Topic: The Rachel Dolezal Controversy

[LisztesFerenc]

I really see the whole "I identify as ***" argument as a defense mechanism that she employed to deflect attention away from her lying.  Unfortunately, it sort of worked.

  Possibly. I can't speak for overs, but I am now mostly satisfied that she was indeed a fraud.

  However to me at least the larger issue of to what extend race is self defined is more interesting. Its purely theoretical without a second Donezal (and even if there was someone who "legitimatly" identified as another race, they probably aren't going to let anyone know after how the media and public reacted to her), but I find it interesting. And with the theory that the birth rate of mixed race children will skyrocket in the next few generations, its very likely this debate will return, with a lot practical application in the near future.

  But that is becoming a discussion for another thread, as this one was made with one specific individual in mind.

[la dame en noir]

Intense, I already asked you not respond to me. So let me fix something for you.

When I mentioned she is bisexual, I was mentioning that she is trying to find some link to Caitlyn and is desperately looking for attention wherever she can find it. I am black bisexual female, I find it highly annoying that not only did this woman claim to be black for whatever insane reason, now shes claiming she likes women as well?

NO

She is a pathological liar and I'm not falling for it. Sorry that you're great a making assumptions instead of seeing the bigger picture.

[Avis habilis]

I still see this as an issue of discrimination, people apply one set of standards to Bruce Jenner, yet when Donezal is dealing with some similar issues, suddenly she is subjected to a whole new set or rules that would be considered bigoted if applied to Jenner.

Except they aren't even remotely similar, as explained quite thoroughly here, here, & here.

[Lustful Bride]

There is no benefit in her STILL claiming to be black.  Yet that is exactly what she is doing.  In claiming to be black the only thing she opens herself up to is further ridicule, so no.  I don't believe the only reason shes doing it is for money.

In my opinion its because she got caught in her lie and has decided that itd work best to stick with it. Lets not forget that she also sued Howard University for discriminating against her for being white...seems very hypocritical in my opinion on her part.

''Oh What A Tangled Web We Weave , When First We Practice To Deceive''

She built a career upon her web of lies and now its all coming down around her.

[LisztesFerenc]

Except they aren't even remotely similar

  If they weren't remotely similar, you wouldn't need to link three separate article to articulate the difference. This is a complex issue, and insisting its clear cut is insulting to those people asking questions and not jumping to your side.

[Avis habilis]

you wouldn't need to link three separate article to articulate the difference.

Good thing it wasn't a three part explanation then. It was three different explanations of the same basic principle.

[la dame en noir]

Can I point out that;

1. White men and women have been apart of the NAACP since its foundation - she didn't have to be black to get a leading role.

2. Most black people could care less about the NAACP because they actually don't do much for the black community.
3. After they found out about her lies, she stepped down - even though she still called herself black afterwards.
4. She fabricated hate crimes
5. Now she's trying to receive sympathy and is now claiming to be bisexual (I'm not even going to go into how unaccepting most of the black community is about LGBT people)
6. She then sued Howard University for discrimination as a white woman (but I thought she was black, hmm)


Rachel gains nothing from pretending to be apart of an oppressed group. She could go to a black college as a white woman, she can get a degree in Black history as a white woman(my black history professor is white), she can join the NAACP - hold a leadership role as a white woman (and thats great because we need diversity), and she can do whatever the hell she wants to her hair (even though synthetic braids on straight hair and perms are very damaging).

The reason I got so mad about the hair is because its always trendy when a white man or woman does, but filthy - nasty - animalistic - unprofessional, when someone black wears their hair naturally.

SOO

Point is

She's insane

something tragic must have happened in her childhood
she seeks attention
she's a pathological liar

Anyway questions as to why I am mad as a black female?

[LisztesFerenc]

Good thing it wasn't a three part explanation then. It was three different explanations of the same basic principle.

  So this obvious principle needs a three part explanation? That doesn't obvious. But this is getting nick picky. Just a pet peeve of mine.

[Sho]

If Africans genetically get naturally frizzy hair (not sure that's just the right word or not), and some people like Dolezal want to style their hair that way, must there be some "tripwire" in doing that, or doing (pick and choose) some of any number of other things described as Black culture as well as genetics?  Must their picking up that appearance or that practice, automatically mean that in doing so, they are going to get accused of participating in the whole antiquated style of "Blackface"?  That seems awfully reactionary to me, for lack of a better word. Granted, publishers would also do some awful things with the notion of copyright, if they could get away with it... 

