracial is lieing then what about this...

A man with balls and a penis who has competed against the most elite male atheletes in the whole world tells me he is actually a woman?
Should I call him a liar? Or should I say "Hey I can respect that. Do you"?

I lean towards allowing a transgendered woman to perform her femininity.

Race (especially in America) too is "performed". This was clearly demonstrated by all the funny #AskRachel memes. Most white people with an afinity for black culture for instance can answer 95% of all of those questions quite accurately.

I just read the article Buddy posted in his reply to me and it has articulated some of what I have observed in how some women react to gay or transgendered people. They are not flattered by their performance of femininity. Even going as far as to find it offensive because it borders on reductionist fetishism. But they don't get to deny a trans woman because it does not vibe with their woman. Might the same not apply to race?

Read the article with race goggles and holla back

>Race (especially in America) too is "performed".

But I just tried changing one of the variables of her situation.

What if she actually declared that she was transrace. She hasn't. She is saying 'I am black'. But what if she said 'I was born to white parents but have always felt black on the inside'. If she explicitly stated that I think I'd find what she's doing less problematic. But notice...it would be less likely that she would get a scholarship for Howard...less likely that she'd have a high ranking position at the NAACP....less likely that she'd be a university prof in African studies.

I think that's a really important distinction. If she did what Caitlyn did in her context.....she wouldn't lie. She wouldn't take a picture of her doctor'ed hair and say "Going natural for my birthday". The deception proves to me that she knows she will get something of value out of lying. Caitlyn Jenner is doing nothing of the sort. In short....we could conceivably condemn Rachel without closing the door on the existence of a transrace identity. A person who identified themselves as 'transrace' wouldn't receive the benefits that we think Rachel is after. (a more credible voice, victim-hood seeking, etc)

So this kinda opens up some room to move here. When we change our perceptions of Caitlyn from being a man to a woman....we can do so while recognizing that Caitlyn has not had ALL the experiences of a woman. She has not experienced sexist barriers to success. She has not experienced fear of sexual assault the same way that a nontrans woman has. And we're ok with that. But with what Rachel's doing....she's not giving us the opportunity to make that distinction in our perception of her.

it's as if Caitlyn were to say....'I identify as a woman and have struggled with the burden of sexism all my life.' That's what Rachel is doing. I'd imagine our response would be 'ok we get that you feel like a woman....but you have NOT experienced those issues like other women have'.

Caitlyn Jenner is not saying I am a transwoman. She is saying I am a Woman. The fact is we know Caitlyn is a trans because we remember when she was Bruce. We know her history.

Are you saying that transwomen who identify as "Women" and don't explicitly describe themselves as "Transwomen" are lying??!?!


And let's admit another thing. If an interviewer or reporter was interviewing a transwoman, and asked her if she was a man or a woman. And kept repeatingly badgering her about whether she was truly a woman. We would all think that that reporter was a dickhead right?


Try again.


>But I just tried changing one of the variables of her
>situation.
>
>What if she actually declared that she was transrace. She
>hasn't. She is saying 'I am black'. But what if she said 'I
>was born to white parents but have always felt black on the
>inside'. If she explicitly stated that I think I'd find what
>she's doing less problematic. But notice...it would be less
>likely that she would get a scholarship for Howard...less
>likely that she'd have a high ranking position at the
>NAACP....less likely that she'd be a university prof in
>African studies.
>
>I think that's a really important distinction. If she did
>what Caitlyn did in her context.....she wouldn't lie. She
>wouldn't take a picture of her doctor'ed hair and say "Going
>natural for my birthday". The deception proves to me that she
>knows she will get something of value out of lying. Caitlyn
>Jenner is doing nothing of the sort. In short....we could
>conceivably condemn Rachel without closing the door on the
>existence of a transrace identity. A person who identified
>themselves as 'transrace' wouldn't receive the benefits that
>we think Rachel is after. (a more credible voice, victim-hood
>seeking, etc)
>
>So this kinda opens up some room to move here. When we change
>our perceptions of Caitlyn from being a man to a woman....we
>can do so while recognizing that Caitlyn has not had ALL the
>experiences of a woman. She has not experienced sexist
>barriers to success. She has not experienced fear of sexual
>assault the same way that a nontrans woman has. And we're ok
>with that. But with what Rachel's doing....she's not giving
>us the opportunity to make that distinction in our perception
>of her.
>
>


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson


"One of the most important things in life is what Judge Learned Hand described as 'that ever-gnawing inner doubt as to whether you're

Caitlyn Jenner is not attaching herself to the historical struggles of women and the experience of growing up in a sexist world. She's not attaching herself to being discouraged from male-dominated fields. At least to my knowledge.

Rachel IS. She's attaching herself to the struggles of having African hair in a society that judges it. Attaching herself to the experience of being a victim of hate crime. Attaching herself to the experience of growing up in a racist world.

That difference is good enough for me to accept one and not the other. And I feel intellectually consistent in doing so.

>Caitlyn Jenner is not attaching herself to the historical
>struggles of women and the experience of growing up in a
>sexist world. She's not attaching herself to being
>discouraged from male-dominated fields. At least to my
>knowledge.
>
>Rachel IS. She's attaching herself to the struggles of having
>African hair in a society that judges it.

So her hairstyle choice is what's making the difference? She can't rock braids because only black people are allowed to wear braids? Are black women attaching themselves to white people by straightening their hair?


Attaching herself to the experience of being a victim of hate crime.


Listen either it happened or it did not. If it didn't happen. Shame on her. That would be indefensible. However why are folks so dismissive they are certain it didn't happen? This story is so convoluting people's sense of right and wrong that now people are sounding like the sexist who don't believe a woman's claims of sexual harrasment except this time it's racial harrasment. I personally could see a white woman who was "acting black" in a white environment would certainly be a prime target for racial harrasment.

Attaching
>herself to the experience of growing up in a racist world.
>
>That difference is good enough for me to accept one and not
>the other. And I feel intellectually consistent in doing so.




**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson


"One of the most important things in life is what Judge Learned Hand described as 'that ever-gnawing inner doubt as to whether you're

Her hair is naturally straight. foh.
It's like some elaborate joke and mockery of Black culture/existence where she's playing dress-up.

As for her lying about being Black, I'm side-eyeing the people who bought and allowed it
more than I'm side-eyeing her.

you can identify with a race but u can't just wake up one day and decide to be that race... u can alter your appearance and to further identify with said race but again you can't change ur dna and become that race...

same with transgender... you can alter your appearance and take as many hormones as you want but ur still who you are. you can alter your choices but you can never escape who you are at the core...

just my 2 cents

and making some great points this morning that many of you had made.

the national response to this is as interesting (if not more interesting) than the
actual story.

-->

The idea that you can wear blackface and preform as a black person when it suits you. And it's being framed by transgender-ism while somehow ignoring centuries of black people attempting to "pass" as white through harmful skin lightening & hurtful hair straightening

Starting the conversation at transgendered white man is some white supremacist bullshit & I'm not surprised to see it being pushed by Vex or Buddy

Act brand new and blind to what the leading academics, scholars, and cultural commentators are actually saying - but a myriad of progressives (black, white, trans, etc..) are facilitating discussions on transrace and talking about this with real depth, as opposed to your attempt to outright dismiss it because it makes you uncomfortable.


-->

instead of the historical context of actual people of color who to this day just want to get to a point where their color doesn't define them because it isn't something that can be slipped off whenever its convenient unlike this woman who lied about her background

regardless of whether it was framed/paralleled to transgender.

Nobody is even defending this NAACP woman in here (other than defending her right to self-identify) - we're talking about transrace in the vein of transgender because there are undeniable parallels (and nuances) that provides for an interesting discussion.

You don't even want that discussion to be had.

-->

That's morally and logically consistent.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson


"One of the most important things in life is what Judge Learned Hand described as 'that ever-gnawing inner doubt as to whether you're

"My only issue with the concept of transrace is the idea of white folks taking advantage of programs that are set aside for minorities. Other than that why does anyone really give a fuk?"

Essentially, it's honestly too new of a concept (new meaning becoming a national buzzword, talk show topic, trending matter, etc.) for anyone to have a truly valuable comment on the situation without it veering into the opinion space.

Race and Gender are constructs that define one's human experience but to say race has a parallel with gender...it's tricky and almost dishonest to try and compare the two as if it's that static. I think we're all wise enough to realize it has and never will be that simple.

So, at the moment, just like most things that I'm not saddled with, if one wants to self-identify in a manner that makes them feel at peace, as long as it's not for selfish gain I'm largely going to keep it moving and not seek to tear it down.

Personally, I respect ones decision to identify as woman but it doesnt mean I agree with it.

I knew this was next and its crazy seeing people on here rock for one but not the other because they feel it belongs to them.

This is exactly how evangelicals and conservatives feel when it comes to sexuality.

>I knew this was next and its crazy seeing people on here rock
>for one but not the other because they feel it belongs to
>them.
>
>This is exactly how evangelicals and conservatives feel when
>it comes to sexuality.
>
>

And like you, it's odd that people don't think it possible for one to respect a person's choice but not agree with it. Like that's a melding of thoughts couldn't intersect for some reason.

I think it's pretty irrefutable.

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson


"One of the most important things in life is what Judge Learned Hand described as 'that ever-gnawing inner doubt as to whether you're

but there are parallels. There are differences as well, but to pretend as if there are no parallels is also intellectually dishonest. Where the parallel has meaning is in the basic philosophical foundation of one's thinking on why transgendered people should be respected: You are respecting their right to self-identify and not let a social construct (which they find limiting) wholly define who they are. That philosophy is transferrable into the transrace arena.

People's conceptions of race and gender greatly differ as it pertains to identity politics. Some don't want transgendered people to be able to challenge the conventional definitions of what gender, 'male' and 'female' and 'marriage' mean - others don't want what we're calling 'transrace' people to be able to challenge those conventional definitions of race. Both want people to shut up and fit within the conventional boxes of both gender and race, but are approaching that conclusion from very different paths.

There are parallels and there are differences with gender and race, and sometimes those difference don't have as much to do with the social constructs as it does the person who has developed an identity around those constructs, and reflexively seeks to defend those constructs based on how they self-identify.


-->

and probably not the other.

Gender is also a pretty clear distinction (though not always entirely clear) where race is partly biological but largely defined socially.

Personally I don't buy into identifying oneself along lines of racial, religious, regional or cultural identity but I don't begrudge people who do either. So it's hard for me to be up in arms or have open arms about someone wants to be "transracial," if that's going to be a word now. I just say be who you are, if you feel that person has lighter skin or darker skin or speaks with a certain affectation, OK, but understand that not everyone will be receptive to that.

>Moreover - if you support the exploratory process, plight,
>and rights of trans-gendered people, why do you mock and
>belittle those who identify as transracial?

http://www.tmz.com/2015/06/02/chet-haze-n-word-rap-tom-hanks-son/

I tend to agree with the sentiments Elinor Burkett expressed in the NYT article, posted, now, twice in this thread.

Especially, I wonder, on this issue, about the implications of this point:

"...By defining womanhood the way he did to Ms. Sawyer, Mr. Jenner and the many advocates for transgender rights who take a similar tack ignore those realities. In the process, they undermine almost a century of hard-fought arguments that the very definition of female is a social construct that has subordinated us. And they undercut our efforts to change the circumstances we grew up with."

I don't know what the distinguishing difference is between transgender and transrace.

What I've read and experienced about either is laughable. I don't pretend to know much and don't want to speak for people. And likely, I'm committing the ugliness of speaking on something I know not much about. Anything I say = grain of salt.

I think in both cases (transgender and transrace), *individuals* are making assertions about the relationship of *their* personal identity to society and community. The primary ground of the conversation seems to center on rights.

What's troubling to me is a kind of erasure, revisionism, and collapsing/glossing that's happening around instances where the power dynamic of oppressor and oppressed (which seems to masquerade behind a lot of this) is cast into light because of the transgender conversation.

Out of basic sensitivity and respect, which *all* seem to agree is needful: those in our society who have experienced the power dynamic and position of *oppressor* (for whatever reason or circumstance and however actively or unconsciously) who are trans but take on/live/embrace identities as the *oppressed* should be mindful that for those who are *oppressed*--

there is no “freeing” change, there is no mistake, there is not a wrong place and a right place for them to "go to" or journey towards to find themselves.

For some, STILL our Blackness and our Womanhood is degraded, disrespected, ignored. We know not to ask for or expect. Instead, we’ve had to fight. Will continue to.

When it comes to Caitlyn and Rachel what I want to know is: Sister, have you been fighting for or against me? Me: me also meaning "us," the "us" you are part of. Sister, do you know and understand the struggle?

Because I can’t just throw the shackles off my feet so I can dance, Sis. And I'm living an authentic life as MY damn self, too. So many are. Often in the face of serious consequences, which Sister, you may be able to understand and identify with.

So welcome to the party, but what's your consciousness like? And if you’re down, you’re down. I have no problem. And really, no problem if you’re not. Peace be unto you. God knows, many have learned to keep marching and know how to make it in this world without acceptance and “equal” rights.

The oppressor and oppressed, in this country, often live in and have access to radically different realities.

I can’t overlook that Caitlyn and Rachel have relationship to Whiteness (one transwoman, one cis-woman) which may assume framing about gender and race which are problematic in so far as their experiences *may* invite them to assume posturings and understandings in relation to the fact that all things oppression (especially developing the psyche of an oppressor) is so deeply knit, nurtured, and encouraged in our society.

As a Black woman-- I have a problem when someone looking from the vantage point or position of an oppressor begins to "explore," question, engage, or challenge Womanhood or Blackness without acknowledging that the framing of the desired Womanhood or Blackness isn't neutral, natural, wholesomely good (because it celebrates the individual), objective, or whatever else. So. Great: be a woman. Be Black. Free yourself. But did you free yourself from all the education and experience in oppression?

I don’t assert that either woman *hasn’t* done such a thing.

All I'm saying is don't drink the water, we need it for the fire!

It seems like this woman is saying she'll accept them as long as they have a similar worldview to her. That's not how identity works. There are plenty of black woman who don't share this women's framework of oppression. That does not negate their identities as black women.

It can't be a case of.....'if you're worldview is similar to mine then welcome aboard'.

That being said....the article does go in a direction that I'm heading in. With both transgender and transrace....there needs to be an acknowledgement that they have not experienced the world in the same way that someone with a similar identity to them has. For example....a person with a penis who identifies as a woman should still take responsible for male privilege up until the time they are no longer perceived as a male.

And that's exactly why Rachel is so wrong here. She is pretending that she didn't grow up with white privilege. She did, regardless of who she feels like on the inside. I've never met a transrace person....but if someone claimed to feel native American on the inside while recognizing that their actual experience growing up was different than a native person....well, I guess I've arrived to a position of tolerance and acceptance for that. But I would NOT accept anything they would say in terms of negating the privilege and experience of how they were PERCEIVED before transitioning.

but it's not always about you. Sometimes it's about an over-arching
principle that you either accept or reject. Here, that's the principle
of respecting an individual's right to self-identify.

>When it comes to Caitlyn and Rachel what I want to know is:
>Sister, have you been fighting for or against me? Me: me also
>meaning "us," the "us" you are part of. Sister, do you know
>and understand the struggle?

So will you only accept the rights for gays to marry if they are "fighting
for you" and agree w/ your world-view? What about equal rights for
women - is that only in play if that particular woman knows and understands
you and your experiences?

See the problem in that?




-->

so, this is old news... this is 2015 already....

We gonna conveniently forget he had skin disease too, right?

Your black card is under review for using michael jackson's name in vain. Log back in in bout 3-5 business days.

This is a very stupid thing to say ESPECIALLY since this whole thing is about "self-identifying"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7WP4prIwUQ

be appropriated then it would logically follow that Misty Copland has culturally appropriated ballet since Ballet originated in Italy.

It would also follow that transgendered appropriated "female cultural".


I personally think the idea of cultural appropriation is silly. Cultural by its very nature spreads to those it come into contact with.



**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson


"One of the most important things in life is what Judge Learned Hand described as 'that ever-gnawing inner doubt as to whether you're

>I personally think the idea of cultural appropriation is
>silly. Cultural by its very nature spreads to those it come
>into contact with.

cultural appropriation is different from assimilation or diffusion

lets not dilute this into a 'well cultures do change and influence each other'

-->

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

"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."

As we've pointed out over and over again.....a feminist might say the exact same thing about Caitlyn Jenner. Caitlyn can always resort to dressing like a male....returning to the privileges inherent if she chooses to.

The article should've stuck to this line of reasoning:

"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."

Suppose Caitlyn had said "I remember those awkward years of being 16 years old when men started leering and objectifying my body. I struggled to learn how to navigate the world as a sexualized woman. No man could ever understand what this experience is like". We would ALL say she is full of shit. But Caitlyn says no such thing. She does not try to attach herself to the struggles and burdens of being woman that she avoided despite how she felt inside. Rachel, on the other hand, is doing EXACTLY that.

this:

"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."

What being black entails... is consistently being reduced to "discrimination, marginalization and oppression". While I understand our experience cannot be examined or discussed without considering this and that only we can comprehend the full impact, why are we so comfortable defining the "Black Experience" in such negative terms?

When Bruce Jenner dies there will be a man's skeleton in the coffin that people will be referring to as "she" or "her".

Conversely race is a social construct for obvious reasons, for example where on the map is the country of white or black?

Therefore neither of these concepts-- be it race or transgender are real. They are imaginary constructs people choose to cling to in order to feel and or exercise power in some way shape or form

Just because something is a social construct doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Money, religion, property, etc. are all social construct that doesn't make them any less real.

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson


"One of the most important things in life is what Judge Learned Hand described as 'that ever-gnawing inner doubt as to whether you're

In the minds of the unwittingly and willfully ignorant. That does not mean they should be believed in. Much like how many a white supremacist believed white people were at the center of ancient civilizations such as the stone city of Zimbabwe and various Aztec and Mayan cities.

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson


"One of the most important things in life is what Judge Learned Hand described as 'that ever-gnawing inner doubt as to whether you're

Race has the cultural insecurities of a handful of wealthy Europeans as it's primary source of value

Insecurities are based on feelings and feelings can change on a dime. Therefore race is just people agreeing to act on emotions not reality which is why that method of "thinking" is only about 200 years old

Not similar to money

I mean, there's power in being free to be yourself, but power over others? Fuck outta here. There are trans women and men getting killed for this shit.

We saw it with Tracy Morgan.

Also living in that state allows one who at one time felt out of place to be a part of a larger, more influential, community i.e. the power that comes from strength in numbers.

Lying about growing up a Black woman when you're in a prototypical privilaged white upbringing isn't "transrace"... it's bullshit. Lets not compare this to Braitlyn Jenner -_-)p

A hypothetical transrace person does not absolve themselves of privilege. They would still have to acknowledge the privilege afforded to them because of what they look like.

