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.