I think (and please do correct me if I'm wrong in this, in particular would love thoughts from la dame en noir on this) that one thing you may be missing, Kylie, is the issue of cultural appropriation. A useful quote, taken from this article (which I highly recommend you read, it's very useful and helped me, as a white woman, understand issues of appropriate a bit better):

"Cultural appropriation remains a concern for a variety of reasons. For one, this sort of “borrowing” is exploitative because it robs minority groups of the credit they deserve. Art and music forms that originated with minority groups come to be associated with members of the dominant group. As a result, the dominant group is deemed innovative and edgy, while the disadvantaged groups they “borrow” from continue to face negative stereotypes that imply they’re lacking in intelligence and creativity. In addition, when members of a dominant group appropriate the cultures of others, they often reinforce stereotypes about minority groups."

So to answer your question, Donezal's appropriation of traditionally black hairstyles designed to be protective (re: her box braids, bantu knots, and dreads) of natural hair to stop breakage is harmful. I liken it to white people wanting to use the n-word when they rap, or wanting to repeat it when they hear rap songs. In a perfectly equal society, would people be able to wear any hairstyle they wanted and use any words they wanted? Sure. The thing is, today's society isn't equal. Black people, particularly in America where systemic racism has been built into our daily institutions, still suffer. When a white person takes a style that is completely unnatural to their physical appearance and uses it for their own gain, it waters down the meaning of that particular symbol (be it music, hair, dancing, or things like spoken-word poetry) and makes it into a 'worldwide' symbol rather than an ethnic one.

The thing is, even if it seems like it should be, it's not okay for white people to take a traditionally black style. The primary reason that it's not okay is that these cultures, in particular black culture in America, have had to fight to have these styles and symbols acknowledged as 'acceptable' by mainstream white culture. In watering down the meaning behind hairstyles and music those things don't actually become more inclusive, they're simply robbed of their cultural meaning and instead become something 'white'. In short, it's 'cool' when Kylie Jenner wears dreads, but it's considered 'dirty' if someone black does it, and the difference is perception is solely based on their skin color. That's why it's so important not to appropriate things from cultures that we haven't lived in ourselves (appreciating is one thing, but appropriating is another, and it's a very fine and delicate line to walk).

I understand your point about people from various backgrounds struggling to find somewhere to fit in. That being said, I don't think you can apply that to this particular case (and I think that where people are taking offense is in using this particular woman's case to illustrate your point). Dolezal used white privilege when she sued her school, but then she also took a scholarship for being black. In doing that, she actually harmed the black community by taking an opportunity from another black person.

Additionally, I think the well-placed anger towards her comes from the fact that this white woman purported herself to be black and then stepped forwards to speak for the black community. Though she may be very invested in the black community and while she may want to help, it is an unfortunate but undeniable truth that because she is not black, she does not have the right to speak for that community as if she were one of them. She can offer support, she can offer opinions, and she can contribute to a larger dialogue as well as draw attention to problems caused by systemic racism. What she cannot do is take on the role of a black woman and speak as though she is a black woman. She can be an ally, but she cannot be black.

There are arguments that if someone is transgender that the concept of transracialism is possible. In the future, it may be (personally, I hope not). It's not right now. It certainly isn't alright that as a woman born into the most 'privileged' of races in America, being white, she 'switched' her race. People say that people who are transgender (I do hope I'm using the right terminology, and I sincerely apologize if I'm not) have different brain chemistry from their physical makeup. There isn't any proof to indicate that the same is true for race i.e. that if you are born a certain race you think one way rather than another.

Finally, Dolezal is so infuriating on so many levels because she's not sitting there saying "I feel I am this race and so I will present that way"; she actively leveraged that race (while lying) into opportunities that she otherwise would not have gotten had she not lied. She lied about who her parents were. She deceived the greater community and she gained access to privileged positions within the African-American community by claiming the kinship that comes with shared discrimination. It's akin to someone showing up at your doorstep and claiming to be a distant cousin, gaining your trust as if they were a family member, and then being caught in a lie and saying "well, I felt like your cousin so it's okay, because I've acted like one". In fact, the whole thing is a mockery of the black community in many ways because as a white person, she came up with a preconceived notion of what being black is and paraded around acting it out. The sad thing is that I genuinely believe she wanted to help the black community...but she hurt it instead, at the end of the day.