Rachel IS trying to absolve herself of privilege by lying.

This is great, lol

..in the olympics?
this is a huge chunk of illogical sillyness in this whole thing.

she lied. period. She didn't just cover up her past, she invented a completely new one with new experiences that she assumed black women go through by reading books and watching tv, and then served it to everyone as if it was the truth. that's a liar. and if no one sees the issue with her abundance of lies, there is no way a real convo can be had on this...

Caitlin a liar for declaring she is a woman?

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson


"One of the most important things in life is what Judge Learned Hand described as 'that ever-gnawing inner doubt as to whether you're

..and he was in a lesbian relationship with Kris ?

smh, yall killin me in here

To be black by the legal definition is to a person with ancestral history in the African continent. You can only pull this off by lying.

There have always been hermaphrodites, people with a different number of chromosomes etc. There are animals that exhibit traits assoc with the opposite gender.
So transgender is not a made up thing. We are just accepting something that occurs naturally after thousands of years of civilization.

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson


"One of the most important things in life is what Judge Learned Hand described as 'that ever-gnawing inner doubt as to whether you're

and she had the courage to bring up the parallel between transrace and transgender theory - and the panel was effectively stumped and uncertain as to how to approach the question not all that dissimilar to what has taken place in this discussion.

Such an interesting topic.

-->

That the question itself is valid?

That a particular answer to your question is implied by momentary silence?

MHP (who was getting roasted by twitter trolls for talking about transrace
in the same vein as transgender) did not allow the panel to come on and just spout
off double-standards, unchecked.

One panelist said: "I can't simply just show up tomorrow as a white person." To which MHP responded saying "well I can't just simply show up tomorrow as a man, there's a process that has to take place before that identity can just be assumed"

Another panelist stated: "everyone wants to be black until the police show up" - to which MHP noted that many people who identify as 'black' are people who the police do not even readily identify as 'black' based on fair-skinned physical appearance - so MHP asked the question - are we talking bout race or skin color?

MHP also challenged the panel as to why many are so comfortable with fluidity being applied to gender, yet hold race to be necessarily fixed and cemented in rigidity. Nobody had an answer to that and she found that interesting - as do I.

-->

Or are we doing that on her behalf?

she hasn't commented on it other than to say 'i don't two shits what you think' - which isn't exactly productive, but what MHP was discussing - and what's at issue in here - is really less about Rachel Dolezal and more about the concept of transient race theory. It's been "a thing" for some time, but we've never quite approached the subject from this angle, so it feels like it's unprecedented even though it's really not.

-->

I think that covers both transrace and transgender conversions.

I believe in that freedom, but also that white-to-black transracials may undermine the black liberation movement.

There is also a component to being Black that has a lot to do with actual lived history of our ancestors, and certainly no white-to-black transracial person can imitate that. Thus, the idea that one can fully opt into Blackness injures the Black racial memory.

In this case, we also feel (unnecessarily) lied to. Black people have no problem cheering on white people who pass the test. Rachel Dolezal could have been elected to the NAACP as an extraordinary white person. Instead, she selectively adopted the parts of blackness that she liked, and tried to ENFORCE that definition as real blackness (if you start to listen to the stories about her).

and supporting Dolezal's right to self-identify. These are two different things.

I think her approach was destructive, but that doesn't mean I don't support her right to honest express herself and self-identify -- she should have simply had the courage to always be upfront and honest about her history and who she has become. At the same time, I wasn't surprised. Why? People who "pass" and are perceived as either white or black in transient race theory almost always lie.

What's interesting is that based on her appearance, almost everybody just assumed that she was black -- because she said she was and because (as many have noted) - there's a wide acceptance and desire to identify with blackness amongst people of all shades of skin, whether they are comprised of 5% or 95% shared lineage. That's one of the beautiful facets of black culture.

>I think that covers both transrace and transgender
>conversions.
>
>I believe in that freedom, but also that white-to-black
>transracials may undermine the black liberation movement.

how so? Has Rachel Dolezal undermined the black liberation movement in your estimation?

Also, do you believe that man-to-woman transgenders undermine the women's liberation movement?

>In this case, we also feel (unnecessarily) lied to. Black
>people have no problem cheering on white people who pass the
>test.

When you say "we" - are you presuming to speak for all Black people - or just for yourself? Because a number of Black intellectuals that I've read share a wide variety of opinions on this situation. Even in this post, there's a myriad of Black perspectives and opinions on the subject, so I don't see a singular aggregate Black opinion on display.

Rachel Dolezal could have been elected to the NAACP as
>an extraordinary white person. Instead, she selectively
>adopted the parts of blackness that she liked, and tried to
>ENFORCE that definition as real blackness (if you start to
>listen to the stories about her).

Definitely. I am not supporting Dolezal's decision to lie, deceive, and deceptively present herself as an empirical descendant of an African-American man (as she even had the audacity to do in a fraudulent Facebook picture). However, it is possible to denounce her decision to lie, yet still respect her autonomy and freedom to self-identify.




-->

and i'm not exactly able to articulate why.

i agree w/what Starbaby said below about transwo/men not attempting to pass as ciswo/men...at least as a general matter. most transwo/men carve out another identity as transwo/men. whereas it seems transrace folks are often attempting to pass as 'genuinely' *insert race here* (<-- i dunno if transrace identity has yet developed to the point where they have a better term than 'genuinely ___' as transgenderism has developed the term 'cisgender'). but i'm not sure if that works so well considering the # of transwo/men who _do_ pass or at least try it. so i dunno about that either.

but generally i don't see this as a 1:1 comparison and i'm bothered that many of loudest voices saying transrace = transgender seem to be attempting to 'discredit' the transgender movement. they remind me of the folks who decry the issuance of marriage licenses to same sex couples by talking about 'slippery slopes' and bringing up bestiality ('ppl will wanna marry their dogs next!') or polygamy ('ppl will wanna marry multiple spouses next!') or object sexuality ('ppl will wanna marry their car next!'), et al. that alone makes me cast a side-eye at this whole conversation.

plus as i said previously i don't understand transrace identity as well as i understand transgender identity - but that doesn't matter much b/c i don't have to understand either for them to be 'valid'.

so i'm not sure where i stand on this.

I don't really understand transgenderism, but it is not necessary for me to understand.
I accept that someone should have the freedom to identify however they would like and we as a society should accept that.


The exact same could be said for transracialism. However people are trying to rationalize and intellectualize away a person's ability to self identify.

Ironically, many are using the same rhetoric used to diminish transgenders. Strident supportors of transgenderism are relying on Hannity and O'Reilly talking points.

This isn't some absurd slippery slope leap like someone wanting to be an airplane. This is just as logical and valid as transgenderism in my opinion.

there's no slippery slope here.

use Vanilla Ice instead or MJ instead of Rachel

Naturally, comparisons have been made to "transgender" as it relates to "transrace" theory - and understandably so. There are parallels between the theories, as well as nuanced differences that distinguish them. However, to simply say "transrace isn't a thing" is not only intellectually lazy, it's incorrect. "Transrace" has been a "thing" for centuries. Fair complected black people have been passing themselves off as white for centuries; people of "inter-racial" heritage have identified with one race at one particular time in their life, and transitioned to a different self-identifier later in life, exercising a transient self-identification process when it comes to racial identity that suits their own personal identity and perception of self. Further, it's important to note that the modern conception of "transgender" (gender dysmorphic) wasn't a "thing" until we made it one by classifying it as DSM-III in 1980. As such, the fact that "transrace" is a relatively new term that has not been validated by mainstream ideology does not mean the concept of transrace is invalid.

What I find most interesting is the intellectual dishonesty and philosophical inconsistency that is now being applied to "transgender" in comparison to "transrace." Evangelical conservatives have prototypically rejected transgender theory for the same reason many so-called progressives are now rejecting transrace theory: They both want to prevent the individual from having the creative space (and legal right) to self-identify based on conventional definitions of what "gender" and "race" are. In transgender analysis, progressives rightfully champion the right of the individual to transcend gender (a social construct) when an individual finds normative gender identity to be insufficient in defining them. Yet many of those same progressives now want to define who Rachel Dolezal is for her, tell her how to feel, and rally against her right to disregard conventional race classification (another social construct) and identify as she sees fit. Most have issues with her dishonesty (as do I), but it's also important to note that lying is intricately linked to "passing" in transracial theory, just as lying was and still is intricately linked to an LGBT person who initially does not feel comfortable identifying as gay/lesbian, and instead lives a heterosexual lie to appease the normative conventions of mainstream society.

Whether you agree with how Dolezal has lived her life is irrelevant to supporting her right to self-identify, if that is an alleged progressive principle that you claim to support. Frankly, I think she would be far more effective in embracing her lineage and being honest about her background in order to have this discussion, but my tolerance to her right to self-identify isn't contingent upon my agreeing with her or even understanding her. I don't have to understand a transgendered person's feelings - I just have to support their right to have those feeling and ensure that the law does not discriminate against them. Many people say as a white woman, Dolezal does not have to deal with daily injustices of what blacks in America have to deal with. Ok, but Bruce Jenner never had to deal with the daily injustices that a woman deals with in her lifetime, let alone the biological experience of pregnancy, menstrual cycles, and menopause. Yet, I don't hear these same voices now condemning Dolezal belittling Jenner's right to self-identify. So why the inconsistency?

Identity politics is always an ever-evolving realm, and many of us attach more value to certain identifiers than others, be it race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc.. etc... But as a principle, we should always be supportive of an individual's universal right to self-identify, and it would be helpful to exercise a level of suspicion about the ability of social constructs like race and gender to accurately portray the multi-dimensional beings that we are.

Perhaps Maajid Nawaz said it best:

"There's a dangerous corrosive side to identity politics, ie: making one's gender/skin colour/religion/sect/sexuality one's *defining* trait. Between groups this can divide people rather than unite them, promoting rather than reducing group stereotypes, and therefore increasing discrimination.

Within groups this can lend itself to reinforcing a hegemony for those individual members who refuse to conform to what being a member of that group is *meant* to mean, as defined by that community's internal power structures. This is like the old trope "You can't be a true Muslim/black man, and be gay."

Ultimately, people are individuals and have more in common with those who share their outlook/interests, not their skin colour/gender etc.."
-->

In regards to this:

"Ok, but Bruce Jenner never had to deal with the daily injustices that a woman deals with in her lifetime, let alone the biological experience of pregnancy, menstrual cycles, and menopause. Yet, I don't hear these same voices now condemning Dolezal belittling Jenner's right to self-identify. So why the inconsistency?"

But Jenner never CLAIMED to have dealt with these daily injustices and experiences. Jenner did not become a spokesperson for women's issues. Jenner did not attempt to absolve herself of male privilege.

Rachel did all those things as they pertain to race. If Rachel had claimed to be transrace...she could do so without trying to deceptively attach herself to certain experiences she wasn't privy to. Ie: "I feel like a black person on the inside...but I don't know what it's like to have hair which, in it's natural state, is sometimes deemed inappropriate at the workplace and other social circumstances".

"Many people say as a white woman, Dolezal does not have to deal with daily injustices of what blacks in America have to deal with. Ok, but Bruce Jenner never had to deal with the daily injustices that a woman deals with in her lifetime, let alone the biological experience of pregnancy, menstrual cycles, and menopause. Yet, I don't hear these same voices now condemning Dolezal belittling Jenner's right to self-identify. So why the inconsistency?"

Self-identity aside...being a woman is tied to the female experience in certain ways while still being a real social construct completely separate just like race is historically tied to things,,,race is definitely a murkier and heavier construct so i get some of the pushback

the thing about identity is it's not just an individual thing...it's also a social thing...so i personally think it's odd or maybe just somewhat ill-advised to be but so American when it comes to identity...i'd rather the see the roles themselves be more flexible than people feeling so restricted by them that they need to reidentify themselves...in reality, society does choose too...there's gotta be a better way to balance individual needs with the whatever it is society is trying to do

i'm in that same camp that thinks you can identify as you want but whether or not people are going to genuinely respect or accept that is up to them which can be good, bad, and the ugly

as native american and get that good tribal casino money?

Is it okay to identify as black and apply for affirmative action based programs/minority scholarships?

Are you okay with transgender men peeping in women's locker rooms?
Taking women's scholarships?

Just like those are absurd arguments to reject transgenderism, yours are equivalently absurd.

>Are you okay with transgender men peeping in women's locker
>rooms?
>Taking women's scholarships?
>
>Just like those are absurd arguments to reject transgenderism,
>yours are equivalently absurd.

At this point I think people simply don't even want to get it.


-->

about your history personal or familial on a government form?

a women's scholarship, or women's owned business grant, or whatever, if either one of them chose to?

gender does not = biological sex.

marks an application as being Black, how is that different than Caitlin or Janet marking female?

The fact is....what Rachel is after....she won't get by saying she's transracial.

The main reason I think most of us object to this is because we don't want a white person to attach themselves to the experience of being perceived as black growing up. In certain environments (ie the social justice world)....being perceived as black carries currency. And we don't want white people getting that currency because they didn't have to go actually live those experiences in order to get it.

But if someone claimed to be transracial....they wouldn't get that currency. So it takes away the motivation of someone like Rachel. She's doing this whole thing to absolve herself of white privilege. Claiming to be transracial doesn't do that.

is resisting this, I think.

In a weird way, it's to preserve the privilege that both Blackness and queerness have within that world. Which causes the policing of the borders of Blackness that's going on with this to make sense. Borders are almost always policed by groups who think they have something to lose without that policing.

-->

She's not. Your lineage can be traced to African people , not neantherdals or pre humans or dinosaurs or amoebas before you make the argument were all African.

Woman is a gender identify and it is not based on genitals or chromosomes or anything else but self identification. Sex is based on genitals and bruce would have been lying if he had said his sex was the female sex. He never did that.

White polite liberal society recognizes caitlyn as a woman. If she were to go to prison, he would be put in with men. Her sex genitals are still male.

Rachel has acknowledged my definition by lying and saying her parents are black.

I'm more concerned with the hypothetical of a person identifying as Black even tho they are white.

If Rachel never lied and identified as Black would it be a problem?

Perhaps it's time for us to come up with a similar distinction between felt-race and the more literal racial descent.

biological sex = biological sex.

stands.

you understand that what you're describing would be the exact opposite of gaming the system, right? being black might give you a better chance at that scholarship, but being white gives you a better chance at almost literally everything else in the united states. everyone understands this, which is why the number of white people who would hustle backwards like that is astronomically low. there's a reason why this one lady doing it is national news.

were up in arms about the "discrimation" they experienced when it came to college applications. they still are.

they'll complain about it all day, and you'll even get people like mindy kaling's brother who will commit fraud and flat-out lie on applications to try to take even the little scraps black people have been thrown. but again, the number of white people who would be willing to change their appearance and identify as black permanently to get that scholarship is astronomically low. everyone understands that the advantages of being white in america trumps a scholarship, casino money, or whatever other microscopic advantages uncle sam has thrown to the minorities he's been running over for centuries.

http://www.thelostdaughters.com/2015/06/transracial-lives-matter-rachel-dolezal.html

For those of you who don’t know, and clearly there are a lot of you, the term “transracial” is used in scholarly research, creative writing and cultural work to denote a particular “state of being” for people adopted across race. In other words, it IS a 'thing'. It is disheartening and disconcerting to see this term used dismissively as if it does not encompass an entire population of Black, Brown, Native and Asian people across the globe. For the past 35ish years, I’ve considered myself to be a transracial adoptee. The “trans” in transracial for me, never meant my race changed. It meant I was a multiracial black girl, adopted into a white family. It meant I was taken without my consent from one home, one place of origin and put inside another family, another culture, another race, one that didn’t belong to me. It meant I had to learn how to navigate my blackness and my black girlness, inside an often times racist, religious, violent and rigid white world. It meant living in a house and community that simultaneously erased me, racialized me and tokenized me. It gave me a language to articulate what was happening to me. But you know what it didn't do? It never actually changed my race. An even with all the ‘privileges’ of whiteness, even with all the education, the middle class living, camping, fishing, hunting — It never made me white.

Dr. John Raible has investigated how transracial adoptive white family members can become “transracialized” by the experiences of having Black, Brown and Asian people in their homes. In his study, he interviews siblings of black adopted people and shows how many siblings of transracial adoptees who might never have thought about race and racism are impacted. He says, “The individual can transcend the myth of color-blindness and come to a deeper understanding of the role of race and discrimination based on color-consciousness in our society.” (See Dr. Raible's work here.)

But not even this — the experience of being ‘transracialized’ and moving past the colorblind mythology the United States still so eagerly wants us to embrace, changes the race of these siblings. It doesn’t even encourage them to consider changing their race. In fact, it argues they should embrace the potential to grow by their proximity to racism and racialized violence. It argues they can be a different kind of white person, one who can operate as an ally to people of color in a real, thoughtful way. Of course, this kind of transformation is not the kind that happens often. More often than not, white mothers and fathers (and siblings) live vicariously through the “authentic cultures” of their adopted children of color. More often than not they ignore how appropriation and fetishization of culture is not at all the same as making a lifelong commitment to being an active, anti-racist ally.

The conversations around and flippant use of "transracial" to describe Ms. Dolezal’s deception (and lets be clear she has lied, profited from that lie, garnered a privileged position and has no plans to stop calling herself Black.) have been particularly triggering for me. I am a woman who through taking courses in and teaching Black Feminist Theory found solace, healing, inspiration in those sacred spaces. I am a Black woman who found my way back to the community I was taken from. The community that was the first to tell me I was beautiful when all I experienced was rejection and shame about my skin color and hair texture. As a Black woman who discovered that Black diaspora celebrated and embraced my very particular transracial adopted hybridity -- I’m angry at the dismissal of my identity and at the very real glorification of Ms. Dolezals.

As a multiracial Black person, as a transracial adoptee, I don’t take issue with racial and cultural hybridity, nor the way race and racial identity in our world is shifting. I believe in shattering notions of ‘authenticity’. I didn’t grow up in a home with mainstream media ideas about what is authentically “Black”. Does that mean because I didn't have access to Black or Filipino culture, mythologies, food, spirituality as a child that I'm not Black or Filipino? Not. Tell the authenticity police to talk to 14 year old me, sitting outside the front of my own house with my boyfriend, having the cops roll up on me and ask me what I'm doing there. But here - we are talking about race, not culture yes? (sarcasm?)

