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!