So, that's my two cents, at least.

[Sho]

Oh, and one more thing...I think her last name is actually Dolezal, not Donezal.

[Oniya]

I believe you are correct, and that was my error in creating the thread title.  Taking care of that now

EDIT:  And fixed.

[la dame en noir]

@Sho: that was what i was missing in my argument. Yours was so well put together and eloquent. That is one of the very reasons why so many black people are upset. I tend get very upset and lose all logic when talking about these issues. Thank you so much.

[Ephiral]

Okay, I stepped out of this discussion for a bit because it was getting to me. As a result, this comes from a while back, but it's important:

  Well while I have no problem with anyone in the LGBT community(I know it sounds cliche but I have a ton of gay/lesbian friends and know 2 undergoing gender corrective surgery at the moment, one mtf and the other ftm).  As gender is simply man vs woman, it's a bit simpler than the race issue. The scientific/biological fact is that despite what you feel, you were born a certain way.  A man who becomes a woman through surgery is still not a woman in anything beyond looks as he can't birth children or produce breast milk. A woman who transitions is not truly a man as she can't produce sperm and impregnate other females. It makes you feel better, makes you feel more natural, but it's only cosmetic. And that's just gender. When it comes to race it's a similar, yet entirely different beast.

The bolded statements? Also apply to a lot of cis people. As does pretty much any other litmus test you care to name. Can we please stop with this bullshit fallacy now? (This is exactly why I objected to the trans comparisons earlier in the discussion.)

Moving on to the more current discussion:

  If they weren't remotely similar, you wouldn't need to link three separate article to articulate the difference. This is a complex issue, and insisting its clear cut is insulting to those people asking questions and not jumping to your side.

People make the falllacious and insulting comparison a lot, it gets debunked a lot. The comparison is harmful to trans people, feeding the ongoing myth that we are lying about ourselves and therefore it is acceptable to kill us. As a white trans* person, I can assure you there is very little about my lived experience that comes anywhere near that of either a cis PoC or Rachel Dolezal. Please stop pushing this harmful comparison. And while we're at it, IntensePlayer, could you maybe please try to stop erasing Caitlyn Jenner's identity?

[LisztesFerenc]

People make the falllacious and insulting comparison a lot, it gets debunked a lot. The comparison is harmful to trans people, feeding the ongoing myth that we are lying about ourselves and therefore it is acceptable to kill us. As a white trans* person, I can assure you there is very little about my lived experience that comes anywhere near that of either a cis PoC or Rachel Dolezal. Please stop pushing this harmful comparison. And while we're at it, IntensePlayer, could you maybe please try to stop erasing Caitlyn Jenner's identity?

  We've been over this in another thread: dismissing my honest inquiry as a "bullshit fallacy", is not going to endear me to your argument. Like it our not, I am drawing this comparison, because they seem similar to me. So if you want to explain why I am wrong (which is entirely possible. I am cis, and living mainland europe, so not a lot of minorities), you are going to have to be more respectful, because an arrogant dismissal leads me to defensibly stick to my current stance, not abandon it.

  I am sorry if my ignorance offends you, but I cannot help that. If you cannot help insulting me when you respond, maybe you shouldn't respond.

[Avis habilis]

Oh, look. Tone policing. Not quite the least surprising development I've ever seen but close to it.

[LisztesFerenc]

Oh, look. Tone policing. Not quite the least surprising development I've ever seen but close to it.

  I am not questioning anyone emotions, nor placing the responsibility for my feelings on others. I am merely going over how people typically react to being insulted, which is very rarely "wow, you're right".

  Ephiral quoted me. That implies that on some level, they were trying to communicate with me. I was simply informing them how they could better do that. They are free to ignore it.

[Sho]

@Sho: that was what i was missing in my argument. Yours was so well put together and eloquent. That is one of the very reasons why so many black people are upset. I tend get very upset and lose all logic when talking about these issues. Thank you so much.