The crucial difference here is that I had and continue have no choice in my blackness. I cannot hide my skin or make myself invisible when I am protesting police terror or creating theater art for other Black women with skin like mine. I cannot manipulate what race is for my own pleasure. Ms. Dolezal is a white woman, who made choices, who used and is still using every bit of her white privilege to maintain the power and elite status she has accrued from her deception. This use of white privilege in her case is no different from transracial adoptive parents who adopt bi-racial children because they want these children to identify with the "white side” of themselves. These parents completely ignore that how they want race to function is not actually how race operates out in the world. They are completely assured of their own power to bend and change race and meanings of race at their own white whim. This manipulation is what Ms. Dolezal has done. This manipulation of race is no different from what white supremacists did in the early days of our country, moving the lines of race back and forth when it pleased them, using the language of the law, even at the cost of Black, Brown, Asian and Native lives.

I want to be clear that this is complicated. I can speculate Ms. Dolezal’s living in a transracial adoptive family and having Black brothers and sisters has impacted the ways she thinks about race. But this complexity is where the danger lies. The global system of Transracial adoption itself is too often the place where white people who desire close proximity to bodies of color, their "exotic", their “natural rhythms and cultures” make their fetish dreams come true. And hasn't Ms. Dolezal adopted her Black brother and claimed him as her son to gain authenticity? How is this different?

There are families whom after adopting across race begin to call themselves “Chinese American” after of adopting a girl from China. Um, no. You are not a Chinese American family simply because you follow the ownership model of adoption and have some kind of claim to a Chinese body of color. You are a white family with a child of color, you are a multiracial family, but no matter what, you are still White. You have a responsibility to your children to be open, honest and respectful about what experiences are yours and what experiences are theirs. You have a responsibility not to lie about the very real life and death issues that your adopted person will be facing.

Ultimately this is where I land with Ms. Dolezal. I don’t care what she has done for “the community”. I’m enraged at those of you (and I’m looking directly at you NAACP for not firing this woman) who are asking me to be “grateful” to a White woman who has “done lots of work for the black community”. This language is a line transracial adoptees have learned to obliterate and resist against years ago. We are constantly told we should be grateful we didn’t grow up in a orphanage or become a prostitute, because our own families weren’t good enough. Our Black or Brown or Third World mothers weren’t good enough. This discourse of gratefulness is part of white supremacist thinking, it is a kind of linguistic violence that asks us to silence our own experiences, to erase ourselves. It asks me to let a White person tell me how I should act, what I should feel, how I should behave and ultimately, what Blackness is. Another white woman telling me what diasporic Blackness is, what Black womanhood is? I think not.

Intersex is a person born with ambiguous genitalia.

Is it possible that intersexed persons exist? If they exist is it possible that they would choose a gender identity that doesn't match their genitalia (which is generally some combination of male and female)?

And I kind of think it's a disservice to transgender identity and racial identity to assume that the two have to be on equal footing, just because they deal with identity.

Show me the science behind being transracial, explain to me the hormonal and psychological processes that lead someone to being transracial and then I'll make the comparison. Until then I'm with holding judgement because this entire discussion is based off the actions of a liar/crazy woman.

make-up than cisgenders?

which is equally odd and disturbing to me

hormones and implants = scientific is what it sounds like

as if MJ didn't effectively turn himself into a white man

being transgendered as a set of identities that we can pin point and define based on the psychological make up of an individual...I don't see transracial as having a similar grounding in science so I'm not going to do a disservice to transgender people by saying the two things are similar.

"All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players:
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts..." -The Bard

is it conclusive?

has there been research that definitively says there aren't psychological, hormonal, or biological indicators for those that bleach their skin?

body dysmorphia is treated as a psycho-social disorder

why assume it shouldn't be the same for those who attempt to go through race-related transitions?

I never said they were a different species or something.

Nice try though.

taken to clearly distinguish race and ethnicity in arguments, the same way sex and gender are carefully distinguished. I honestly think this is responsible for a lot of confusion. Race and sex are classified by a basket of biological indicators, period. ETHNICITY and gender are classified by a basket of participatory indicators, period. And so on.

p.s, Not arguing that the biological features currently used to categorize races have more validity than others. Just hoping the language eventually becomes more accurate because there are so many interesting opinions. I also think some arguments are being supported with examples of 'transethnicity' not 'transrace', which doesn't quite read right?



For example:

RACE VS ETHNICITY


Biological Traits (congenital)
-----------------------------

Element: race
Outer Identifiers: skin colour, hair texture, eye colour/shape, nose shape/size, etc.



Shared Experience (Participatory)
--------------------------------
Element: Ethnicity
Outer Identifiers: heritage (i.e.racial ancestry), cultural behavior,language,shared history,nationality, etc.



Societal Perception (Imposed)
----------------------------
Element: Govt Classification
Outer Identifiers: Census race/eth designation, Medical race/eth designation

Element: Discrimination
Outer Identifiers: disenfranchisement, inequity,racism, etc

according to sex and gender:

SEX vs GENDER

Biological Traits (congenital)
------------------------------
Element: sex
Outer Indentifiers: Genitalia, Chromosomes, Endocrine profile (i.e. hormone levels), Sexual dimorphisms

Element: Sexual attraction
Outer Identifier: Sexual orientation (eg.hetero,bi,queer,etc.)


Shared Experience (Participatory)
---------------------------------
Element: Gender Performance
Outer Indentifiers: Clothing, Hair style/length, Makeup/grooming, Preferred name/pronoun, etc.

Element: Dating/relationships
Outer Identifier: Sexual activity (eg. M4W,T4M,etc.)


Societal Perception (Imposed)
-----------------------------
Element: Govt Classification
Outer Identifiers: Census sex designation, Medical sex designation

Element: Discrimination
Outer Identifiers: Disenfranchisement, Inequity, Misogyny, Transphobia,Homophobia, etc.


Then to me, I read a recurring question of authenticity in the discordant perspective (pro-transgender and anti-transracial). People seem to judge Trans persons on how 'thoroughly' they attempt to re-identify. So referring again to the above domains (biological vs participatory vs societal/systemic), people seem to register re-identification as inauthentic if due diligence is lacking across any of the domains. ESPECIALLY the societal/systemic domain.

With the Caitlyn Jenner vs Rachel Dolezal example, Dolezal's trans experience rubs people the wrong way because she fabricated details of her ancestry and shared history. Since Black American ancestry and shared history is so tightly integrated with the systemic discrimination experienced by the population, her fabrication comes across like a slap in the face (not necessarily my opinion, just my observation). Thus, her attempt to re-identify comes off as inauthentic and she proceeds to offend.

Jenner, on the other hand, made every attempt to challenge the identifiers across each domain that are within her power. While she
reportedly has chosen not to alter her genitalia at this time, she changed most of her remaining sexual dimorphisms (breasts, adam's apple removal, hair removal) and endocrine profile (hormone treatments). She has competely embraced female gender performance (hair/makeup, clothing, female name change). And while she has not confirmed whether there is/was/will be a change in her sexual activity, she has described a long battle of feeling gender-closeted most of her life and has already been the victim of varying levels of transphobia from both loved ones and the general public. Thus her re-identification strikes people as authentic and is more or less embraced. So much so that she can comfortably adopt the role of an LGBTQ advocate without backlash.

If a trans(-gender, -ethnic, -racial, whatever) person goes all in, shows due respect for the cause and experiences some degree of the injustices common to the population they are trying to identify with, it appears that's when they get the love.

Not my thought process, but it isn't actually that unintuitive.

>Element: race
>Outer Identifiers: skin colour, hair texture, eye
>colour/shape, nose shape/size, etc.
>

because these identifiers are far from uniform and run the gamut when it comes to Black as it is know and accepted in the US.

Or as you saying that Black is an ethnicity in America? cause that opens up another can of worms.

>
>>Element: race
>>Outer Identifiers: skin colour, hair texture, eye
>>colour/shape, nose shape/size, etc.
>>
>
>because these identifiers are far from uniform and run the
>gamut when it comes to Black as it is know and accepted in the
>US.
>
>Or as you saying that Black is an ethnicity in America? cause
>that opens up another can of worms.
>
>
>
>

But I don't think these identifiers disqualify Black Americans as being of black race. There are multiple combinations of each variable that, when observed, would be identified as indicating 'black race'. This is not necessarily MY belief, because I place greater weight on how a person identifies. But I do think this is how race has been defined in the books, so to speak.

And yes I do subscribe to the belief that capital 'B' Black is an ethnicity in America. It opens up a can of worms but I don't think it's invalid. It's kind of my point. People can be transethnic. And if you ask me, the word transracial should be restricted to cases that include intentional reconstruction of biological features (eg. Negroid, Mongoloid, etc.) to mimic those historically recognized as indicating a different race. There are plenty of examples of this (eg. Skin bleaching or darkening, silky weave/relaxer, eye colour surgery, eye shape surgery, etc.). And I think Dolezal qualifies. In fact, it seems the only reason famous people like Vybez Cartel,Sammy Sosa or Tiny (TI's wife) are not considered transracial is because of this ongoing conflation of race and ethnicity. These individuals maintain strong ETHNIC identities so nobody really laments that they are reconstructing their historically negroid features to look caucasian, even though that is exactly what they're doing lol.

Likewise, nteresting transethnicity examples might be Iggy Azalea and Eminem. They have made no attempts to reconstruct their biological features to those that are historically identified as indicating 'black race', but they very diligently embrace Black American ethnicity by adopting Black American cultural behavior, language, etc.

and that's not the case. Trans people don't claim to be biological men or women. They don't try to act as if they've inherited the struggles of cis men or women, as they have their own. They're only seeking the freedom of their own gender expression. If Rachel Dolezal was aiming at expressing blackness as an expansion of racial expression rather than adopting blackness and its legacy of struggle, I could maybe see it for her. However, she's doing something completely different. So, if there are people trying to make "transracial" an actual thing, she's the last person you should use as an example.

>and that's not the case. Trans people don't claim to be
>biological men or women.


There are plenty of transwomen who describe themselves not as transwomen but just plain women.

Infact, a person would be considered a dickhead and a jerk if they started pressing the issue and asking about their anatomy and what parts they were born with. You know this is true.

They don't try to act as if they've
>inherited the struggles of cis men or women, as they have
>their own. They're only seeking the freedom of their own
>gender expression. If Rachel Dolezal was aiming at expressing
>blackness as an expansion of racial expression rather than
>adopting blackness and its legacy of struggle, I could maybe
>see it for her.


Let me get this straight, you would be down for her if she HADN'T became an advocate for black people and working towards improving the lives of black people?

How ass backwards does that sound?


However, she's doing something completely
>different. So, if there are people trying to make
>"transracial" an actual thing, she's the last person you
>should use as an example.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson


"One of the most important things in life is what Judge Learned Hand described as 'that ever-gnawing inner doubt as to whether you're

>There are plenty of transwomen who describe themselves not as
>transwomen but just plain women.

Who? I cannot think of a single trans person claiming biological sex. For the purposes of gendered pronouns, of course, they prefer that you use the one that matches their gender expression, but they are not trying to be cis. They know that they are different. The vast majority are seeking an expansion of gender expression. Give me the names of the scores of trans people who are claiming cis gender.

>Infact, a person would be considered a dickhead and a jerk if
>they started pressing the issue and asking about their anatomy
>and what parts they were born with. You know this is true.

Obviously, that is the case, as it's rude to ask about anybody's genitalia. That said, if you have a dialogue with actual trans people, they may or may not change their biological sex. That, however, doesn't affect their gender expression. They can express their gender with or without the accompanying genitalia. Again, they are only seeking to have their gender expression respected, not to r assimilate as a cis gendered person.

> They don't try to act as if they've
>>inherited the struggles of cis men or women, as they have
>>their own. They're only seeking the freedom of their own
>>gender expression. If Rachel Dolezal was aiming at
>expressing
>>blackness as an expansion of racial expression rather than
>>adopting blackness and its legacy of struggle, I could maybe
>>see it for her.
>
>
>Let me get this straight, you would be down for her if she
>HADN'T became an advocate for black people and working towards
>improving the lives of black people?
>
>How ass backwards does that sound?

I was speaking in an extreme hypothetical and you're trying to attach shit to my words that I didn't say. I said, if she were talking about expanding what it means to be black or even notions of racial expression in those terms, I could see having a conversation. That doesn't mean I'd accept it. It means, I'd be willing to entertain a conversation about it. Given the current set of circumstances surrounding her story, comparing her to trans people makes zero fucking sense. Trans people are not seeking to pass for cis people, they are seeking they're own space in the realm of gender expression. That is a completely different thing.

Do you think the average person knows the difference between sex and gender?

In practical, real life terms, there transwomen/men who for all intents and purposes are women/men.

They look like women, act like women, identify as women, and present as women.

You want to get into gender theory talking about sex vs gender, but it doesn't have to be that deep.

Wasn't there a post recently where a transwomen was killed after her boyfriend found out her secret?

People here were arguing that she shouldn't out herself early on in the relationship as transgender for fear of potential violence

but black people should be tuned in to racial studies enough to peep the difference. Keep in mind that trans people came up with the prefixes "trans" and "cis" to differentiate themselves from biological men and women, because they are well aware of the difference. Presenting their gender expression is not them trying to "pass" as a biological man/woman. Put simply, they are just expressing themselves. There is no deception in that. That is what it is.


>In practical, real life terms, there transwomen/men who for
>all intents and purposes are women/men.
>
>They look like women, act like women, identify as women, and
>present as women.

The thing is, you're imprinting your ideas on them. When you talk to these people, themselves, they are not trying to be cis gendered people. They make their own distinctions, enough so to come up with their own widely-accepted language to describe themselves

>You want to get into gender theory talking about sex vs
>gender, but it doesn't have to be that deep.

It's damn near impossible for it not to get that deep, when discussing subjects as nuanced as race and gender.

>Wasn't there a post recently where a transwomen was killed
>after her boyfriend found out her secret?

So, we're going for the Fox News tactic of extrapolating an individual situation with no context to an entire population of people?

>People here were arguing that she shouldn't out herself early
>on in the relationship as transgender for fear of potential
>violence

As far as the need for people to disclose personal information, well there's no set rule of engagement when it comes to any relationship. It depends heavily on the parties involved and what they're comfortable with. They are responsible for negotiating the terms of their involvement. All of us are welcome to our own opinions, but, ultimately, people have to do what works for them.

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson


"One of the most important things in life is what Judge Learned Hand described as 'that ever-gnawing inner doubt as to whether you're

They created terms to differentiate themselves for a reason. So, they are fully aware of the differences between them and biological men/women. They are not trying to "pass" as cis gendered. They are seeking to expand gender expression on their own terms.

Trans woman are not trying to 'claim' those experiences they are not privy too. Ie growing up in a world that sexualizes your body.....menstruation.....

my FTM homie didn't identify himself as trans...but after i found out he didn't deny it either. and i found out b/c his roommate told me about a video he'd seen of my homie getting pounded in his vagina. based on that i'd say the homie doesn't hide his trans identity or seek to pass as a cis man. i now know he's trans and it hasn't changed anything between us. we still cool.

i had a MTF coworker who was out as trans. she never hid it but didn't wear it on her sleeve either. she didn't introduce like 'Hi, I'm Jane and i'm a trans woman' but she didn't run from her truth either.

i know another MTF woman who works as a server in a restaurant and performs at a club. she will pull her dick out at a moment's notice! but otherwise she's not clockable, really. she doesn't run from her truth either.

i had a crush on another FTM guy who also doesn't hide his truth. he didn't tell me str8 up that he's trans but i found out when someone else brought it up in a conversation w/him. he never shied from it.

but yes i've also heard stories about trans men and women who have gone to certain lengths to keep ppl from knowing they are trans. they do it largely due to transphobia - their own internalized transphobia and that they encounter from the outside world. i dunno what to make of those stories in light of the current conversation.

Granted, my experience is from trans activists. So, that may be a factor. From my understanding, people at the forefront of those movements are careful with their language to ensure that they carve out their own place in the realm of gender expression.

I view people lying about their gender expression amidst transphobia the same way I do gay people lying about their sexual orientation amidst homophobia. People do what they have to do to survive. However, as society opens up and widens views of gender expression, I see more and more people proclaiming their identities. The trans part of the LGBT movement is decades behind the rest of the movement. People are still barely able to differentiate their place in the realm of sexual politics, hence all the clumsy language around trans people.

So, I don't view those examples you mentioned as contrary to my original point. As trans people become more vocal, I don't see them attempting to pass. I see them as fighting for their right to exist on the spectrum of gender expression.

>Granted, my experience is from trans activists. So, that may
>be a factor. From my understanding, people at the forefront
>of those movements are careful with their language to ensure
>that they carve out their own place in the realm of gender
>expression.
>
>I view people lying about their gender expression amidst
>transphobia the same way I do gay people lying about their
>sexual orientation amidst homophobia. People do what they have
>to do to survive. However, as society opens up and widens
>views of gender expression, I see more and more people
>proclaiming their identities. The trans part of the LGBT
>movement is decades behind the rest of the movement. People
>are still barely able to differentiate their place in the
>realm of sexual politics, hence all the clumsy language around
>trans people.
>
>So, I don't view those examples you mentioned as contrary to
>my original point. As trans people become more vocal, I don't
>see them attempting to pass. I see them as fighting for their
>right to exist on the spectrum of gender expression.


She is at the lying level but not just that she attempted to co-opt experiences and movements that is damaging.

I dont have a problem with a White, Latino, Asain person teaching Af-Am history/art or joining black organizations to further causes and fight injustices

The problem is lying about your past to further legitimize if not try to gain a superior stance within the community

I wonder if she realized that her likely discomfort w her status at HU lead her to seek status in a very white centered way

It would be classic Irish or Italian going white in this country
But I saw those as more erasing the personal past rather than inventing experiences
And the American xenophobic encouragement to be "more American"

Rather like af-am's used to do to immigrant blacks identified as other
~~~~
When you are born, you cry, and the world rejoices. Live so that when you die, you rejoice, and the world cries.
~~~~
You cannot hate people for their own good.

>There are plenty of transwomen who describe themselves not as
>transwomen but just plain women.

There's a episode of Catfish with a transwoman on it. At the end, Nev Schulman and Max Joseph do this little PSA of sorts where they both declare that "Trangender women are REAL WOMEN".

You also have Marie Claire running an article back in April titled "Trans Women *Are* Real Women: Janet Mock on How Her Role Models Shaped Her Journey"

http://www.marieclaire.com/beauty/news/a14161/my-transgender-beauty-role-models/


---------------------------

"Where was the peace when we were getting shot? Where's the peace when we were getting laid out?
Where is the peace when we are in the back of ambulances? Where is the peace then?
They don't want to call for peace then.

Because she refers to herself as a trans woman throughout it. It actually proves my point.

edit: Also, Catfish is your source of understanding trans identity? For real? There is a breadth of information at your disposal. Do better.

>Because she refers to herself as a trans woman throughout it.
>It actually proves my point.
>
>edit: Also, Catfish is your source of understanding trans
>identity? For real? There is a breadth of information at your
>disposal. Do better.

