Why can't I claim I'm black or disabled, but can claim I'm a bloke?

Sure you can identify as disabled. It's a real issue where some people will even inflict harm on themselves. I mean it's probably difficult for most people to understand, but then so is gender dysphoria.

The audacity and of comparing Black Women to White Male Born Privilege in a dress. They can take off the dress and be a man again if they do choose - we can't ever be White and benefit from that privilege.

Did OP come back by the way or was this just a dog-whistle to call out those who want to talk about Black women, and then play the fool?

I don't believe most are that bothered about Transwomen or, this thread would mostly be about Transwomen. It isn't. Point-scoring off Black Women is lame. It denotes lack of understanding, integrity and focus. & and is exactly why Transwomen will walk all over you. You are off-putting and will never garner the support of women en-masse. & you need to.

If you really want to mobilise against Self-ID then focus. Shut up about Black Women, we aren't the ones trampling on your rights. Get your head straight. Talk about Self-ID and how you'll respond to latest developments.

I doubt you will, however. All that privilege and still managing to be mediocre FFS.. try getting something done.

Even Alice Walker as a Black Woman openly announced solidarity with JK Rowling today.
WTF do you do, who do you lobby? Nobody I bet, because the White Male patriarchy that you uphold has you strangled.

That was meant to say "can't feel" ethnicity

I find this such a weird question because it's fairly obvious and comparing apples with oranges. I can understand why someone might 'feel' they are a different sex or sexuality. You can 'feel' an ethnicity (unless you perhaps grew up in that environment in which case fair enough), and you can't 'feel' disabled that one's pretty obvious.

Some people are not benefited by their "protected characteristics"

It's privilege and blind spots that some don't see this, and use those particular "protected characteristics" to make points about others being able to identify into their own "protected characteristics" they do benefit from and make points about keeping themselves "protected"

I don't believe on this thread it's malicious though

Ethnicity, unlike sex, is not binary. Not just black and white.

Exactly. This is an excellent space for women (adult females) of all races.

The OP raised an interesting question, stop turning it into a Black Women vs White Women quarrel, that would please the TRAs no end.

Are you suggesting that the majority of women on mumsnet could actually be WOC?

Odd that they felt the need for a Black Mumsnetters sub forum if so.

White women? No one here has declared their ethnicity. You are being very presumptious in order to justify your own racism.

I also just hate this moralistic attitude like sorry but who are either of you to tell people on here what questions they should be asking and OMG the tone is so heavily judgmental

I agree with you here. This forum is an excellent space for white women. There aren't (generally speaking) many similar online spaces which allow for some of the discussions which are had here. You wouldn't join a circus and start persecuting the clowns for wearing a red nose so I can completely see that this space is not for women like me. That's not neccesarily a bad thing either - I said in a previous post that this thread would be perfect reading for young Black feminists struggling to get their head around certain things.

There was a guy who wanted to have his age officially changed as his doctor had confirmed he was pretty much the equivalent to most men of that age in terms of health. I remember wondering if he was making a point.

You sound weird and pressed. You may want to head off to bed before you implode.

I bet once you read one or two words, you were blinded to all the other ones I've been writing in agreement with the OP. I didnt even bring up this line of conversation but got caught in it because I responded to a part of someone's post.

Anyone who starts talking about "the left", name-calling and assuming nonsense because someone stated an opinion they disgree with is already not too bright.

@DojaPhat @WillBeAbsolutelyFine neither of you sanctimonious holier than thou individuals have actually addressed the point though which is why is it praised when a man identifies as a woman, but unacceptable for a white / able bodied person to identify as black / disabled?

It's the typical rhetoric there is so much of on the left, instead of actually addressing the point there's a lot of theatrical hand wringing over how dare you say this or that.

I also just hate this moralistic attitude like sorry but who are either of you to tell people on here what questions they should be asking and OMG the tone is so heavily judgmental

I agree. It's more than ridiculous.

I doubt OP would've gotten pushback if it was phrased this way - she wouldn't be singling out any particular group, especially the group in a less privileged position than the group she's in.