Thanks :) Cultural appropriation is something I've had to spend a lot of time studying because it can be a hard concept to understand, particularly when one (like me) is in the dominant group. It can be frustrating to be told "no, this is ours, you can't wear/do/say that", but once you understand the reasoning behind it, it actually makes a lot of sense.

[la dame en noir]

Now we're ignoring the realism trand people face'

[Ephiral]

  We've been over this in another thread: dismissing my honest inquiry as a "bullshit fallacy", is not going to endear me to your argument. Like it our not, I am drawing this comparison, because they seem similar to me. So if you want to explain why I am wrong (which is entirely possible. I am cis, and living mainland europe, so not a lot of minorities), you are going to have to be more respectful, because an arrogant dismissal leads me to defensibly stick to my current stance, not abandon it.

  I am sorry if my ignorance offends you, but I cannot help that. If you cannot help insulting me when you respond, maybe you shouldn't respond.

I accidentally inserted an extra copy of your post; my apologies. What I was referring to as bullshit was Juggtacular's litmus test for what makes a real man or woman, and I stand behind both my assessment and my anger.

I said that the comparisons to Caitlyn Jenner are fallacious and harmful, and I stand behind that as well. I touched on the reasons in my initial statement, but to elaborate somewhat: There is a very widespread myth that trans people are decieving others about their gender (see the extremely common slur "trap"). In many places, this myth is used as legal justification to murder us for the horrible crime of being attractive to transphobic people. By comparing someone who has clearly been deceitful to us in a clear "Why are they acceptable if she isn't?" argument, you reinforce this myth, and thus help make the world a little more dangerous for trans people.

Is this clear now?

[LisztesFerenc]

I accidentally inserted an extra copy of your post; my apologies. What I was referring to as bullshit was Juggtacular's litmus test for what makes a real man or woman, and I stand behind both my assessment and my anger.

I said that the comparisons to Caitlyn Jenner are fallacious and harmful, and I stand behind that as well. I touched on the reasons in my initial statement, but to elaborate somewhat: There is a very widespread myth that trans people are decieving others about their gender (see the extremely common slur "trap"). In many places, this myth is used as legal justification to murder us for the horrible crime of being attractive to transphobic people. By comparing someone who has clearly been deceitful to us in a clear "Why are they acceptable if she isn't?" argument, you reinforce this myth, and thus help make the world a little more dangerous for trans people.

Is this clear now?

  It is clear yes, but I don't agree with the interpretation. My argument isn't "Why are they acceptable if she isn't?", its the opposite. "Why isn't she accepted, when they are?". My stance and line of inquiry is all based on the premise that trans people are and should be, accepted members of society, and then extends this acceptance to the concept of somebody redefining their race, never to use that as a way to deny what little acceptance trans people have fought so hard to gain. It is possibly that someone could twist this line of thinking into a transphobic stance, but, well to me twist seems to be the operative word there.

[Ephiral]

In that case, I'm sorry; it seems I conflated you with a few others who have been pushing the inverse interpretation. I would argue that the reason is simple: We've got fairly solid evidence of deception from her. She "identified as black from age 5", except when she sued Howard University and (according to her parents) in childhood. She has blatantly lied about her parentage, and then applied a ridiculous double-standard when called on it. The parallel, if it exists at all, is a poor one.

[Evolution]

There have been a lot of replies since my last post so I'm going to try and respond to each of them as best I can.

Avis habilis, I read through your 3 links.  Which I have to say... This is starting to become like some kind of essay or something however I'm trying to stay as informed and relevant as possible when responding to people who have addressed my points (Though I feel most of my points are being ignored entirely.)

In the first link you posted I picked up on "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."  I thought that was a somewhat contradictory statement.  Without any real proof the opinion implies that in being true to themselves people who are trans are being honest, yet Dolezal is lying.  The article did very little to convince me that there are no similarities between the two issues.  There was also "Amidst the many hilarious Dolezal-related memes" which are of course at the expense of Dolezal, the author of the post clearly has no problem with making fun of Dolezal while seemingly being 'offended' at a possible comparison between Dolezal and Jenner.