The point is that there are people out there that will declare with their mouth and heart that transwomen are REAL women.


---------------------------

"Where was the peace when we were getting shot? Where's the peace when we were getting laid out?
Where is the peace when we are in the back of ambulances? Where is the peace then?
They don't want to call for peace then.

The article is about the legitimacy or "realness" of trans womanhood, not appropriation. You must've done horribly at reading comprehension in school. Real does not mean biological, because, you know, words mean things.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/06/15/rachel-dolezal-resigns-as-president-of-naacp-spokane-chapter/

Rachel Dolezal, the civil rights activist in Washington state who has come under fire for her disputed racial identity, said Monday she was stepping down as president of the NAACP’s Spokane chapter.

maybe now the org can move on while she deals w/the fallout from the story.

which makes sense

because it is championing the cause of an admitted fraud.

what's the agenda here?

What you are basically saying but trying to avoid saying bluntly (same for everyone saying "one is a thing, and the other is not a thing") is that one is accepted and the other is not.



>which makes sense
>
>because it is championing the cause of an admitted fraud.
>
>what's the agenda here?


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson


"One of the most important things in life is what Judge Learned Hand described as 'that ever-gnawing inner doubt as to whether you're

one is an issue that people struggle with,
identity and not just as a social construct but also biological

race, yes is also social construct that bears material meaning, repercussion, expression etc
in this country, race is a stand-in for ethnicity

with this particular scenario
people are trying to make transrace a thing when its really about a woman who chose to lie
that's not a 'thing'
if it was, we would have more examples of people
coming out to define what their transrace'ism is

we dont, we are instead arguing hypotheticals.

raised by people of another race (adoptions). So, at the very least, the word has been out there in research as scholarly discussions for a while (I just found out about it when all this started.) So there's that.

But almost all things start off as not being things. This has the potential to make transrace an even fuller thing than it has been up to now.

there's no such thing as transrace
of course people who associate, identify, are raised by a particular group of people
identify with that group of people- culturally etc
assimilation happens everywhere
thats not what we are discussing here- and not especially when we put up transgender issues next to it

so no, its not a thing

>so no, its not a thing

"What about the children who are born poor but feel like millionaires inside?! Why is it that transgender people have special rights but transclass people don't?!"

another 50 years. I'm not as smart as you are, so I can't predict the future like that.

>I'm not as smart as you are, so I can't predict the future like that.

The future could be full of uncertainty and chaos, thanks to the social justice warriors who've forced us to stop participating in the transphobia that contributes to the high rates of violence against people like Caitlyn Jenner and Laverne Cox. Now that we've started down this slippery slope of acceptance, here is how the next 50 years could go:

First come the transgenders.
Then the transracials.
Then the transclassers.
And then the dog f**kers.

A transgender transracial transclass dog f**ker could very well be the face of Vanity Fair tomorrow. If you allow one, you have to allow them all!!

I don't really mind it because reasonable people reading what I'm writing will not take it all the way left like he just did.

WHO are these transracial people you are discussing, these marginalized souls whose stories are similar to those of transgender people? Who specifically are some of these people who were born in the wrong body and must now transition into the correct race?

But I don't need to meet one for it to exist. Apparently, adopted children are the most likeliest candidates to feel this way.

In anycase....this weekend has forced me to refine my view on trans identities of any sort. That being, a trans person should not attempt to lay claim to the experiences of the identity they seek that they are not privy too. IE Caitly Jenner should not absolve the male privilege that she did receive while growing up despite of how she felt inside. I hadn't really considered that point before. But it stands as a counter to a common feminist argument against the legitimacy of trans women. So really, this conversation has helped me refute even more arguments against trans identities....not justify dog-fucking.

lol

I was like "wasn't that the second thing he said?"

http://www.thelostdaughters.com/2015/06/transracial-lives-matter-rachel-dolezal.html



Also, this is a pretty good article I read, too.

http://www.thefeministwire.com/2015/06/race-and-gender-are-not-the-same-is-not-a-good-response-to-the-transracial-transgender-question-or-we-can-and-must-do-better/

>http://www.thelostdaughters.com/2015/06/transracial-lives-matter-rachel-dolezal.html

Here, finally, we have a definition for what it means to be transracial from the mouth of a transracial woman herself -- and not surprisingly, it differs greatly from the way you and other men in here are trying to portray it:

"The 'trans' in transracial for me, never meant my race changed. It meant I was a multiracial black girl, adopted into a white family. It meant I was taken without my consent from one home, one place of origin and put inside another family, another culture, another race, one that didn’t belong to me."


Here's what she says about white people who think they can bend the rules on race:

"These parents completely ignore that how they want race to function is not actually how race operates out in the world. They are completely assured of their own power to bend and change race and meanings of race at their own white whim. This manipulation is what Ms. Dolezal has done. This manipulation of race is no different from what white supremacists did in the early days of our country, moving the lines of race back and forth when it pleased them, using the language of the law, even at the cost of Black, Brown, Asian and Native lives."

Now this is the transracial conversation that we should be having.

So I am NOT the authority on how transracialism has been defined up to now. I'm learning.

>So I am NOT the authority on how transracialism has been
>defined up to now. I'm learning.

I was pushing for real world examples for a reason. The transgender movement is about real people's lives. The transracial conversation that you are having is about your misunderstanding, much of it fueled by your imagination.

I also suspect, of course, that it's about your negative attitudes toward transgender identity. I doubt you've given the real-life struggle for LGBT rights even a fraction of the the advocacy that you've lended to a hypothetical plight that you first heard about last week.

on the strides that LGBTQ has made in the last 20 years. Well, at least I don't think you need to fear it - it seems you do, though.

Everything is not out to get you and won't lead to you being put in chains, or whatever. You can stop policing the boundaries of race so hard. The White Walkers aren't gonna try to tear down the entire Wall.

If the Korean girl down the block feels in her heart that she's really Mexican? I say go for it. Same for Caitlyn and Janet.

We will deal with what comes tomorrow. Yall just need to focus on not fuking up urgent issues that we're actually facing today.

those things.

>
>what's the agenda here?

- Transphobics
- Black males who like nothing better than to give white women passes
- White folk whose social circles consist primarily of black people finding this highly appealing


Oh wait
Then what really seems to be behind this and you will notice the gotcha game on the boards with a lot of non black posters thinking the playing field is level and their biases are no worse than blacks:
Por ejemplo
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/bizarre/rachel-dolezal-discrimination-lawsuit-786451


~~~~
When you are born, you cry, and the world rejoices. Live so that when you die, you rejoice, and the world cries.
~~~~
You cannot hate people for their own good.

>http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/bizarre/rachel-dolezal-discrimination-lawsuit-786451
>

so is she black is she white
at that time was her black on the inside self asleep?

I was not suspecting THIS twist. Holeeeeeeeeee.

It goes with what I've assumed about her motivations all along though. At the end of the day....she is seeking victim-status. Every single element of this story can be explained in that way.

Not to mention....it feeds into her motivation in seeking a more credible, legitimate voice in the social justice world. She felt silenced as a white woman. So her answer was to pretend she was black.

This discussion is being dominated by a bunch of men who, as SarahBellum has pointed out, never understood or approved of the idea of transgenderism and now want to discredit the people who let them know that their dusty approval wasn't needed.

They got salt all up and inbetween their keys.

>This discussion is being dominated by a bunch of men who, as
>SarahBellum has pointed out, never understood or approved of
>the idea of transgenderism and now want to discredit the
>people who let them know that their dusty approval wasn't
>needed.
>
>They got salt all up and inbetween their keys.
>
>

who is the "decider"

.

Listen if Rachel D. lied on forms to receive benefits for minorities, she is wrong.

If she lied about being the victim of racial harrasment, again, of course she is wrong.

However, so much of the coverage of her being a "racial fraud" isn't based on those facts, so much of it is written has to do with her appearance. Denny in this post made it about her rocking braids.

Folks have even turned the clear virtue of dedicating her work to racial social justice issues of evidence of her fraud. That's ass backwards in my opinion.

I'd thought black people would be weary of the Fox News classic "XYZ is no saint" argument. What do her braids and style of dress have to do with whether she lied on forms or faked racial harrasment complaints?



>Moreover - if you support the exploratory process, plight,
>and rights of trans-gendered people, why do you mock and
>belittle those who identify as transracial?
>
>I'm not particularly interested in the conservative opinion
>here, whereby they think transgendered *and* transracial are
>silly concepts not worthy of equal rights under the law.
>
>I'm more interested in the progressive opinion - whereby in
>one respect, the cause of transgendered people is championed,
>yet on the flip side, the mere mention of transracial is a
>crime worthy of condemnation and clowning.
>
>Do tell.
>
>-->


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson


"One of the most important things in life is what Judge Learned Hand described as 'that ever-gnawing inner doubt as to whether you're

My problem with her hair was that she was presenting it as natural when it wasn't. Thereby deceptively attaching herself to (or 'claiming') a burden that black woman talk about concerning their natural hair being judged under certain social structures.

I have no problem with white woman who want hairstyles we normally associate with black woman. At all.

It's not the hair exclusively
Her transgressions crossover in multiple ways
~~~~
When you are born, you cry, and the world rejoices. Live so that when you die, you rejoice, and the world cries.
~~~~
You cannot hate people for their own good.

Because it clearly shows how she is absolving herself of having white privilege and trying to lay claim to a burden that she doesn't really have.

>My problem with her hair was that she was presenting it as
>natural when it wasn't.


Let's be real. A "natural" is a hairstyle and thats how she described her hairstyle.

But I think that's all kind of besides the point. Does anyone see the ridiculous of using a facebook post about her hairstyle to make the case that she did something terrible?

So she mislead people about her appearance in a facebook post? Who gives a shit? Every fat person doing shoulder up close up picture to not reveal how overweight they are are misleading people on facebook. Every scrub taking pictures in front of someoneelses car is misleading people on facebook. Nobody cares about that and are writing thought pieces about that.

But y'all clinging to that like that's a good enough basis to stop her from doing the good work that everyone seems to acknowledge that she was doing at the NAACP.

How active are any of y'all with your local NAACP?

Again, want to talk about whether or not shake faked hate crimes? cool. If she were stealing minority set asides. Cool.

Want to talk about misleading FB Posts? Petty and just plain hating.



**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson


"One of the most important things in life is what Judge Learned Hand described as 'that ever-gnawing inner doubt as to whether you're

And stated in her lawsuit that the campus was 'permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult' towards her, as a (then) self-identified white woman? Cause the link is provided above.

Would that convince you to stop being facetious?

were treated and how the school was run disqualifies you as being black then there are a lot of black howard alum who no longer can check that black box.

And god bless Howard, I support the school and their mission. My pops went there and my brother, but it is not the best run place.

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson


"One of the most important things in life is what Judge Learned Hand described as 'that ever-gnawing inner doubt as to whether you're

Now does that make her a terrible person? No. Does it make her any less committed to the principles she espouses? Maybe not. But she created a life that was based largely on a misrepresentation, and thus by definition she is a fraud.

For faking a hate crime. She's definitely on that terrible person continuum.

">But she created a life that was based largely on a
>misrepresentation, and thus by definition she is a fraud."

Your definition of fraud would encompass a lot of transgendered people you know.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson


"One of the most important things in life is what Judge Learned Hand described as 'that ever-gnawing inner doubt as to whether you're

>Folks have even turned the clear virtue of dedicating her work
>to racial social justice issues of evidence of her fraud.

she did this
and her motives are clearly about herself not about the work these programs do
but about the amount of control, social climbing and access she was able to do in her guise and she feels she would not have been able as a white woman

its not a "clear virtue" at all


i think it was on tumblr that folks started clowning all of these white kids that went to africa people started noticing mad white kids had a shot with a "poor african" voluntourism i think they called it

her "work" reminds me of that
its very self directed
~~~~
When you are born, you cry, and the world rejoices. Live so that when you die, you rejoice, and the world cries.
~~~~
You cannot hate people for their own good.

I'm not being glib.

If I speak and read standard Mandarin.

Eat, drink, inhale/exhale Fukienese culture.

Renounce any trappings of Western culture.

Take a Fukienese wife, raise our children as Fukienese.

Am I Fukienese?

Or am I still a fat balding Westerner who has adopted a culture as expression of privilege, because as a fat balding Westerner, there are no explicit limitations on what I am allowed?

I understand the argument -- that as social constructs, race and gender share malleability -- and as I stated before, there are certainly overlapping issues. But I can convincingly change my biology to be a woman. A fat, hirsute, water buffalo of a woman, but one with a working vajay-jay and functional female biology. I mean, I can't think of anyone who'd recommend it, because we already have Rebel Wilson, but the technology and societal structures exist to accommodate that kind of change, and it's a transition that is largely egalitarian:barring physiological complications any man can become a woman and vice versa.

'Transracial' is limited, because there are no mechanisms by which any race can genuinely change from one to another. There is 'passing', which is essentially going undercover, but that's not the same, and doesn't imply the same level of malleability as transgender. There are certainly episodes of crossover and adoption -- Black Seminoles, Jewish Cossacks -- but again, those aren't 'genuine' transracial episodes insofar as they have to be qualified with a prefix -- 'Black' Seminole, 'Jewish' Cossack -- because the core race in question is still distinct, separate, and impervious to conversion.

A transsexual person needn't change their biological make-up in order for their identity to be acceptable. We want to be accepting of transsexuals who are fine with 'passing' as well. Also, according to your criteria....it was only legitimate to be a transsexual AFTER our technology allowed for biological transition.

>A transsexual person needn't change their biological make-up
>in order for their identity to be acceptable. We want to be
>accepting of transsexuals who are fine with 'passing' as well.
> Also, according to your criteria....it was only legitimate to
>be a transsexual AFTER our technology allowed for biological
>transition.

Transwomen still have no uterus, no ovaries, no cervix, and no eggs. They still don't have periods and god forbid they stop taking their hormones and start showing tell-tale signs of being biologically male (i.e. facial hair, changes in musculature, fat redistribution, etc).

Transmen have similar issues, Technology still can't give them a functional dick, balls, or prostate which means no semen or sperm and no fucking her right in the pussy. Also, if for some reason they're without their hormones for a period of time they will begin to show signs of being biologically female (i.e. loss of facial hair, changes in musculature, and fat redistribution).

Bottom line, technology only allows for a more convincing level of passing, but make no mistake: It's still just passing.


---------------------------

"Where was the peace when we were getting shot? Where's the peace when we were getting laid out?
Where is the peace when we are in the back of ambulances? Where is the peace then?
They don't want to call for peace then.

But this only goes to the point that being able to biologically transition should not be a criteria for the legitimacy of trans identities.

The very nature of race as a social construct means that we can just simply change the definition to suit whatever purpose we want.

And that definition has already changes or place and time.

My bi-racial friend in Kenya was considered White in Kenya but was deemed black when she came to the states. We use to have huge fights in college because I tried to force her to accept that she was black in the status (as oppose to bi-racial). It took me a while but in retrospect I realize I didn't have the right to decide for her what she was.

All over the world we know of other places that don't ascribe to our binary black or white racial categories (doesn't brazil have like 10 catergories).

Even in the US our racial categories seem to be changing. No one really strongly supports the one drop rule. Bi-racial wasn't a respectable category even when I was a kid. Shit changes.

Either there is a biological basis or it's a social construct and if it's a social construct then we are making up the rules as we go along and we decide whether or not it's a thing.






















**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson


"One of the most important things in life is what Judge Learned Hand described as 'that ever-gnawing inner doubt as to whether you're

, i would never come across this shit in real life. thanks gang!

can someone clearly spell it out for me?




and because its a hpothetical we should stop comparing it with something that is real
and has a huge impact on people's lives

where once they posit that trans*insert category here* isn't real then they're forced to also admit that transgenderism isn't real. or is as ridiculous as trans___.

as has been pointed out - the folks taking this position are many of the same ppl who argue that issuance of marriage licenses to same sex couples will result in issuance of marriage licenses to ppl who wanna marry their dogs or their cars, et al. not everyone on that side of the discussion as so intellectually dishonest - there are some who genuinely see transracialism as a thing or at least a possibility. but the loudest voices sure seem to be bent on discrediting a movement of queers fighting for their civil rights.

>there are some who genuinely see
>transracialism as a thing or at least a possibility. but the
>loudest voices sure seem to be bent on discrediting a movement
>of queers fighting for their civil rights.

Or at least a choice in how we define ourselves. Whether I identify as Black, Native, or both should be my choice and mine alone.

---------------------------

"Where was the peace when we were getting shot? Where's the peace when we were getting laid out?
Where is the peace when we are in the back of ambulances? Where is the peace then?
They don't want to call for peace then.

the #transrace thing as evidenced by the conversation about this Rachel woman isn't about multiracial ppl identifying as they see fit. it's about ppl who allegedly feel the race w/which they identify doesn't match their body. it's about alleged white ppl who feel black inside and want the world to accept them as black ppl. or black ppl who feel Asian inside wanting the world to accept them as Asian. Asians who feel Latino wanting the world to accept them as such. and on and on.

the multi-racial thing is something else.

this ain't about ppl like Tiger Woods as much as it's about fictional ppl - this Rachel woman being the primary example in the public debate.

>this ain't about ppl like Tiger Woods as much as it's about
>fictional ppl - this Rachel woman being the primary example in
>the public debate.

Or will this chick keep the debate squarely on her lone experience.


---------------------------

"Where was the peace when we were getting shot? Where's the peace when we were getting laid out?
Where is the peace when we are in the back of ambulances? Where is the peace then?
They don't want to call for peace then.

b/c what you're talking about is NOT 'transracial' at all.

My grandmother was adopted by a Black family straight off the reservation before her 1st birthday. She was raised the same way as her siblings in her new family. Growing up, folks around town just knew her as a light skinned black chick and this fit with the family as they're all lighter Black folks.

As far as she knew, she was black. She knew no different... Until she was told she was adopted and was Native. People in that city still see her as a Black woman, though she isn't. Though she will tell you she's Native if you ask and now identifies as such, she's still has a Black identity and many people know her as a Black woman.

If she were to say "fuck it, I'm Black", would we have a problem with this?

My wife's Great Grandmother had a very similar story, being raised Black and all, yet she's also full blooded Native the difference being that she acknowledged her being Native, yet identified as a Black woman because that's what her life experiences were.

Do we have a problem with her identifying as Black even though she was Native?

yeah.

>it's about
>alleged white ppl who feel black inside and want the world to
>accept them as black ppl.

... I"m sure you know white cats raised from birth in the hood that are genuinely immersed in black culture to the point that if it wasn't for the color of their skin you'd swear up and down that you were dealing with a bruh like any other.

Should one of them look at themselves in the mirror one day and say "You know what Jhaqueil? I'm Black..." do we really have a problem with this? I mean, aside from the whole "nigga" shits coming out of their mouth, and even then a lot of them dudes raised in those environments get a pass on it from Black folks that they grew up with.