But instead of derailing and going over this 'misunderstanding' again and again (because I've said my piece and done with it), we can continue with this line of thought (if we so please).

It's not at all problematic to ask the questions you have. Such a striking comparison between the treatment of men who claim to be women and anyone who claims to be another race. I've never heard of an abled person claiming to be disabled in this way, I can't imagine they'd get very far.

Not sure how you're using black/disabled people as an anchor or rhetorical device, hopefully someone can explain that.

No, it's not "problematic" to use examples just because you don't belong to those particular groups.

As long as the examples and style of argument aren't suggesting anything negative about them, then where is the problem?

There is nothing in the OP argument that suggested anything negative.

Isnt the question simply why is the protected characteristic of sex up for grabs, and not the others. Why cant we identify as pregnant, or older/younger, or can I identify as trans (when I'm not) so I'm a trans trans woman. And not just identify, but benefit, I want maternity leave, I identify as pregnant, I want the state pension, I identify as 75. It would be absurd, except we now have actual men in female sport, prisons and winning women's prizes. Dystopian frankly.

A lot of the TRA argue that if black women are women, then trans women are women because trans is just a descriptor of a kind of woman. They never yes any other example. They are racist, but it’s the TRA who like to throw accusations of racism around. Even the head of stonewall compared lesbians who wouldn’t date males to “sexual racists”. Why is the go to insult or retort always “that’s racist” to women questioning the gender cult. We’re not the ones claiming in any way black women are not women.

The OP has asked about what she thinks might be a logical contradiction in gender ideology, and whether there is some explanation for why this wouldn't be a logical contradiction.

She's not "using" anyone, and whether she is part of any of those groups is completely irrelevant to whether there is, or is not, a logical contradiction.

Reality doesn't change based on her racial or any other background. What is or is not a rational argument doesn't change. What is contradictory or not does not change. That kind of thinking is part of the problem.

Black disabled women happen to have among the worst outcomes in just about any area you can imagine: healthcare, financial, living conditions. These so called highly prized 'protected characteristics' have done absolutely fuck all to protect these women from harm as a direct result of their 'protected characteristics' nor has it improved their material conditions. Black disabled women often experience these terrible outcomes because they are Black and or disabled. White women wielding Black women as a rhetorical device is at best a blindspot and at worst malevolent.

The language of identity was used around some things like race and ethnicity and disability before it was for gender. But there was always underneath a sense that the person really had certain characteristics, but might or might not choose to see them as elements of identity.

I'm not sure, in hindsight, that it was a wise approach to the extent that people accepted it. Maybe sometimes things are true or not, and people just need to suck it up in certain contexts?

And then some things, race in particular, are almost wholly constructed socially, to the extent that it can mean rather different things in different countries.

One thing I would note is that the current trends in employment are encouraging some to identify into certain groups to gain advantage. Sometimes in an underhanded way. But also in ways that are a little disconcerting - my university recently hired someone into a position where they were looking for an indigenous person. Unrelated to the job description. The fellow they hired has been quite open with other faculty that he's never really been involved with indigenous culture in a meaningful way or thought of himself that way - but he can legitimately and legally claim that heritage. He did it because diversity hiring is so important now in universities and jobs for scholars so competitive.

It's not problematic to ask the questions you've asked, OP. It's problematic to use Black women and disabled people as anchor when you're part of neither group as you've said. Do you fight for or acknowledge the rights of these groups on a normal day or do you only remember them when you're trying to make a point about something that concerns you?

It's also common knowledge that questions phrased that way on MN can often descend into thinly-veiled racist and ableist posts about Black women and disabled people. What's that word - dog-whistle.

Let's just say if you've been paying attention to these groups on MN atleast, you can't be surprised with the pushback you've gotten from them. Unless you haven't.

If you still don't understand, I don't know what to tell you.

Exactly. I don't get it either.

I wasn't responding to you OP. I made a remark in agreement to a part of a pp's post. I already responded twice or so to your OP.

I agree with your overall views except that unless you're new here, pulling disabled and Black people into this conversation, though you're technically right, is problematic (to borrow that word). This argument can stand on its own without it.