I read through your other link talking about how Jon Stewart addressed the issue.  He made some good points, one of which I actually made earlier on in the thread, which is the media's overreaction on the issue.  It really isn't an issue that deserves all the time they have dedicated to it given that there is real news that is happening, as opposed to the actions of one woman most people consider 'crazy'.  I'm a big fan of Jon Stewart and the Daily Show but I don't always agree with what he says.  The correspondent's view seemed to be that its okay for Dolezal to help the black community just not have the audacity to try and be a part of it. The exact words being "We don't need oppression cosplay.  We need allies, not replacements."  Which honestly sounded a tad racist to me.  For better or worse Dolezal has been passing as black for what.. Something like 10 years, who is to say she hasn't experienced life as 'A black person' in that time, and been 'judged' as a black person in that time.  If she managed to fool black people into thinking she was black, I'm sure white people would have also been fooled.  Regardless it seemed that the Correspondent dismissed pretty much EVERYTHING about Dolezal simply because she identifies as black.

Also you posted 3 links.  Here are 3 links that I found very easily.
1.  https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/psychiatry-expert-scientifically-there-is-no-such-thing-as-transgender (A psychologist talks about why transgender isn't a thing)
2. http://thefederalist.com/2014/06/23/how-the-trans-agenda-seeks-to-redefine-everyone/ (Talks bout the trangender 'agenda' to destroy everyone's identity, needless to say it is an anti tans article)
3. http://themattwalshblog.com/2014/06/03/this-poor-child-is-confused-not-transgendered/ (About a 5 year old who identifies as a different gender than the one they were born with, and the article goes on to say how that is impossible because kids that young can't identify to a particular sexual identity)

Of course I don't believe the bs in any of those links, but you might be asking why I posted them in the first place?  To illustrate that just because there is a source for something, doesn't mean its true.  You linked 3 articles which had a particular narrative, just because they claimed that Jenner and Dolezal were two entirely different issues (Mind you not all 3 of the articles said this(, doesn't necessarily mean its true as I very easily was able to find bigoted articles against transgender. 

I have never ONCE claimed that the two issues are identical, which seems to be the gist of most of these 'those are two different issues' articles seem to say.  All I have suggested is that the two issues have similarities, which is an opinion a few people in this thread share.

la dame en noir, this is a public thread therefore I think I'm entitled to respond to the points that everyone makes.  Unless it is against the rules for me to respond to someone when they ask, if that is a case and a mod or admin says so, I will respect the rules, until then if I feel I have a point to make about your post, I will.  Another thing I wanted to point out.  You asked me not to respond to what you are saying, yet you continue to respond to me.  Although honestly I have no problem with you responding to me as I'm writing this in a public forum and anyone who wishes is free to challenge or respond to any of the points I'm making.

You said that she mentioned she is bisexual to try and relate to Jenner somehow for sympathy/attention.  The truth is that is an assumption on your part, you really have no way of knowing what Dolezal's sexuality is.  You talk about me making assumptions and don't hold yourself to the same standard.

As for the points you made:
1. White men and women have been apart of the NAACP since its foundation - she didn't have to be black to get a leading role.
-So if white people have been a part of the NAACP what is the real issue here?  Do you have any critiques about the actual work she has done while at the NAACP?  Or does none of that matter because 'omg she is lying about being black'  How has her work at the NAACP affected the black community negatively?  What race she is or isn't doesn't seem to me like it would have an impact on the work itself.

2. Most black people could care less about the NAACP because they actually don't do much for the black community.
-If most black people don't care about the NAACP anyway, why is Dolezal such a big deal?  I'd think that her presence would be even less relevant since the black community doesn't care what the NAACP does.

3. After they found out about her lies, she stepped down - even though she still called herself black afterwards.
- Lying means that in part she is a bad person, it still doesn't mean that just because she has told a few lies she doesn't have the right to express herself.  I have lied about quite a few things in the past, as have you, as has everyone I'm sure.  Self expression isn't dependent on a person's level of honesty or dishonesty.

4. She fabricated hate crimes
- I actually haven't heard anything about this.  I remember reading something yesterday about how she accused her husband of sexually assaulting her while they were married.  If she did fabricate hate crimes that would be messed up.  If you can give me a link about this I'll read through it and give you my honest opinion on it.

5. Now she's trying to receive sympathy and is now claiming to be bisexual (I'm not even going to go into how unaccepting most of the black community is about LGBT people)
-Err... What does this have anything to do with Dolezal and her issues?  It seems your point is more about the insensitivity of the black community in relation to LGBT issues, you can't project that onto Dolezal as if she is somehow responsible for the black community being insensitive to LGBT?