---------------------------

"Where was the peace when we were getting shot? Where's the peace when we were getting laid out?
Where is the peace when we are in the back of ambulances? Where is the peace then?
They don't want to call for peace then.

either as someone who's not entirely comfortable with recent LGBT progress or just someone with poor critical thinking skills.

http://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=4&topic_id=12716879&mesg_id=12716879&listing_type=search

CaseOne is a clown so you can dismiss him (but at least he is being consistent anti-Catilyn and Anti-Rachel) but cats like John Forte and LegsDiamond are also being consistent in defending Jenner and this lady.

What's hilarious to me (and I think extremely intellectually dishonest) is folks are taking the position that the progressive position is to NOT be open minded about this and accepting of an individual's personal decision to express their identity in a way that is comfortable to them. Conversely they are arguing that it is an agenda of the close minded and the conservative to be ACCEPTING of this.

This might be true of the people who were anti-Catilyn and pro-Rachel. But who are those people here?

And also how do you explain the people who are pro-Catilyn and pro-Rachel like Legsdiamond and John Forte and a shit ton of people in my facebook feed?




**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson


"One of the most important things in life is what Judge Learned Hand described as 'that ever-gnawing inner doubt as to whether you're

I still think Jenner is a dude.

my angle has always been if you open up that door to let someone self identity you better be ready to defend anyone else who wants to self identity when it comes to race or whatever comes next.

I don't see how sowhat calls people assholes or bigots for not accepting someone self identifying as the opposite sex yet when the discussion of transrace comes up he isn't ready to fight for their right to self identity.

Rachel lied and comes off selfish and privileged at times... people say she hurt others by stealing a job or 2.

but here is where it gets crazy. There is a man who changed his sex to a woman and now he gets in an octagon and BEATS WOMEN UP AND GETS PAID TO DO IT.

it's hypocritical as fuck to see the same people fighting for one group running in here to stop a discussion on racelial identity because they feel that struggle belongs to them.

As a Black man I don't want a white man telling me he knows my struggle because he identifies as Black... and is that really any different than a man 9r woman saying they don't want the opposite sex to cross over and use their bathrooms or be called something they haven't been for x amount of years?

they always say "who is Caitlyn hurting?"

well, who is Rachel or the next white Malik hurting? besides personal feelings?

what's funny as well is while Rachel does come across touched in the head... I bet the first person to say they were a woman trapped in a man's body were seen as crazy too.

seems like people want progress until it steps in their toes.

>I still think Jenner is a dude.

Yassss, live in your truth!! I encourage your comrades in here to do the same.

>my angle has always been if you open up that door to let
>someone self identity you better be ready to defend anyone
>else who wants to self identity when it comes to race or
>whatever comes next.

I knew that this was the agenda behind many of the people pushing this transrace conversation. Yall thought that you'd discovered the perfect slippery slope, one that would counter pro-transgender arguments. Thank you for putting the silly pretenses to rest.

in our direction and you don't even see it.

you say we are made because we don't get to decide but then you turn right around and decide Rachel cant self identify because you "own" blackness.

like, how the fuck can you guys type this shit out and not see the hypocrisy?

>you say we are made because we don't get to decide but then
>you turn right around and decide Rachel cant self identify
>because you "own" blackness.

You're just making stuff up (which seems to be the modus operandi for you people), because I never said that. Lol @ me ever claiming to own blackness. Stop projecting. Do you think I would try to stop women from transitioning into women because I think I own maleness?

Anywho, Rachel can self-identify however the hell she wants. She can self-identify as black, as a man, or as a chicken bone with teeth marks in it. And I can decide whether I think she's doing it in good faith.

>like, how the fuck can you guys type this shit out and not see
>the hypocrisy?

Yeah, keep clutchin them pearls. lol

thank you, thats all I wanted to know...

self-identify the same way CJ self-identifies?

His position is only an agenda if one believes one is legitimate and the other is not.

If you believe both are legitimate or both are not legitimate than there is no hidden agenda.


Folks are overly concerned about slippery slope arguments. There won't be a rush of people self-identifying as cows after this.



**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson


"One of the most important things in life is what Judge Learned Hand described as 'that ever-gnawing inner doubt as to whether you're

but seems like people have limits on what is acceptable.

shit is odd

>but seems like people have limits on what is acceptable.


except as a clear case of fraud?
that is what is odd

should we also ride for unicorns?
cause there's folk out there making extreme body modifications to look like..
whatever

anyway, its very clear now that for most people riding for this non-existent issue
its because they want to deprecate the transgender identity and experience
at least you've owned up to it
if that's your agenda
its dishonest
much as this transrace-ism issue is dishonest


this woman also sued howard because they discriminated against her whiteness?
lol
*this* is whom y'all ride for
and put up laverne cox as a comparison?
smh

>His position is only an agenda if one believes one is
>legitimate and the other is not.

Not only his agenda, but yours as well

>If you believe both are legitimate or both are not legitimate
>than there is no hidden agenda.

See above

>Folks are overly concerned about slippery slope arguments.
>There won't be a rush of people self-identifying as cows after
>this.

There also won't be a rush of people self-identifying as transracial, at least in the sense that you are defining it. So this is all really a waste of time.

CJ hasn't told us she grew up as a cis girl and has always been a cis girl and was never a boy.

at some point RD claimed she has a Black father. thus, she denied her white ancestry and her white identity.

CJ hasn't presented herself as a cis woman - she identifies as a trans woman.

RD has claimed Black identity - and has yet to clarify whether she considers herself 'trans Black'.

RD could clear up much of the drama and pushback about her race identity if she would just admit that she was 'born white' and has identified as white in the past but has altered her appearance and now identifies as Black b/c *insert explanation here*. but she hasn't. she plays coy and claims the issue is complex but has yet to explain her actions.

CJ has given us her story. and she hasn't lied to us - she hasn't treated us like we're stupid. like we don't know she was born male and identified as a boy and later a man for several decades. plus she told us how and why it all went down.

CJ is not trying to attach herself to experiences she isn't or wasn't privy too. Rachel is. That's all the distinguishing I need.

If Rachel went about self-identifying without laying claim to experiences she didn't have....I'd have no problem with it.

I have to admit....I was kinda confused where I stood on this before but I feel clear now. It's really not that complicated.

If CJ said 'I hated school because, like all young girls, they encouraged me to take home economics and discouraged me from the maths and sciences'....I'd call bullshit on her too. And by 'calling bullshit'...I mean to say that my perception of her experience will not match what she self-identifies as. Of course, CJ isn't doing that and I've never met or heard any other trans person attempting it either.

i dunno what the hell that's about. it sounds like Fox News language. it feels dishonest.

sure.

That, this particular poster feels like I am constantly gunning for him and avoided this post for that reason

But yeah while others at large on the Internet may be trying to take shots at transgender people and tying this to Caitlyn Jenner, I think this was posted by this poster as a kind of expression/validation of his own views

its all about protecting what we view as ours and it's no different than those who think sexual identity needs to be protected...


the problem on okp is people dig in, call posters bigots from past post and refuse to discuss because it opens a door progressive think should be locked.

everything i wrote was pertaining to vex id and my thoughts on his motivations for posting this

please run along now and try to make sense of ur self

so quick to avoid this discussion for obvious reasons

Are u replying to? Are u replying in the wrong spot? Don't get it. U made a reply about how it is personal to Black folks and I never made a reply saying I disagreed with that or anything close to that notion. So what are u saying? And why? I kno u try to reply to everything I write but at least try to make sense

replying to something that wasnt even there, dumbass

with free refills.

u were wrong and pressed and follow me around the boards, i ignore u for the most part but pointing out how dumb u r here was one i couldnt pass up

but call me a bitch to my face tho, see how that works out for u

and lol at challenging me to say it to your face.

nigga trying to holla on the low

>But yeah while others at large on the Internet may be trying
>to take shots at transgender people and tying this to Caitlyn
>Jenner, I think this was posted by this poster as a kind of
>expression/validation of his own views

when patriarchy and misogyny is alive, well, and eating good as fuck?

so much intellectual dishonesty

so much unchecked bias

so many broad brush strokes and labelling of those that disagree

am i transphobic...most likely...as are some/many advocates for trans folk...but i have zero issues with that movement other than "self-identity" and science being the determining factor of group membership...

i simply think that it's sloppy and problematic and thinks it's way less progressive than we are presenting it to be...i'd rather see gender roles be less oppressive than see them (roles and or mental state) force people into taking hormones and having surgeries...that's the opposite of progression...that's finding new and creative ways to reinforce flawed roles...

people will support trans people but then shit on the Kardashians for their obsession with cosmetic surgery...

in the end...i'm willing to roll with it as long as legislation keeps up but it presents some unique situations albeit small since the trans population is so small but interesting how we can rationalize benefit for the group over benefit over individuals when we want to

sports divisions should also be rearranged/renamed around biological sex even though that was the initial attempt with men/women's divisions

>i simply think that it's sloppy and problematic and thinks
>it's way less progressive than we are presenting it to
>be...i'd rather see gender roles be less oppressive than see
>them (roles and or mental state) force people into taking
>hormones and having surgeries...that's the opposite of
>progression...that's finding new and creative ways to
>reinforce flawed roles...
>
>people will support trans people but then shit on the
>Kardashians for their obsession with cosmetic surgery...


i think its more progressive to embrace and accept men dressing and acting "like women" than it is to embrace and accept a transgendered woman dressing and acting "like a woman" because she now "looks" like one.

It's about transracialism too, and I dunno how you expect to discuss that
(especially in the context of Dolezal) without discussing white supremacy.
Lol @ even asking that question.

Why wouldn't this manifest destiny ass topic NOT include white supremacy? Ric....what are you doing?

excerpt from his New Yorker piece (which is an excellent read):

"Rachel Dolezal is not black—by lineage or lifelong experience—yet I find her deceptions less troubling than the vexed criteria being used to exclude her. If blackness is simply a matter of a preponderance of African ancestry, then we should set about the task of excising a great deal of the canon of black history, up to and including the current President. If it is simply a matter of shared experience, we might excommunicate people like Walter White, whose blue eyes were camouflage that could serve both to spare him the direct indignity of racism and enable him to personally investigate and expose lynchings. Dolezal was dishonest about an undertaking rooted in dishonesty, and no matter how absurd her fictional blackness may appear, it is worth recalling that the former lie is far more dangerous than the latter. Our means of defining ourselves are complex and contradictory—and could be nothing other than that."

To be clear on my position, I am *not* using the transrace discourse to try and "back transgender theory into a corner." While I definitely notice conservatives and others who find transgender to be illegitimate doing this, that's not what many others (Cobb, MHP, Chris Hayes etc..) are doing. There is a place in our discourse to discuss this without having to leverage the discussion to discredit other transient identity theories. The parallel to transgender (which many progressives have used to illustrate the social construction and malleable identity politics aspect of the discourse) is for the purpose of identifying the journey that it took before mainstream discourse even accepted "transgender" as a thing. We created "transgender" - just like we created race, and we should never approach these subjects as if they are fixed in concrete universalism.

Rachel Dolezal is actually a poor example of a theoretical discussion on 'transrace' - but her situation nonetheless brought entry into the discussion (that many oddly don't even want to have). But it's less about her than it is more about having a deeper, more critical conversation about race and how we've come to use race in the sphere of identity politics.


-->

...conversation. For the most part it's been really civil and engaging.

It already existed, as noted in one of the previous articles posted. We came up with the label, sure, but transgender people were already here. I haven't seen much precedence for people feeling as born the wrong race, non ironically at least. We also have to come back to the notion of whether or not race has an intrinsic "feeling" in the sense that sexual orientation or gender does. I don't think it does, because I've only felt my "blackness" in the context of white supremacy. I don't think there's anything intrinsic about it. Were it not for the fact that I've had to confront white supremacy at damn near every turn in my life, I'm not sure how cognizant I'd be of my race.

their identity

I grew up with a friend named Jimmy who we all suspected was different and he eventually made that change.

seems weird how Black people keep personalizing their Blackness but can't fathom how men and women personalize their sexuality and want it "protected" ... not sure if protected is the right word.

There has been neuroscience and empirical data to back up the idea of gender being an intrinsic thing, not to mention loads of anecdotal information. I could be wrong, but, as far as I know, the same does not exist for race. Even anecdotally, I don't know any black people who describe their race in those terms.

For most of us, our ideas regarding our racial identity are shaped by the society we live, i.e. the context of white supremacy. When I've seen black people who weren't exposed to race in that context, when they do face it, it's shocking to say the least. That's why I don't think race moves in the same way gender or sexual orientation moves. I don't think it's just in a person. The conventional wisdom is that it's shaped by the world around you.

this is what I have been trying to get people to speak on.

so it's intrinsically defined separately from sex?

let me do my googles

My understanding is that it is something that intrinsically felt. Now, how gender is performed is malleable based on the culture, but the feeling of being male or female is not a social construct.

the research is largely inconclusive and challenged by peers regularly

%3 black (like sooo many white people are). Does that change anything for anybody. Can she slide in on the one drop rule at that point?


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson


"One of the most important things in life is what Judge Learned Hand described as 'that ever-gnawing inner doubt as to whether you're

cause she lied and had old photos as a white girl.


but I have no clue how that is any different than my friend Jimmy who is now living as a woman.

he was a boy until he was 19 or 20.

.

people will accept your self-identification. That's true for trans-gender and trans-racial. Some will, some won't.

It's the fraud and deception language surrounding appearance that seems to not have a place in either discussion.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson


"One of the most important things in life is what Judge Learned Hand described as 'that ever-gnawing inner doubt as to whether you're

I really don't know much about living as a white person 24 hours a day. What should I do first, second, or third?

fit.

here is the thing. I am not trying to establish the rules of how this works. I am not trying to look into people's hearts and determine who is authentic and who is not.

I am saying, live and let live...just don't mess with minority set asides that were not intended for you.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson


"One of the most important things in life is what Judge Learned Hand described as 'that ever-gnawing inner doubt as to whether you're

I want a chance in life! I don't wanna have to feel less than, feel lower than other people, or apologize for my mother's color!

What do I do about my parents? I can't be white without white parents; should I force my parents to transition too? What about my uncles, aunts, and cousins (gosh, this is gonna be expensive)?

But still, I need to learn to act white, talk white, think white...but I really don't know what any of that means. I just know I want it because white people get to carry guns in public, get credit, and stuff like that there.

lol

this convo is just very uncomfortable. and the issue is so complex that its hard to articulate my opinion properly. makes my head want to explode.

essentially i just dont believe in self-identification period. *shrugs*

Why do you feel that way?

to me it just seems silly to intellectualize very basic and inarguable facts about oneself, like race and sex.

I never chose my identity as black. Despite being racially mixed, my genetic traits present as black. So, I can want to call myself all sorts of things all day, but when a person sees me, they're going to see black and treat in accordance with their experience. I could go out of my way to point out my racial variances, but I don't see anything wrong with being perceived as black. So, I don't fight it.

Ultimately, I've embraced my blackness and I'm proud of it, but I didn't exactly have a choice in the matter. The whole notion of a choosing your racial identity reeks of white privilege. If you have characteristics that present as one race or another, society tells you what race you are and how you will be treated. Personal choice rarely comes into play when it comes to racial identity.

now, personally she is Black imo but she goes out of her way to point out her Native American and German bloodlines when race comes up.

she also has body issues as well so ionno.

but she will not identify as Black.

She can emphasize her racial variances all day, but society gives fuck all about how she views herself. If a racist white person identifies her blackness and decides not to hire her or give her a loan, or arrest her or whatever, they don't care about that. It's not self-chosen. You are treated how you are perceived. If she lives in a micro-society where fairness gives her more agency, then she may find some agency, but remove her from that situation and the choice won't be hers.

is it wrong to acknowledge or label them as so?

is it wrong to see my friend Jimmy who transitioned and not call him by his female name?

I'm not trying to be funny, you seem to be the only one willing to have this discussion without being rude

but I go back to compassion. Having interacted with people who are easily clocked. They are well aware of this. Most of them still look that way, because they don't have the resources to have the reconstruction surgeries to make their physicality match their gender expression. Keep in mind these surgeries are expensive and no insurance in America, that I know of, covers them. So, it's all out of pocket.

They desperately want to get themselves to a more refined look. So, it boils down to compassion for me. I can't imagine wanting something so desperately and not having the resources, or even hope of gaining the resources, to make it happen. Calling that person by their chosen name and using the pronouns that match their gender expression seems like a really small courtesy. So, that's how I treat them.

The argument has been if a person born male chooses to persent as female we should respect that choice and refer to them as a female. Use feminine pro-nouns and such.

There is no distinction made between whether someone presents convincingly or not. I am suppose to respect the wishes of the Janet Mocks and Caitlyn Jenners as well as the 6'4" person with the adams apple, goatee and Charles Barkey hands wearing a dress, and treat them how they want to be treated.

So whether you present convincingly as a transracial shouldn't really be part of the discussion. The only question I thought is how you self-identify.



**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson


"One of the most important things in life is what Judge Learned Hand described as 'that ever-gnawing inner doubt as to whether you're

to call someone by the pronoun that matches their gender expression, when their looks don't match it. There is, however, an economic component to that. These people are often doing the best they can with their resources. If they had the money, they'd probably take greater steps to make their physical attributes match their gender expression. So, to me, it comes to a point of compassion. They want to make their physicality match how they feel, but they most likely don't have the resources to do so.

Presenting is a part of the transracial discussion, because that's how race is is constructed, period. As I stated before, I don't know of any evidence of race being intrinsic. There have, however, been studies about gender being intrinsic. So, it's different in that it's not purely motivated by societal context.

the other is the underbelly and Prime example of the root of racial issues on the planet.

"transracial".

No jokes, serious replies. And explain you answer, like it's 10th grade.

She is from Kenya and the fact that she had a white momma meant that she was regarded as White in Kenya.

I told her that was all bullshit now that she was in the states. I told her that she was black now and had to get use to it. She threw her drink in my face. Told me I was trying to get her to not acknowledge her white mother.

In retrospect that was a transracial discussion. American Society would identify her as black. She self-identified as "bi-racial". I spent a great deal of time trying to force her to accept the label that america would force on her.

In retrospect I think I was wrong for that.

In the end she married a bi-racial dude which made so much sense because they understood each other.

I am sure she probably identifies as black and bi-racial. Probably more likely to check the black box if it might help with a minority set aside. I ain't mad at her.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson


"One of the most important things in life is what Judge Learned Hand described as 'that ever-gnawing inner doubt as to whether you're

transrace, as you ppl want to use it, would apply if for example your friend wanted to claim she's Asian though she was not born to Asian parents and had not lived as an Asian previously.

your friend is a garden-variety bi-racial person who identifies as such. yes, depending on how she looks most ppl may identify her as a certain race while she identifies w/more than one race. that's not 'transrace'.