6. She then sued Howard University for discrimination as a white woman (but I thought she was black, hmm)
-It is a weird thing for her to do since she claims to identify as black.. But... How is a white woman suing a university for being white affect the black community?  Seems like it is another issue that doesn't really affect the black community.

"The reason I got so mad about the hair is because its always trendy when a white man or woman does, but filthy - nasty - animalistic - unprofessional, when someone black wears their hair naturally." 

I don't think Dolezal has any control over how others view hair?  It seems like you're unfairly projecting issues that don't originate with Dolezal.

"something tragic must have happened in her childhood
she seeks attention
she's a pathological liar"

Does that mean it is okay for an entire community to single her out, condemn her, and make fun of her?  Or should she possibly be left alone to get her life together if you truly believe she is such a troubled person?

Sho, in regards to what you said about hair.  I think the issue is how other people view it, not what Dolezal is doing.  Others think knots and dreads are dirty.  It seems to me THAT is the narrative that we should be trying to change.  Dolezal doesn't have any influence about what others think about hairstyle and hygiene.  You cited the use of the 'n' word in rap songs how its okay for black people to use and say, yet not okay for white people or people outside the black race to sing along to simply because of their skin color.  So according to you there is a word that one group of people can say because of their skin color, but another group has no right to say because they are a different skin color.  To me that is one of the key examples of what racism is.

You wrote -

"The thing is, even if it seems like it should be, it's not okay for white people to take a traditionally black style. The primary reason that it's not okay is that these cultures, in particular black culture in America, have had to fight to have these styles and symbols acknowledged as 'acceptable' by mainstream white culture. In watering down the meaning behind hairstyles and music those things don't actually become more inclusive, they're simply robbed of their cultural meaning and instead become something 'white'. In short, it's 'cool' when Kylie Jenner wears dreads, but it's considered 'dirty' if someone black does it, and the difference is perception is solely based on their skin color. That's why it's so important not to appropriate things from cultures that we haven't lived in ourselves (appreciating is one thing, but appropriating is another, and it's a very fine and delicate line to walk)."

I'm failing to see how that line of thinking makes sense.  I'm not trying to trivialize the struggles that black people have gone through in the past, or continue to go through in the present day, however what I don't see is why certain things have to remain 'exclusive' to the black culture.  It would be like the white community saying "Black people don't have the right to listen to or compose country music"  When a non black person does something that is a part of black culture, why can't it mean that they are actively contributing to the culture, or taking part in celebrating it, as opposed to doing harm?  Again it just seems kinda racist to me.  My personal belief is that people who are black should be able to express themselves however they want.  If they want to dress and act in a way that most white people do..  I don't think that is going to be the downfall of white culture, just like I don't see there is nothing wrong with a white person wearing dreads, and an afro, or listening and enjoying rap music.

"Additionally, I think the well-placed anger towards her comes from the fact that this white woman purported herself to be black and then stepped forwards to speak for the black community. Though she may be very invested in the black community and while she may want to help, it is an unfortunate but undeniable truth that because she is not black, she does not have the right to speak for that community as if she were one of them."

For something like 10 years she passed off as black.  Sure she doesn't know what it is like to be a slave, but then again neither do you.  In ten years I can't imagine that Dolezal hasn't faced discrimination while others have thought she was black.  If you believe that Dolezal can't speak for/as a black person because she was born white, then in turn you must also believe that Caitlyn Jenner can never speak for women because she was born and lived most of her life as a man.

"There are arguments that if someone is transgender that the concept of transracialism is possible. In the future, it may be (personally, I hope not). It's not right now. It certainly isn't alright that as a woman born into the most 'privileged' of races in America, being white, she 'switched' her race. People say that people who are transgender (I do hope I'm using the right terminology, and I sincerely apologize if I'm not) have different brain chemistry from their physical makeup. There isn't any proof to indicate that the same is true for race i.e. that if you are born a certain race you think one way rather than another."

The issue of transgender is one that has been in our community for some time, so sure there has been tests and experiments to show that people who are transgender have a different brain chemistry.  On the same note, how can you objectively say that Dolezal has the same mind/brain chemistry as a white person as opposed to a black person's?  There really isn't any objective proof that Dolezal is 'faking' or that she is lying when she says she identifies as black. 