What's the difference between someone saying "I am not black, I am bi-racial" versus someone saying "I am not white, I am black" or whatever the example you can think of in which someone self-identifies with a race that the majority culture wouldn't recognize?

Let's remember, the notion of being bi-racial is a relatively new universally accepted concept. Wasn't really universally accepted when I was younger. One Drop Rule. Tiger getting clowned for describing himself as such. I think the census just added it to the census in like 2000. Hence my argument with the girl.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson


"One of the most important things in life is what Judge Learned Hand described as 'that ever-gnawing inner doubt as to whether you're

>What's the difference between someone saying "I am not black,
>I am bi-racial" versus someone saying "I am not white, I am
>black" or whatever the example you can think of in which
>someone self-identifies with a race that the majority culture
>wouldn't recognize?

"I grew up as a white girl, but I now identify as an Asian woman even though neither of my parents is Asian and I have no other Asian ancestry."

vs.

"I grew up as a white girl, but I now identify as a bi-racial woman b/c one of my parents is white and the other is Asian. I have both white and Asian ancestry and I am not comfortable identifying with one and ignoring the other."

^ not the same thing.

until the age of 18. She still speaks broken English and it's obvious she isn't a white American once she opens her mouth.

what is she?

I never asked her what she identified as because it wasn't important.

where does she fit in this discussion?

she's clearly white, yet her life experiences say she's Japanese. Should she say "I'm Japanese" why wouldn't that fit the transracial construct?

I have the answer, but I wanna see what you have to say.
---------------------------

"Where was the peace when we were getting shot? Where's the peace when we were getting laid out?
Where is the peace when we are in the back of ambulances? Where is the peace then?
They don't want to call for peace then.

nothing in that said she used to identify as ___ but has decided to transition into a new racial identity b/c ___.

she white and grew up in Japan and speaks Japanese. that doesn't make her transracial. she could very well be a white woman who speaks Japanese. she'd be transracial (per the definition proposed dishonestly via this Rachel D discussion) if she wanted to identify racially as Asian though she has European ancestry.

I never asked her because I didn't think it was my place to ask her.

however, seeing how she operates and how she speaks, I would say she is japanese. she is far more comfortable in japan than she is in America.

but I doubt japan sees her as japanese.

okay.

it's a cultural, national and ethnic identity.

she can be culturally and ethnically Japanese but racially white. i dunno.

she'd have a place in this discussion if she wanted to identify racially as Asian though she has European/white racial ancestry. but her Japanese ethnicity doesn't necessarily mean she would say her race is Asian.

.

which kinda proves his point.

in this discussion. nothing you've said in response has changed my mind.

Your views on racial identity are so starkly different, because they were shaped by different societies. Black is not something you feel without societal context.

It's Malleable and a social construct.

So folks should lose the "there is a biological basis for transgender, but not for transracial" argument.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson


"One of the most important things in life is what Judge Learned Hand described as 'that ever-gnawing inner doubt as to whether you're

being intrinsic and not just a social construct. Homosexual as a label and in its current societal construct is relatively new as a label, but homosexuality existed well before we had a name for it. The same can be said with transgenderism. Acceptance and labeling is the part of the equation that's a societal construct.

>being intrinsic and not just a social construct. Homosexual
>as a label and in its current societal construct is relatively
>new as a label, but homosexuality existed well before we had a
>name for it.

Agreed.

The same can be said with transgenderism.

How? Seems like you just slide gender through the gate that held open for sexuality.

A male born person who presents as a woman gets all his cues for how to present as a woman from society. That person would present totally different in Brazil, versus Malaysia, versus LA.


>Acceptance and labeling is the part of the equation that's a
>societal construct.
>
>


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson


"One of the most important things in life is what Judge Learned Hand described as 'that ever-gnawing inner doubt as to whether you're

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150213112317.htm

Research is newer, because transgenderism is newly accepted. As I stated previously, the trans part of the LGBT is decades behind the LG part. So, there isn't the same breadth of information, but given the fact that we've seen transgenderism pop up throughout history, I'm confident isn't inferring that we'll see a similar sort of biological basis for transgenderism that we see for sexual orientation.

You really want to use that as a source to make your point?

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson


"One of the most important things in life is what Judge Learned Hand described as 'that ever-gnawing inner doubt as to whether you're

There isn't much research on the subject of transgendered people, because society's acceptance of trans people is relatively new. Just like decades ago, there wasn't much research on homosexuality. As acceptance grows, you'll see more research. You can, however, reasonably infer the biological basis of transgenderism, because of its existence throughout history.

people conflate race, ethnicity and at times even nationality.

I mean, yes race is an social construct but it is actually composed of a basket of biological identifiers (skin colour, hair texture, eye colour/shape, nose shape/size, etc.) historically used to indicate a certain race/ancestry (Negroid, Mongoloid, Caucasoid, etc.) The REASON race is considered a social construct is that the attributes chosen to categorize humans from one another were limited to visible characteristics and grouped together somewhat arbitrarily. The only clear utility for the current race classification is forensic science and measuring discrimination/inequities. Without those uses, one could construct similar divisions according to some other arbitrary biological feature like blood type.

ETHNICITY on the other hand is shaped by shared cultural behaviors, language, shared history, nationality, heritage, etc. The only ethnicity denominated by the US Census is Hispanic. This does not mean that other ethnicities do not exist in the United States. This also does not mean that an individual can not straddle more than one ethnicity at one time, as is commonly seen in naturalized immigrants since they can claim multiple nationalities, shared histories, languages and cultures. If the US government REALLY wanted to characterize its population, race and ethnicity would be measured separately, and the ethnicity section could be several pages long.

But honestly, I am surprised so many people just passively adopt government misclassifications as their framework for describing race and ethnicity. This post and thisatruththangs dating post have kinda left me a bit mindblown this week

is socially constructed. Yes, ancestry and the way one's genetic traits present to the world are absolutely biological. However, the way society interprets those items and treats people is constructed by the society itself. Also, one's ancestry and physical attributes are not something that you feel emotionally without the context of how you're treated in society as a result of those traits. So, "feeling" black, or any race really, does not exist without social context. I get the difference between race and ethnicity, but race as a feeling exists purely as a social construct.

black experience and would thus be an element of black ethnicity? Limiting your analysis to multiracial societies, of course.

Mainly, because when you move to a racially homogenous society, the feeling of blackness or whiteness erodes. In my travels throughout Europe, I rarely ran into a white person who identified themselves by race. Racial identity loses its steam, when there isn't racial variance. That's why I reject the notion of "feeling" like one race or another as being something intrinsic. So, race, in the context of this conversation, definitely functions like ethnicity.

>Mainly, because when you move to a racially homogenous
>society, the feeling of blackness or whiteness erodes. In my
>travels throughout Europe, I rarely ran into a white person
>who identified themselves by race. Racial identity loses its
>steam, when there isn't racial variance. That's why I reject
>the notion of "feeling" like one race or another as being
>something intrinsic. So, race, in the context of this
>conversation, definitely functions like ethnicity.
>


During your travels in Europe, the white Europeans you encountered may have identified themselves by their ethnicity or nationality. But if they were asked to identify your race by your physical features, they would have identified you as an individual of black race. Just the way you identified them as white in your description.

And let's say, hypothetically, you met up with another traveler, a black male from Tanzania. The white Europeans you encountered would have identified you both as black males. However the differences between you and your travel friend in culture, nationality, language, and shared history would be ethnic differences. Despite both being perceived as black males. According to my perspective, anyway.

I'm saying that race doesn't provide an intrinsic feeling. So, in the context of a racially homogenous society, those white people wouldn't feel "white", because ethnicity provides the separation. To introduce myself and black friend into the scenario is to introduce a different race into the equation. So, that's what would make them aware of their whiteness and my blackness. They would construct their racial identities from there, because it would be a factor that hadn't existed before.

Hopefully, they would be open enough to observe the ethnic differences between us (myself and Tanzanian) and see that blackness isn't a homogenous identity. We would, however, have little say in constructing what it means to be black in that instance. The society of that country would construct our experiences.

Further, our interpretations of those experiences would be shaped by our ethnic differences, b/c being black in Tanzania is different from being black in the US. So, I still think our racial identities are not intrinsically felt, they're shaped by our respective societies.

I don't believe that one's racial identity would dissolve in a racially homogenous society. I place substantial weight on how a person identifies out of respect, but not to the point of rendering biological indicators of race and imposed classifications negligible. I think waking up everyday and looking down at one's body reaffirms ones racial identity, looking in the mirror at one's skin tone, hair texture, nose, eyes, performing certain grooming practices, etc.

I also think that, in many cases, racially homogenous societies can place even greater weight on physical features than would typically be observed in multiracial ones. Divisions are not restricted to ethnicity. For example in many African, Asian and Latin-American societies colorism is alive and well even intra-ethnically, influencing things like marriage, social mobility, and discrimination.

I asked the 'feeling black' question because as I worked my way through your perspective, I realized that I don't think I would place 'feeling black' as an entirely individual experience. I do agree with you that it is context-dependent, but to me this means that the individual would not be alone in experiencing the effects since context is shaped by current and historical political, cultural and socio-economic factors. That 'feeling black' could change depending on what environment the person of black race is in indicates, to me at least, that it is a feeling that could be shared with other blacks that fit the same 'profile' (so to speak), not that it would erode. Similarly, I think 'feeling black' may change if the person's 'profile' changed (eg. a traveling student vs. a wealthy Head of State). I would consider this to be true whether the environment is racially homogenous or multiracial.

We seem to have concordant views on ethnicity though.

>She is from Kenya and the fact that she had a white momma
>meant that she was regarded as White in Kenya.

we are at least better at acknowledging both races

Not in this house! lol

>Not in this house! lol


dude in one sentence says, she considers herself biracial
(and im like, sounds about right. we'd consider her biracial, point 5)
then he wants to say that she's transracial
wtf?

grasping at inexistent straws for real

Well do you think she was right (or lying) to say that she was not considered black?

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson


"One of the most important things in life is what Judge Learned Hand described as 'that ever-gnawing inner doubt as to whether you're

>Well do you think she was right (or lying) to say that she
>was not considered black?

she was considered a 0.5. or pointy as i said
which is how we describe someone who has a white and a black parent
we happen to be very clear about this shit
so no, she wasnt considered black neither was she considered white
she was considered biracial, which is what the 0.5 moniker stands for
she can pick and choose what side she wants to fall on
but us kenyans are not just going to throw her on one side
as it happens here
which is probably what she resented
when she said you are not acknowledging her white side

something you didn't, maybe you are lying, it doesn't matter.

It doesn't change my point that I thought she was just black and she didn't agree with that and I was probably wrong trying to impose my american POV on her.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson


"One of the most important things in life is what Judge Learned Hand described as 'that ever-gnawing inner doubt as to whether you're

you said in kenya she was considered white and im saying no
if she was walking down the streets of nairobi, if she was in school
or whatever social context
we as kenyans would be very clear that she's pointy
this is not about her personal feeling
this is about how the kenyan society would perceive her
now why would i lie about shit like this?
and yes we also use half-cast but the avg dude on the streets of nairobi would use pointy.


http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=point+5
point 5
a mixed race person
name comes from the fact they are 0.5 one race and 0.5 another

term usually used in east african countries such as kenya

I don't know you. I know her well. Like I said without any more information any of the 5 things could be true.

Urban dictionary is not more information. Also even if that is true it doesn't exclude the other being true.

you won't convince me just by saying it more adamantly.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson


"One of the most important things in life is what Judge Learned Hand described as 'that ever-gnawing inner doubt as to whether you're

>Urban dictionary is not more information. Also even if that
>is true it doesn't exclude the other being true.

especially since i dont know wtf this different truths ish means

but in the same way you can sit here and tell us what she is considered
in *this* society
i can sit here and tell you what she is considered in Kenyan society
if you want to look at that as a relative then it also undermines your
telling her what this society perceives her to be

intentional and permanent reconstruction of biological features (eg. Negroid, Caucasoid, etc.) to mimic those historically recognized as indicating a different race, then I think the following examples would qualify:


http://i1-news.softpedia-static.com/images/news2/Sammy-Sosa-Admits-to-Bleaching-His-Skin-2.jpg

^^ Maintains Dominican-American ethnicity; permanently reconstructed skin color, hair texture, and eye color from those indicative of black race to those indicative of another race


http://plasticsurgeryfact.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Michael-Jackson-Nose-Job-Before-and-After.jpg

^^ Maintained Black American ethnicity; permanently reconstructed skin color, hair texture and nose shape/size from those indicative of black race to those indicative of another race


http://honeygerman.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Tiny_Eye_Color_Surgery_Honey_German.jpg

^^Maintains Black American ethnicity; permanently reconstructed hair texture and eye color from those indicative of black/mixed race to those indicative of another race


http://www.inquisitr.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Rachel-Dolezal-Before-and-After-665x385.jpg

^^Rachel Dolezal is a poor example because of her fraudulence. However she still seems to display some degree of race dysmorphia, regardless of her deceptions.


Now, is there a plausible mechanism to try and understand what would motivate some people to permanently alter their biological features to those of a different race?? Probably. It doesn't seem to be well-characterized, but it likely involves some combination of personal insecurities/self-hate, a lingering global standard of Caucasian features as 'beautiful', or strong feelings of dissonance between their former race and their ethnicity/cultural leanings, etc.

I feel so enlightened now

1. 'transrace' doesn't actually exist. at least not yet.

2. except for Rachel D, none of the ppl in your example actually changed their race identity. while they may have made body modifications none of them made a racial transition.

As much as people talk shit, he still referred to himself as Black until the day he died.

I get what you're saying. But, especially in the case of Michael Jackson, I still think his dysmorphia is particularly noteworthy. I think there would have been some benefit to understanding what were the true motivations behind it. If not at the very least to shed light on why others may also feel the need to pursue similar modification.

>1. 'transrace' doesn't actually exist. at least not yet.
>

A big issue may actually be with the term transrace/transracial then. For starters, many of us learned in this post that in some circles 'transracial' is already used to describe individuals of one race that are raised in a family/home environment of a different race. So perhaps a better term, at least for now, is race dysmorphia.

But then, discussing race dysmorhpia and characterizing it is what would bring its existence to light. I don't think this phenomenon is as non-existent as people think. For example, skin lightening is a multi-billion dollar industry supported by Asia, Africa and the Middle East alone:

http://www.latinpost.com/articles/8096/20140304/skin-color-politics-african-diaspora-latinos-america-latin-america-skin-lightening-creams-series.htm

The fact that there is not an organized community raising awareness or providing education on the motivations for race dysmorphia doesn't mean it is not worthy of discussion.


>2. except for Rachel D, none of the ppl in your example
>actually changed their race identity.

This is a good point, but I'm not sure if you are correct. I'll give you that for Tiny and MJ. But understanding the well-documented denouncement of black race in the Dominican Republic and by many Dominican immigrants to the United States, I think it is highly plausible that Sammy Sosa's modifications were influenced by a desire to shed indicators of black race.

while they may have
>made body modifications none of them made a racial
>transition.

At some point, making extreme changes to a conspicuous combination of biological features is more than simple body modification. These features are not randomly related, they are biological indicators of ones ancestry. Is changing one's genitalia, internal organs, endocrine profile, equivalent to piercing one's ears, tattooing one's skin, and dying one's hair? I think resting on the term body modification, at least in these cases, is a bit of an over-simplification.

i don't care, holmes.

is it bc they haven't explicitly said so or will a "k" suffice?

grown folks are talking, love.

go away.

get in there!

People talkin about "I'm transpecies, I'm really a shark." Or "I'm transvertical, I'm really 6'6 even though the measurement says I'm 5'2."

however you want" bullshit.



>People talkin about "I'm transpecies, I'm really a shark." Or
>"I'm transvertical, I'm really 6'6 even though the measurement
>says I'm 5'2."
>
>

https://soundcloud.com/theread/imitation-of-life

I'm excited about seeing them live Friday.

.

>https://soundcloud.com/theread/imitation-of-life

http://thisweekinblackness.com/shane-paul-neil/105916/

as trans-racial?

This just as easily could have been described as "reverse passing" ugh or just passing for black.

It's completely Caitlyn Jenner related that this is being described in trans terms and is not at all inevitable or the only way to describe it.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson


"One of the most important things in life is what Judge Learned Hand described as 'that ever-gnawing inner doubt as to whether you're

If other trans- phenomena exist, let them at least be characterized, defined and understood. Simply doing so does not counteract transgender/LGBTQ advocacy in any way.

I mean, does the LGBTQ movement subjugate the Black Civil Rights movement? Did the Black Civil Rights movement subjugate the Women's suffrage movement?? Lol, like where does it end.

The meta-narrative here is really supposed to boil down to human rights. Alleviation of barriers to improved quality of life. Gender expression is but one arena where humans encounter such barriers. Why would barriers with respect to poverty/class, race, ethnicity, sex, etc. not also be a "thing"?

The "non-thing"/"LGBTQ was here first" theme is really one of the most disappointing products of this discourse. It's like "Identity Olympics"

some folks are jumping on this issue as a chance to get at Caitlyn Jenner (and those folks are being vindicated by what you describe as disappointing you).

I just have no doubt that if it weren't for Caitlyn Jenner, the issue wouldn't be so big or discussed the way it is being discussed in the media regardless of the legitimacy of the issue.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson


"One of the most important things in life is what Judge Learned Hand described as 'that ever-gnawing inner doubt as to whether you're

I too was thinking out loud :)

Not everyone is pushing it, but most of the loudest ones in here are.

>If other trans- phenomena exist, let them at least be
>characterized, defined and understood. Simply doing so does
>not counteract transgender/LGBTQ advocacy in any way.

I don't know of anybody who is opposed to a discussion of other trans-phenomena, only to discussions that are used to counteract transgender advocacy, which is what we're seeing in this post.

>I mean, does the LGBTQ movement subjugate the Black Civil
>Rights movement? Did the Black Civil Rights movement subjugate
>the Women's suffrage movement?? Lol, like where does it end.

...Is there a transracial movement that I somehow missed?

>The meta-narrative here is really supposed to boil down to
>human rights. Alleviation of barriers to improved quality of
>life. Gender expression is but one arena where humans
>encounter such barriers. Why would barriers with respect to
>poverty/class, race, ethnicity, sex, etc. not also be a
>"thing"?

Cool. I'm all about discussing concrete examples of real-life plights, not insincere hypotheticals.

>The "non-thing"/"LGBTQ was here first" theme is really one of
>the most disappointing products of this discourse. It's like
>"Identity Olympics"

I've never heard or ready anyone say "LGBTQ was here first" and I'm not convinced that you have either.