" It's akin to someone showing up at your doorstep and claiming to be a distant cousin, gaining your trust as if they were a family member, and then being caught in a lie and saying "well, I felt like your cousin so it's okay, because I've acted like one". "

That is pretty messed up and I'm not going to lie I probably would be upset, even angry.  However I don't think I'd lash out at that person, mock that person, and try to draw needless attention to that person.  Whoever would do something that messed up obviously has mental issues, issues that they themselves need to deal with.  I would exclude that person from my life and hope they get the help they need.  I believe THAT would be the reasonable way to deal with that issue.

"The sad thing is that I genuinely believe she wanted to help the black community...but she hurt it instead, at the end of the day."

I still don't see how she hurt the entire black community.  The only issue I see is that she took a scholarship from a person who was actually black.  That would be her affecting one black person, I don't see any ripples that fan out to the black community as a result.  I already made this example in an earlier post and I'll do it again.  Because a black person robs a store that is owned by a white person, doesn't mean the entire white community is affected by that one black person.  It was a crime being committed by a criminal, that is all.


Ephiral, you stated:

"People make the falllacious and insulting comparison a lot, it gets debunked a lot. The comparison is harmful to trans people, feeding the ongoing myth that we are lying about ourselves and therefore it is acceptable to kill us. As a white trans* person, I can assure you there is very little about my lived experience that comes anywhere near that of either a cis PoC or Rachel Dolezal. Please stop pushing this harmful comparison. And while we're at it, IntensePlayer, could you maybe please try to stop erasing Caitlyn Jenner's identity?"

First of all I am sorry that you feel what I've been saying as harmful or insulting. That is not my intention however I can't control how you react, and if I see comparisons between the two issues I believe I have every right to state them.  I have no doubt that your experiences are very different than Dolezal's, that still doesn't change how I view things.  A lot of people believe that transgender isn't 'a thing'.  Just because they think that however doesn't make it true.  Just like how a lot of people think that transracial isn't a 'thing', that also doesn't mean that its not a thing.

Lastly what you said about me erasing Caitlyn Jenner's identity.  I would ask you to go back and read what I've written on the subject.  I have stated a few times that I am pro LGBT, not that I really need to justify my views.  As to the subject at hand I will clarify my view on Caitlyn Jenner.  I do not have a SINGLE thing against her.  I believe she has every right to do as she wishes.  If what makes her happy is to identify/act/dress as a woman, she should have every right to do so.  Her actions affect me in no way whatsoever.  I also think it is perfectly fine that she lived over half her life as a man.  It is also something that doesn't harm anyone, so I don't think anyone should have an issue with it.  I see similarities between Caitlyn Jenner and Dolezal in the sense that both are simply trying to live life the way that makes them happy.  The only thing I have done is relay what others have said on the issue to illustrate how discriminatory things said about Jenner also seem to apply to Dolezal.  I have never ONCE said that Jenner doesn't have the right to be who she wants, so honestly I don't know where your statement about me 'erasing' Caitlyn Jenner's identity comes from.  If you find a particular thing I said that you believe contributes to that please feel free to bring it to my attention and I will clarify it for you. 

[la dame en noir]

Am I seeing things? I never told this person that their opinion didn't matter, I told them not to talk to me. Interesting that he's continuing to violate a simply request.

But I'm also going to explain why i don't want him talking to me.

1. He asking me for links even though I'm not the only person that pointed out that she has fabricated the hate crimes.
2. He just suggested that she somehow is the reason the black community has problems with the LGBT community, even though this is deeply rooted in my culture because of Christianity and the thought that a man and woman should be together because for some radical afrocentric people think that being gay is a white thing. etc...etc.
3. Then he goes on to attack a comment that wasn't directed at him and from the way it seems, he's putting my opinions down rather than taking something from them.

Sho gives valid points as to why its an issue and he simply ignores because he refuses to try and understand it.

I do remember giving a link about her supposed sexuality here

No assumptions on my part.

:3

[Cycle]

You know what's handy?  That Ignore List function under your Profile...

[Ephiral]

In the first link you posted I picked up on "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."  I thought that was a somewhat contradictory statement.  Without any real proof the opinion implies that in being true to themselves people who are trans are being honest, yet Dolezal is lying.