I do acknowledge there's been a slew of conflicting opinions, some of which appear to trivialize transgender experiences and associated protections/rights.

But if done respectfully, I really don't see how examining one phenomenon should affect the other.

I wish I wrote all this.
I was sold on open-mindedness by the same people that now want me ti become less accepting. It is disappointing and telling. Everybody just bangs for their own agendas.

>If other trans- phenomena exist, let them at least be
>characterized, defined and understood. Simply doing so does
>not counteract transgender/LGBTQ advocacy in any way.
>
>I mean, does the LGBTQ movement subjugate the Black Civil
>Rights movement? Did the Black Civil Rights movement subjugate
>the Women's suffrage movement?? Lol, like where does it end.
>
>The meta-narrative here is really supposed to boil down to
>human rights. Alleviation of barriers to improved quality of
>life. Gender expression is but one arena where humans
>encounter such barriers. Why would barriers with respect to
>poverty/class, race, ethnicity, sex, etc. not also be a
>"thing"?
>
>The "non-thing"/"LGBTQ was here first" theme is really one of
>the most disappointing products of this discourse. It's like
>"Identity Olympics"

-->

She's given me the courage to reveal my true identity.

I sympathize with the dilemma of Rachel Dolezal, the head of the Spokane chapter of the NAACP whose parents maintain that she is not any part black, as she has claimed (#whiteisthenewblack). See, I too have been living a lie. For the past 50 years I’ve been keeping up this public charade, pretending to be something I’m not. Finally, in the wake of so many recent personal revelations by prominent people, I’ve decided to come out with the truth.

I am not tall (#shortstuff).

Although I’ve been claiming to be 7’2” for many decades, the truth is that I’m 5’8”. And that’s when I first get out of bed in the morning. Just goes to show, you tell a lie often enough and people believe you. I expect there will be some who will demand I give back the championship rings and titles that I accumulated during my college and professional basketball career because I was only able to win them by convincing other players that they had no chance against my superior height. How could these achievements have any lasting meaning if I’m not really as tall as Wikipedia says I am?

The evidence against Dolezal does seem pretty damning. Her birth parents have decided to express their parental love by outing her in response to a legal dispute they have with her (#returnworld’sbestparentstrophy). They offered photos of a farm-fresh Rachel looking like she just stepped out of the General Store in Mayberry and a white-on-white birth certificate. Some siblings have also attested that she’s not black, though she was raised alongside four adopted black children. Dolezal herself has just stepped aside from her position at the NAACP.

Despite all this, you can’t deny that Dolezal has proven herself a fierce and unrelenting champion for African-Americans politically and culturally. Perhaps some of this sensitivity comes from her adoptive black siblings. Whatever the reason, she has been fighting the fight for several years and seemingly doing a first-rate job. Not only has she led her local chapter of the NAACP, she teaches classes related to African-American culture at Eastern Washington University and is chairwoman of a police oversight committee monitoring fairness in police activities. Bottom line: The black community is better off because of her efforts.


At no time in history has the challenge of personal identity seemed more relevant. Olympic champion Bruce Jenner struggled for years with her gender identity and only at the age of 65, as Caitlyn Jenner, seems to have come to some peace with it. The same with many in the gay community who have battled internal and external demons before embracing their true selves. The difference is that these people faced a biological imperative rather than a free will choice of orientation (#readthesciencebeforepostingoutrage). Dolezal chose to identify with a racial group she was not born into, like Sean Connery as the Japanese expert in Rising Sun.





The thing about race is that, scientifically, there is no such thing. As far back as 1950, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) released the conclusions of an international group of anthropologists, geneticists, sociologists, and psychologists that stated that the concept of race was not a scientific entity but a myth. Since then, one scientific group after another has issued similar conclusions. What we use to determine race is really nothing more than some haphazard physical characteristics, cultural histories, and social conventions that distinguish one group from another. But, for the sake of communication, we will continue to misuse the word, myself included, in order to discuss our social issues so everyone understands them. As far as Dolezal is concerned, technically, since there is no such thing as race, she’s merely selected a cultural preference of which cultural group she most identifies with. Who can blame her? Anyone who listens to the Isaac Hayes song, “Shaft,” wants to be black—for a little while anyway (#who’sthecatwhowon’tcopout).

Al Jolson, once considered the most popular entertainer in the world, rose to fame wearing blackface. He also used his considerable influence to help blacks. At one time, he was the only white man allowed into some of the nightclubs in Harlem. Ironically, Jolson admitted that when he performed the same songs without blackface he never felt he did as good a job. Some critics say it’s because while singing in blackface, he was singing for all downtrodden people, including his own Jewish people. And he found his strength and passion and power while identifying with another culture. Maybe like Quentin Tarantino in Jackie Brown and Django Unchained.

So, does it really matter whether Rachel Dolezal is black or white?

Dr. King said we should be judged by the content of character rather than color of skin, which is what makes this case so difficult. So, yes, it does matter. Apparently lying to employers and the public you’re representing when the lie benefits you personally and professionally is a deficit in character. However, the fight for equality is too important to all Americans to lose someone as passionate as she is and who has accomplished as much as she has. This seems more a case of her standing up and saying, “I am Spartacus!” rather than a conspiracy to defraud. Let’s give her a Bill Clinton Get Out of Jail Free card on this one (#Ididnothavesex) and let her get back to doing what she clearly does exceptionally well—making America more American.

It’s given me the courage to also say, “I am Spartacus. All 5’8” of me.”

compare Rachel to Caitlyn!!!

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson


"One of the most important things in life is what Judge Learned Hand described as 'that ever-gnawing inner doubt as to whether you're

that's done and over with?

we're way too evolved and eating too good.

trans is the new black.

all the cool kids wanna transition into new identities be they sex, gender, race, species or anything else. it's so passe to be comfortable in your own skin. if you aren't trans you might as well be dead.

2) the same way Im fine with someone not believing in god, I'm fine with them being drawn to love someone of the same sex or change their gender

but mostly: you cant change your ethnic makeup unless you're mentally ill. a black trans (wo)man is still black, a white woman pretending to be black is nuts

>but mostly: you cant change your ethnic makeup unless you're
>mentally ill. a black trans (wo)man is still black, a white
>woman pretending to be black is nuts

just replace a few words...

>but mostly: you cant change your sex unless you're
>mentally ill. A man pretending to be a woman is nuts.

and you've arrived at the classic, often used argument against transsexuals/transgenders.


---------------------------

"Where was the peace when we were getting shot? Where's the peace when we were getting laid out?
Where is the peace when we are in the back of ambulances? Where is the peace then?
They don't want to call for peace then.

transpecies didnt exist before last week. you could pass if you were able to get away with it, but being one race and saying you think you were born another is certifiable

>but being one sex and saying you think you were born another is certifiable

see how this works? Pretty much every argument against "transracial" being a real thing has been made against transsexuals/transgenders.


---------------------------

"Where was the peace when we were getting shot? Where's the peace when we were getting laid out?
Where is the peace when we are in the back of ambulances? Where is the peace then?
They don't want to call for peace then.

(i.e., a lot of black kids who grew up around white people) are the most defensive about RD.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson


"One of the most important things in life is what Judge Learned Hand described as 'that ever-gnawing inner doubt as to whether you're

Folks will post links to stories about her but the actual conversation has been almost non-existent.

I'm curious...are the black folks you know (the ones who grew up around mostly white folks) defending her or are they defending the right to adopt another race.

still trying it, huh?

good luck w/this.

i think that pretty much sums up the whole
but she's done so much for us lately,
because she hasnt done even a quarter as much as the women
of the black lives matter movement
neither do we really know what she's done except show us how to style our hair (sic)

~~~~
When you are born, you cry, and the world rejoices. Live so that when you die, you rejoice, and the world cries.
~~~~
You cannot hate people for their own good.

I've thoroughly laid out my view in this post, yet you both have implied that I'm using this post to further some type of ulterior agenda? lol

What is that agenda?

-->

The correlation between transgendered and transracial is offensively stupid. A transgendered person's transformation and the psychology behind is extremely complex. There is literaly no evidence of transracial identity complex as race is based on a multitude of factors.

I suggest reading up on transgendered people's plight and gender realignment procedures before you make a post trying to trivalise it.

Also, give an actual example of trans-racial people and not hypothetical discussions.

PS. I suggest listening to this podcast...the first ten minutes will give you a reason as to why Rachel Doezel is racist.

https://soundcloud.com/theread/imitation-of-life

thanks.

-->

im not trying to read your mind
we speculating though

so I asked you: what's the agenda, then?

-->

you are clearly dismissive of the social, cultural and historical context that makes up the black identity,
distilling it down to a notion of a 'fluid' identity
i.e being black is only a state of mind that is
divorced from the social and political reality of what it means to be black in this country

so we can choose to ignore what gives this social construct its material meaning,
it just becomes a 'feeling' as is the case of rachel

which is not the actual reality- the only people for whom this fluidity seems to be available is white folks
most black people - even when they do want to acknowledge their white identity are considered black.
there's nothing like a self-identity when it is subsumed by societal perspectives

this is different from those in this post here who's agenda is mainly to discredit the transgender experience
and this difference is what blkprince alludes to
so i still ask, what is *your* agenda?

So, there's really no other rational explanation other than....

you mad, doggie?

>you are clearly dismissive of the social, cultural and
>historical context that makes up the black identity,
>distilling it down to a notion of a 'fluid' identity
>i.e being black is only a state of mind that is
>divorced from the social and political reality of what it
>means to be black in this country

Never *once* did I say that. Projecting on 1,000, much?
Show me where I said that (you can't). What i did say is that
race (alike gender) - is a social construct that only has meaning
when we assign meaning to it. Transgender/transrace theories
identify and acknowledge that fluidity is inherent in these systems
of identification - but that doesn't mean that "being black is only
a state of mind" nor does it mean that it's "divorced from the political reality
of what it means to be black." That's silly and anyone making that claim
doesn't understand the reality of how race actually has functioned in society, outside
of theoretical discussions.

newsflash: It's possible to acknowledge transrace theory of fluidity *and* understand the
the political realities attached to black identity in America. But nuance has never been a strong suit on OKP.

>this is different from those in this post here who's agenda is
>mainly to discredit the transgender experience
>and this difference is what blkprince alludes to
>so i still ask, what is *your* agenda?

That's another hilarious attempt by Goldmind and others in here - trying to categorize everybody into one neat box who have a differing opinion on the matter. According to your prescription, MHP, Jelani Cobb, and a myriad of other black academics are either "trying to back transgender into a corner" or "do not understand the political realities of blackness."

No. They understand the realities in abundance, they simply have a more nuanced perspective on race and aren't afraid to discuss it from multiple angles.


-->

sheesh.

Blackness is under attack today - LITERALLY. leave this alone.

open discourse on a message board is not the problem.

>Blackness is under attack today - LITERALLY. leave this
>alone.

I'm actually assisting and doing something about it with my friends (who i consider family) from that region who are grieving. A close friend of mine from law school was affected by this - and I take it very seriously. As I type this plans are made to head down to South Carolina to lend my support to my family who is grieving.

I do not require your validation.


-->

Initials A.H.? Although I knew her by the initials A.M. in undergrad.

>Initials A.H.? Although I knew her by the initials A.M. in
>undergrad.

wow. Small world.

-->

>I've thoroughly laid out my view in this post, yet you both
>have implied that I'm using this post to further some type of
>ulterior agenda? lol
>
>What is that agenda?


Using Rachel dolezal as an attempt to sublimate her admittedly misguided but ultimately cannibalististic, appropriative but worse tyrannical cultural views into validity.
Hijacking a term that already has a use and shoehorning it into a purpose that clearly serves sone sort of personal purpose as someone who mainly and primarily surrounds himself with black people also attended an HBCU.
You could take it from there though as to why you're pushing this so hard and let us know in your words why this appeals so heartily to you.
~~~~
When you are born, you cry, and the world rejoices. Live so that when you die, you rejoice, and the world cries.
~~~~
You cannot hate people for their own good.

But I don't know of any instances of two 100% Caucasian parents giving birth to a baby that was genetically made up of something that wasn't them.

The genetic lottery has made for a lot of gender ambiguity for many. It does not do the same for race outside of instances where the parents are already interracial as far as I can see.

but they don't really know. i guess now they could do one of those ancestry DNA test...

but going back 3 known generations... no black people.

If it happened in Japan or Korea with no chance of outside ancestry I'd be more inclined to go with the concept.

isn't your original example about two 100% Caucasian parents?

I was talking to an underlying principle.

Perhaps I should have said Sweeden or something like that.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/dr-drew-frustrated-with-dolezal-interviewers-dont-give-wiggle-room/

Transrace is just funny

There's no way a male can know that the strange feelimg they feel is in fact womanhood.

Transgender is even less biological if people are insisting on a concept of gender that is removed and separate from the concept of sex.

Sex is between the legs, gender is between the ears

If you care to do some reading on the neurological markers of gender id be happy to discuss it with you afterwards

people always do this though...

"u haven't done your research and i'm not going to do it for u nor am i going to give any real indication i have either"

most of the studies i read seem to mirror this one:

http://www.hawaii.edu/hivandaids/Sexual_Differentiation_of_the_Human_Brain__Relevance_for_Gender_Identity,_Transsexualism_and_Sexual_Orientation.pdf

which ranges from undecided to dubious about those markers indicating anything gender-identity

and others that outright reject it which i tend to distrust due to a bit of bias detection

i just think it's odd people are already positioned to doubt that if the research is done...people won't jump to the same conclusions...

people keep bringing up political issues with the idea of changing racial identity as if there isn't a huge fucking issue ball of political mess when it comes to gender politics

then maybe you'll get more traction w/this. until then as long as the transrace bullshit is exemplified by fraudulent psychopaths like Rachel Dolezal ain't nobody tryna hear y'all's hypothetical, fictional shit.

best of luck w/it.

u rejected them before but not sure why other than they didn't outright say "I'm white in a _____ body" although they did get the "treatments" to alter the way they look in more ways than one

but again all of this comes back to theories being backed largely by inconclusive science

bottom line for me is always pragmatism...the political side is important and a lack of pragmatism can be forgiven when proven necessary

body dysmorphic disorder is serious and if gender reassignment is what they want to do...i think they are well within their rights to do so and as a society we need to mature enough to allow people the social room to do so somewhat comfortably

but i think in any situation...trying to apply self-identity to social membership identity or legal identity is not pragmatic and also problematic

everyone is bringing up historical baggage that surrounds race but pardons it or minimizes it when it surrounds gender/sex...problematic

the 2 arenas where i think it's most problematic is justice system (read:prison) and sports...

there are some solutions offered in those arenas and they seem pretty inadequate

fuck it, i'm done

*logging off*

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7WP4prIwUQ

Yall really gotta take MJ outta this conversation.

>u rejected them before but not sure why other than they
>didn't outright say "I'm white in a _____ body"

yes. that's exactly why.

although they
>did get the "treatments" to alter the way they look in more
>ways than one

so what?

i disagree that transracialism is like transgenderism, but for the sake of argument...your example reminds me of the difference between cross-dressing and transgenderism. cross-dressers are ppl who wear clothing typically associated w/a gender other than the one that matches their sex but they are not transgender as their cross-dressing doesn't impact or reflect their gender identity. like a male who wears women's clothing but lives and identifies as a man is not transgender. so, a black man who has altered his hair and skin w/features typically associated w/the white race (or any non-black race) but who lives and identifies as a black man is not transracial for the purpose of this discussion. and that's why i say MJ and Sosa don't apply.

supersede biological indicators of race in some applications and not others?

> so, a black man who has altered his hair and skin w/features
>typically associated w/the white race (or any non-black race)
>but who lives and identifies as a black man is not transracial
>for the purpose of this discussion. and that's why i say MJ
>and Sosa don't apply.

For example, according to what has been championed throughout this post, the following would be true:

Michael Jackson, in spite of presenting with the physical features of a race different from the race he was born, is of black race simply because he said so. Rachel Dolezal, in spite of presenting with the physical features of a race different from the race she was born, is not of black race simply because she said so.

^How is this not logically fallacious?

And in the case of Sammy Sosa, we do not know whether Sammy Sosa identifies as a black man or did when he presented as a black man physically. We do know that many individuals in/from the Dominican Republic, with significant African ancestry, do not identify as black. So perhaps a better question is would YOU have considered Sammy Sosa, in his former physical state, a black man if he did not identify as such? What about other Dominicans that look similar to Sammy's former physical state but do not identify as black. Would you consider them black people?

Ethnicity might be.

Niggas know they are niggas because the world treats them like niggas.

Mike was treated like one, and
said he was one, so he was one.

It's pretty simple, if you let it be.


When people of all ethnicities get equal treatment, race won't be a thing.

But we ain't there yet.
So niggas still exist,
and you can't not be one if you are, and if you ain't one, you never will be one.


>supersede biological indicators of race in some applications
>and not others?
>
>> so, a black man who has altered his hair and skin
>w/features
>>typically associated w/the white race (or any non-black
>race)
>>but who lives and identifies as a black man is not
>transracial
>>for the purpose of this discussion. and that's why i say MJ
>>and Sosa don't apply.
>
>For example, according to what has been championed throughout
>this post, the following would be true:
>
>Michael Jackson, in spite of presenting with the physical
>features of a race different from the race he was born, is of
>black race simply because he said so. Rachel Dolezal, in spite
>of presenting with the physical features of a race different
>from the race she was born, is not of black race simply
>because she said so.
>
>^How is this not logically fallacious?
>
>And in the case of Sammy Sosa, we do not know whether Sammy
>Sosa identifies as a black man or did when he presented as a
>black man physically. We do know that many individuals in/from
>the Dominican Republic, with significant African ancestry, do
>not identify as black. So perhaps a better question is would
>YOU have considered Sammy Sosa, in his former physical state,
>a black man if he did not identify as such? What about other
>Dominicans that look similar to Sammy's former physical state
>but do not identify as black. Would you consider them black
>people?
>

>said he was one, so he was one.
>

^This is what does not make sense. The whole reason this debate has become a hot topic recently is because Rachel Dolezal identifies as a black woman and many people strongly feel that she is NOT one.

>you can't not be one if you are, and if you ain't one, you
>never will be one.

Which would then point towards SOME involvement of biological indicators of race (skin colour, hair texture, nose size/shape, eye shape, etc.) in the formation of racial identity. These would be the only contributing factors that are quantifiable and resolute.

However people want to acknowledge biological indicators of race in an inconsistent fashion, dependent on who it is. And people want to defer to the racial identity claimed in an inconsistent fashion, dependent on who it is lol.

MTV initially refused to play Billie Jean because he was a nigga.

The Tom Sneddon got the law changed and scoured the earth for 10 years looking for evidence to put Michael Jackson in jail because he was a nigga.

Sony attempted to screw Michael Jackson out of his back catalogue because he was a nigga .

Bill O'Riley was talking about child molestation accusations on the day of MJ's funeral because he was a nigga.

We know MJ was a nigga because he was treated like one. His plastic surgery and his skin disease did not stop the industry and the media and the police from treating him like a nigga.

So it is pretty racist to assume that MJ could stop being a nigga just by saying he wasn't one anymore.

And BTW, he never claimed to not be a nigga, but in fact, maintained to his dying day that he got a raw deal because no matter what he accomplished, it didn't stop him from being treated like a nigga.



Had MJ claimed that he was no longer a nigga, he would have gotten the side eye and still would have gotten the same nigga treatment that he got when he was alive.



I am not having this conversation with you unless you
can articulate, in your own words, what the difference is between race an ethnicity.



Because if you think you can change youe race by claiming to not be Black, you are saying that Black people can become immune from racism if they decide to be white.


Distinguish race from ethnicity and maybe we can talk.

if you can't draw that distinction, there is no need to
have this conversation.

You are not going to dismiss me from a line of questioning I initiated.

If you had made a little more effort to go through the various contributions to this thread, you would have seen that you and I do not disagree on the need for clear distinction between race and ethnicity when discussing this topic. In fact it is one of the first comments I made and I've brought it up, repeatedly, throughout the post.

>MTV initially refused to play Billie Jean because he was a
>nigga.
>
>The Tom Sneddon got the law changed and scoured the earth for
>10 years looking for evidence to put Michael Jackson in jail
>because he was a nigga.
>
>Sony attempted to screw Michael Jackson out of his back
>catalogue because he was a nigga .
>
>Bill O'Riley was talking about child molestation accusations
>on the day of MJ's funeral because he was a nigga.
>
>We know MJ was a nigga because he was treated like one. His
>plastic surgery and his skin disease did not stop the industry
>and the media and the police from treating him like a nigga.
>
>So it is pretty racist to assume that MJ could stop being a
>nigga just by saying he wasn't one anymore.
>
>And BTW, he never claimed to not be a nigga, but in fact,
>maintained to his dying day that he got a raw deal because no
>matter what he accomplished, it didn't stop him from being
>treated like a nigga.
>
>Had MJ claimed that he was no longer a nigga, he would have
>gotten the side eye and still would have gotten the same nigga
>treatment that he got when he was alive.
>

Again, that he would get a side eye for claiming a race other than black is problematic, logically. This is also why I proposed the case of Dominicans with significant African ancestry who do not claim to be of black race. In fact the Dominican Republic might be the perfect case to wrangle the logical flaws in the perspective as well as yours because you have a range of individuals, all with significant African ancestry, that claim different racial identities and are treated with varying levels of discrimination.

You are arguing as if Black Americans are the only group of black race on the planet. A sound perspective on race would have some external validity in application.

>
>
>I am not having this conversation with you unless you
>can articulate, in your own words, what the difference is
>between race an ethnicity.
>
>Because if you think you can change youe race by claiming to
>not be Black, you are saying that Black people can become
>immune from racism if they decide to be white.
>

What are you even talking about? Did I say this is what I think? I am trying to make sense of a position that appears to place almost exclusive weight on the racial identity 'vehemently claimed' by individuals, but in an inconsistent fashion. If you do not subscribe to the view either, stop derailing and allow those that do to explain.

>
>Distinguish race from ethnicity and maybe we can talk.
>if you can't draw that distinction, there is no need to
>have this conversation.
>
>

My preferred style of discussion is to be respectful, even during confusion or disagreement. In my eyes you have crossed that line. So I actually encourage you to stop replying to me as you have said, thanks.

from race into ethnicity. What does it mean to 'live black'? It can be described differently by black groups around the globe because it is influenced by culture. This is a separate process from race classification. And part of this debate is whether it is a separate process from the formation of a racial identity.



>but who lives and identifies as a black man is not transracial
>for the purpose of this discussion. and that's why i say MJ
>and Sosa don't apply.

(supposed) fictitious opression

all done to discredit, dismiss and disavow the suffering and continued marginalization of two groups of real people

okp never ceases to surprise me.

grip tightly to whatever hair u can splice though

>grip tightly to whatever hair u can splice though
>
>

ur turn

Today's actual have been telling us for years about their subjective experiences.

Over time, enough ppl understood and now we undunderstand those subjective experiences better.

Those of us that aren't assholes listen to ppl that tell us about their experiences.


Nobody sits in a lab thinking of new, theoretical ways to not fit in.

If transrace is a thing, those transracial ppl will tell us.

But they haven't.

So it sounds like you ppl are full of shit.

"that nigga's crazy" and laughed.

There was a chick making the talk show rounds back in the 90's who made this very claim. Even with as black as she was, she said she believed herself to be white. She said some of the same things transsexuals/transgenders said about themselves and every single black person that saw those shows basically said she was batshit insane. No one took her seriously.

I've already given examples of folks that would be labeled "transracial" from my own life. I've also pointed out that the concept of being transracial is almost as old as the concept of "gender" as applied to human beings.

What's particularly interesting about this entire debate is how quick the LGBT community started using the very same language against "transracial" being real as people from the 80's on up were using against transsexuals/transgenders and even against homosexuals themselves. The LGBT community has basically assumed the role of the oppressor in this argument. Even in this very thread we have examples of this and y'all don't even appear to realize the parallels between your own rhetoric and every LGBT opponent that has ever been published or spoken out against y'all publicly.


---------------------------

"Where was the peace when we were getting shot? Where's the peace when we were getting laid out?
Where is the peace when we are in the back of ambulances? Where is the peace then?
They don't want to call for peace then.

we've learned to stay woke

and lol@ the LBGTQ wiki primer

transgendered folk always existed
and within gay communities-
they might have occupied the fringes of the collective narrative,
but they existed
and dont confuse the narrative or attempts at theorizing the lgbtq identity with the actual business of living
which was happening with existing transgendered folks
and this is the main issue with y'all's imagined theory
apart from giving us anecdotes of people who did not of themselves self-identify as transracial
y'all cant point to a community of oppressed transracials
in fact, y'all went from its a concept that's been here for a while (post #2)
to its a concept that's emerging
to... lets pontificate on the what ifs of a fictitious and fictitiously oppressed group,
that we want to use to disabuse the notion of transgendered people's reality and in some cases,
of the social reality and repercussions of black folks lives in america


it would be cute if it werent for the fact that this week,
nine people are dead because they are black
not because they might have had some white ancestry, or lineage
but because they are black
and even if they were light skinned and biracial, that doesnt matter in *this* society

so miss me with all that we are oppressing imaginary folk
real folk are being oppressed out here. im more concerned with that

-->

It's oKay that you don't understand.

-->

I will entertain this after you prove to me that you know what the words you are using mean.

*shrug*

Because it's an interesting topic. Despite your most dedicated efforts, this is not an easily dismissed discussion where you can just say "oh, transrace isn't a 'thing' - next!" People have very strong feelings about this because it strikes people differently as it pertains to identity politics and subjective experience. The problem is, too many are trying to posit their subject experience as the objective way of looking at identity politics constructs such as race & gender.

That's never productive.

-->

>Because it's an interesting topic. Despite your most
>dedicated efforts, this is not an easily dismissed discussion
>where you can just say "oh, transrace isn't a 'thing' - next!"
> People have very strong feelings about this because it
>strikes people differently as it pertains to identity politics
>and subjective experience. The problem is, too many are
>trying to posit their subject experience as the objective way
>of looking at identity politics constructs such as race &
>gender.
>
>That's never productive.

an informed cultural, historical and personal view is crucial to understanding what you are trying to race blind into being


~~~~
When you are born, you cry, and the world rejoices. Live so that when you die, you rejoice, and the world cries.
~~~~
You cannot hate people for their own good.

so my transition into being Japanese is well underway. I'm transracial!

and then look white.

ergo.
we are the first nation of transracials.
we are white.

all those people who were/are bleaching their skins
they are oppressed because... they are transracials
and the lgbtq community has refused to accept this.
and how? when they accept transgendered folk

bleaching.. the nexus of the transracial movement

>bleaching.. the nexus of the transracial movement

except - of course - nobody has ever said that...except you at this moment.



-->

Clearly it's an open thing you want right?
What everyone is fight in here for?
Ahistorical acultural views?
Why wouldn't bleaching be part this transracial movement you're championing?
Sammy Sosa would be your mascot
Rachel dolezal is your jump off point
~~~~
When you are born, you cry, and the world rejoices. Live so that when you die, you rejoice, and the world cries.
~~~~
You cannot hate people for their own good.

this degree of permanent modification:


https://d39ya49a1fwv14.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Sammy-Sosa.jpg

http://plasticsurgeryfact.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Michael-Jackson-Nose-Job-Before-and-After.jpg


other than some form of race dysmorphia? No inflammatory baiting, personal attacks or reference to LGBTQ causes and experiences. Just answer the question.

What are other drivers that could be responsible for growing skin lightening into a multi-billion dollar industry across Africa, Asia and the Middle East?

What are other explanations for the creation of and the feelings shared in a documentary like BBC's 'Make me White'?

And why would any of these phenomena exist if race dysmorphia is 'fictitious'?


>
>bleaching.. the nexus of the transracial movement
>
>

If Bruce Jenner can change and look like a woman yet declare he still wants to fuck women then MJ can utilize as much money as he can to bleach his skin and alter his appearance to appear as white as possible, yest still try to maintain he's black as was stated earlier in this thread.

There are FTM trans that still want dick in them that identify as hetero.
There are MTF trans that still want to fuck broads and also identify as hetero (including Bruce Jenner).

If these are true, then a person can be transracial and go through the motions of changing their appearance to be the race they feel they really are internally, yet outwardly still cling to the race that has defined them up to this point because they don't believe people will understand them.

Lil Kim has been altering herself to look more and more Asian and even requested that an Asian actress be found to play her in "Notorious". Voletta Wallace has been quoted as saying Lil Kim is "... a white woman trapped in a black woman's body, and you can tell the world I said it, because those are Lil Kim's words."

Now... many of us think Lil Kim is batshit insane, but what if all her surgeries and shit stem from what Voletta said? I honestly wouldnt' be surprised if Lil Kim declared herself to be transracial in the next few months.

And y'all will still say she's crazy.
---------------------------

"Where was the peace when we were getting shot? Where's the peace when we were getting laid out?
Where is the peace when we are in the back of ambulances? Where is the peace then?
They don't want to call for peace then.

involving some form of race dysmorphia and not referencing any LGBTQ causes or experiences

Thanks though :) (No snark)



>If Bruce Jenner can change and look like a woman yet declare
>he still wants to fuck women then MJ can utilize as much money
>as he can to bleach his skin and alter his appearance to
>appear as white as possible, yest still try to maintain he's
>black as was stated earlier in this thread.
>
>There are FTM trans that still want dick in them that identify
>as hetero.
>There are MTF trans that still want to fuck broads and also
>identify as hetero (including Bruce Jenner).
>
>If these are true, then a person can be transracial and go
>through the motions of changing their appearance to be the
>race they feel they really are internally, yet outwardly still
>cling to the race that has defined them up to this point
>because they don't believe people will understand them.
>
>Lil Kim has been altering herself to look more and more Asian
>and even requested that an Asian actress be found to play her
>in "Notorious". Voletta Wallace has been quoted as saying Lil
>Kim is "... a white woman trapped in a black woman's body, and
>you can tell the world I said it, because those are Lil Kim's
>words."
>
>Now... many of us think Lil Kim is batshit insane, but what if
>all her surgeries and shit stem from what Voletta said? I
>honestly wouldnt' be surprised if Lil Kim declared herself to
>be transracial in the next few months.
>
>And y'all will still say she's crazy.
>---------------------------
>
>"Where was the peace when we were getting shot? Where's the
>peace when we were getting laid out?
>Where is the peace when we are in the back of ambulances?
>Where is the peace then?
>They don't want to call for peace then.

MJ lived as a Black man even with those new features. I haven't heard Sosa trying to live as other than a black man either.

Did they wanna LOOK 'white'? I dunno - even if they did that's not the same as living as a white person. At least not necessarily.

Like this crazy woman Rachel D - if she did all the same shit she has done but identified as white the whole time then there's no story and no alleged transition. Same with your examples.

their transition to being female is well underway! They're transgender? harharharhar! what idiots! What's next? trans-felines? I was born a dog and i feel like a cat!

THIS WORLD IS COMING TO AN END OMG'Z CASE_ONE WAS RIGHT!


-->

If you get treated like a nigga, you are one.

Ethnicity might be subjective,
but race is not.

If you don't understand the difference between race and ethnicity, maybe you should read
several books and then come back when you've learned something.

I won't believe you know the difference between race and ethnicity until you explain it in your own words.

I will be willing to entertain your ideas after you prove to me that you know the meaning of the words you are using.


I wish you the best of luck in your struggle to make sense of a confusing world.



>their transition to being female is well underway! They're
>transgender? harharharhar! what idiots! What's next?
>trans-felines? I was born a dog and i feel like a cat!
>
>THIS WORLD IS COMING TO AN END OMG'Z CASE_ONE WAS RIGHT!
>
>
>-->

I don't reply to trolling aliases. When you're confident enough in your (poorly thought-out) world views, come back to us and be an actual adult.

-->

>I don't reply to trolling aliases.


Take the last word.
If we don't agree on the definitions of race and ethnicity, a conversation about race is pointless for both of us.

Good luck.

This was Joe Corn Mo. I have no idea what my password is, as I made it a point to stop arguing with you ppl.

But this post and the Charleston post compelled me to find an alias I made to log in and reply.

This conversation, like most others I've had with you,
is a waste of both of our time.

Good luck w/ whatever your point is.

> What's next?
>trans-felines? I was born a dog and i feel like a cat!

www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jxk0PHL9G0

*edit* this is not a rabbit hole you want to go down...

---------------------------

"Where was the peace when we were getting shot? Where's the peace when we were getting laid out?
Where is the peace when we are in the back of ambulances? Where is the peace then?
They don't want to call for peace then.

and it's been there all along. but now I see it. bc I don't have to have struggled with this ever - I can just dip in and out of identities for nefarious purposes. hell, I can be a sociopath about the shit and it's okay. the transgendered had me scared - I thought I had to have a genuine issue to be able to make this work. but no. I was afraid that my transition would be a mockery of their real live drama. but no. it's totally fine for me to do this bc I just think being Black is too hard and being Japanese is cool - and it always feels great and it makes my toes curl and my body tingle! so why not? I have no reason not to. my wanting to be Japanese bc Black life is tough and full of terror and hate and fear and drama while Japanese life is like that feeling before a sneeze mixed with that feeling when you pee real hard after you had to for a real long time is totally as valid as anything I've heard from transgender ppl about their transitions so it's all the same thing. I shouldn't be ashamed of myself for being a bigot or insensitive or overly concerned with having a 'gotcha!' moment with ppl who are living real lives with real struggles and/or their advocates. those real ppl don't matter as much as my fictional (creative non fictional, that is) problem with this easy solution. I see it now.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Qe4AZRkFYE

well played.

The fact is.....the Rachel Dolezal case takes something to the forefront that no one is really talking about. And it's been around in feminist literature since the 60's. The principle is that one cannot justifiably identify with an oppressed group if they were not PERCEIVED as being part of that group.

Here's Robin Morgan from 1973:

I will not call a male “she”; thirty-two years of suffering in this androcentric society, and of surviving, have earned me the title “woman”; one walk down the street by a male transvestite, five minutes of his being hassled (which he may enjoy), and then he dares, he dares to think he understands our pain? No, in our mothers’ names and in our own, we must not call him sister.

Here's the article I got it from:

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/08/04/woman-2

This is the same principle that we dismiss Rachel Dolezal with. Of course, we have to note that Rachel LIED in adopting her proclaimed identity. It's worth clarifying here in a specific way. Rachel claimed to feel burdened in that wearing her hair naturally at the workplace would result in consequences for her career. There are some arguments being made (seeing them everywhere) that if Rachel's co-workers perceived that to be her real hair....and she suffered consequences as a result.....she is thereby experiencing racism just like a black woman. But no. Because inherent in the experience of having 'inappropriate hair' is the inability to opt out.

So Morgan's argument rings true for Rachel Dolezal.

And this is where this post went for me. How does a transgendered person try to persuade Robin Morgan to accept them for who they are?
To refer to them as a her/she?

What if we asked Robin Morgan....."I have male genitalia but yet I feel like a woman on the inside. I acknowledge that I was perceived as a male while growing up....so my experience is distinct from other woman. Amongst other dynamics...I have benefitted from male privilege."

Someone of Robin Morgan's thinking can go a lot of different ways with that question.

1. No, experiencing what it's like to be PERCEIVED as a woman is a defining criteria for womanhood.

2. OK, I respect that you identify as a woman while acknowledging that your experience is different than mine. But that makes you a transwoman. Not the same as me.

3. OK, I respect that you identify as a woman and as you gain experience in being perceived as a woman.....you and I will be the same.

Again, from the new Yorker:

In this view, gender is less an identity than a caste position. Anyone born a man retains male privilege in society; even if he chooses to live as a woman—and accept a correspondingly subordinate social position—the fact that he has a choice means that he can never understand what being a woman is really like.

>and rights of trans-gendered people, why do you mock and
>belittle those who identify as transracial?

Who are those people ?

I remember a Black kid in a talk show who said he was a white on the inside.

It sounded crazy then.... and IMO it still sounds crazy.

Everyone talks about the privilege of cha ging back but everyone has that privilege.

We sympathize with transgender but that same community denies the next man or woman from being who they really feel they are on the inside.

Why is this?

Not to mention not a thing

Transgender at least has more grounding in reality. Race is something people need to free themselves from not embrace

the other one isn't yet.

Tho the fake hebrews by claiming they are hebrew are in many ways claiming trans-racial.

You know GD ninjaz stay eatin that matrix-steak
©
https://youtu.be/6gL0xQHI0wo?t=17

is not real at all. Simple.

centuries old.

The question is why is one real and legitimate and the other is not and your answer is well, one is real and legitimate and the other is not. SMH.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

>The question is why is one real and legitimate and the other
>is not and your answer is well, one is real and legitimate and
>the other is not. SMH.
>


Actually, the question is in the subject line, and it's "What is the distinguishing difference between the 2" .... not "why is one real and legitimate and the other not" as you just completely lied about.
So sweeneykovar's answer is legitimately an answer to the question whether one agrees with it or not.

race is a socially inherited label based on what all your ancestors were. You don't get to choose that - it's your familial history. If most of your ancestors were from Europe and were white, then you're white, even if you don't like it.

But you don't inherit your gender/sex (whichever one is what you feel, rather than your body parts - I forget) as a family trait. That's what you feel inside and that begins and ends with you.

That's the best counter-argument I've seen.