Fact: She sued Howard University for discriminating against her because she was white. Fact: She claims that she has identified as black since she was 5. Fact: She has claimed that her father was a black man to whom she has no relation whatsoever.

These are established facts that you are either well aware of or pointedly ignoring. They cannot be reconciled with the position that Dolezal is not lying as pertains to her race and identity. Are you deliberately ignoring them, or are you trying to argue that trans people are lying?

I'm a big fan of Jon Stewart and the Daily Show but I don't always agree with what he says.  The correspondent's view seemed to be that its okay for Dolezal to help the black community just not have the audacity to try and be a part of it. The exact words being "We don't need oppression cosplay.  We need allies, not replacements."  Which honestly sounded a tad racist to me.

So it is your position that the only way to avoid racism is to allow white people to speak instead of PoC on PoC issues? Can you please clarify when PoC are allowed to ask (!) to speak for themselves without being called racist?

First of all I am sorry that you feel what I've been saying as harmful or insulting. That is not my intention however I can't control how you react, and if I see comparisons between the two issues I believe I have every right to state them.  I have no doubt that your experiences are very different than Dolezal's, that still doesn't change how I view things.  A lot of people believe that transgender isn't 'a thing'.  Just because they think that however doesn't make it true.  Just like how a lot of people think that transracial isn't a 'thing', that also doesn't mean that its not a thing.

First of all, nice notpology, but a bit repetetive. 6/10. Second: Intent is not magic. The best intentions don't make harm go away. Whether or not you intend this, what you are doing by equating trans people with someone who has plainly lied about her identity is pereptuating harmful myths, as I explained above.

Lastly what you said about me erasing Caitlyn Jenner's identity.  I would ask you to go back and read what I've written on the subject. I have stated a few times that I am pro LGBT, not that I really need to justify my views.  As to the subject at hand I will clarify my view on Caitlyn Jenner.  I do not have a SINGLE thing against her.  I believe she has every right to do as she wishes.  If what makes her happy is to identify/act/dress as a woman, she should have every right to do so.  Her actions affect me in no way whatsoever.  I also think it is perfectly fine that she lived over half her life as a man.  It is also something that doesn't harm anyone, so I don't think anyone should have an issue with it.  I see similarities between Caitlyn Jenner and Dolezal in the sense that both are simply trying to live life the way that makes them happy.  The only thing I have done is relay what others have said on the issue to illustrate how discriminatory things said about Jenner also seem to apply to Dolezal.  I have never ONCE said that Jenner doesn't have the right to be who she wants, so honestly I don't know where your statement about me 'erasing' Caitlyn Jenner's identity comes from.  If you find a particular thing I said that you believe contributes to that please feel free to bring it to my attention and I will clarify it for you.

I've been reading. I see someone who's at best very very misguided - you don't get to claim your ally cookie while ignoring the actual wishes of real LGBT people, especially when they're telling you that your actions are harmful. As for Caitlyn Jenner specifically, what I was referring to specifically is this:

If you're going to use that argument I can very well go back to Bruce Jenner.  He has claimed that for a long time he identified as a woman.  Yet when he was younger he was in the Olympics AS a man.  Does that mean that he stole a position from an ACTUAL male who was more deserving?  Instead Caitlyn 'lied' about who she is and took advantage of the situation? Hell, maybe we should petition for him to give back his medal.  He claims to be a woman now, but can't still take credit for something he did while pretending to be a man right?  (You may think I'm joking but there are actually people out there who are petitioning to have Jenner's medal revoked. http://www.outsports.com/2015/6/3/8725393/caitlyn-jenner-transgender-petition-olympic-gold-medals )

I still see this as an issue of discrimination, people apply one set of standards to Bruce Jenner, yet when Donezal is dealing with some similar issues, suddenly she is subjected to a whole new set or rules that would be considered bigoted if applied to Jenner.

This thread is about a PoC issue, only extremely tangentally connected to trans* issues at all, and yet somehow there's all sorts of crap in here that reases our identites, perpetuates the harmful narratives, and erases identities. If you really want to use us as your poster children, is it too much to ask that you show us some respect beyond a few mouthed platitudes? Maybe even consider that the known and established lies in Dolezal's case do, in fact, make her case significantly different from ours?