To think Rachel Dolezal is an utter charlatan

[MercyMyJewels]

twitter.com/BBCNewsnight/status/846410886671732736

Apparently there is a thing called transracial now.

What next, transbeastial?

There is zero evidence that "transracial" exists as the one person claiming it is a proven liar doing it for financial gain.

Changing sex doesn't exist either.

RD herself said she was like Caitlin Jenner. She uses the same narrative, she always felt black, it's how you feel inside. And the clincher - not everyone's experience of being black is the same.

The black woman on the panel got annoyed saying yeah, but I cannot have your experiences, I can't go into places that you can go, I can't get treated the way you get treated because you aren't black.

And she really isn't. Deciding what is or isn't a social construct, talking about percentages of black, is muddying the waters really. She identified into an oppressed group whilst having the option of being able to identify out as soon as it got hard. And she took her white privilege with her when she was a 'black' activist. She was listened to, she was unafraid.

^ except in fairness to her, she never took the option to identify out, lived as a woman passing for black for what, ten years?, and cultural appropriation aside, still has hopes to take up activism again. She could have made her life easier in the last two years since her public shaming had she reverted to pale skin and blonde straight hair (am thinking solely of the fact that that might reduce how many recognize her). Whether she experienced racism herself during her time of fake bake (orange is the new black) and perm, I don't know, Whoopi Goldberg rightly or wrongly said "she's been passing as a black woman now for five years...if this bitch don't know by now what it's like (to be black) she's never gonna know!"

m.youtube.com/?#/watch?v=BmxsNBCFwxs

^Self identification on any level always reminds me of this skit.

I thought this person made some good points. Proper link below.
I have remained committed to that promise, until today. In the last 48 hours, Dolezal’s face has painfully popped up on social media feeds and widely respected national news platforms, each time with a new weave, the same spray tan and mention of her new autobiography leading headlines. This is deeply upsetting because it immediately triggers disappointment in how easily society can succumb to sensationalized stories like Dolezal’s self-calculated spectacle. It does not, and likely will never, serve as a useful catalyst for understanding this country’s racial dilemmas.
We could instead turn our attention to the hate crimes being carried out across the countryry and the tragic killing of Timothy Caughmanan, a black man, by a white terrorist. We could focus on the horrendous death of Darren Raineyey, who was burned “like a boiled lobster” in a Florida jail. We can help find black and Latinx girls who have gone missing in Washington, D.C.C. ― the case has alarmed the city’s black residents, but seemingly not nearly as many whiteses. We could dedicate our energy to defending prominent black women like Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Ca.) and journalist April Ryanan from shameful attacks made against them by white male public figures. We could explore the experiences black women face in the workplacece, dig deeper into the ongoing police brutality against black boys and girlsls, amplify the experiences of black Muslims living in fearar and/or discover stories that prioritize mental health care in black America.a.*
These stories deserve as much, if not more, attention than Dolezal, and this is precisely where my personal journalistic priorities lay.*
Dolezal has every right to tell her story, write a book and talk about her life experiences, but it does not mean the media or its consumers should amplify her voice or promote her mission to spout what most of us already know, and what many of us no longer care to read or watch. Almost immediately after Dolezal appeared on the NYT on Tuesday, #ActualBlackWomen began trending on Twitterer_ as a way to deliberately overshadow her 30-minute feature by highlighting the books real black women have written.*

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/can-we-please-stop-giving-rachel-dolezal-a-platformm*usus_58dbe4ffe4b05463706448b99?

Ok let's do a thought experiment and make it biological then.

There are black brains and white brains. This is not a binary, it's a spectrum, and any person can be anywhere along the spectrum. Due to to the way some brains are formed in the womb, some people are born with black brains that don't match their white bodies. Internally, they feel black, and this makes them behave and dress like a black person. In fact, they ARE black, because having a black brain is more important than having a black body.

If you think this is offensive and wrong, substitute the words "female" and "male" for "black" and "white" and tell me where it becomes less offensive.

There's no such thing as brain race; there's no such thing as brain sex.

I think with this Rachel girl, it was a case of wanting to be black; maybe to fit in with a minority that she felt has protection and sympathy, and (imo) often a strong community. I don't think there is anything medically wrong with her; it's more a want and a need (to be black/mixed race.)

But yeah, she is a bit of a charlatan, and now I believe she is making money from what she has done.

As for Michael Jackson, I think he altered the way he looked, not because he wanted to be white, but because he hated his nose and his features in general, after his father called him ugly and said he had a flat nose and was an ugly kid! (I disagree, he was very cute before all the surgery!)

Re transgender folk; the jury is out with me. On the one hand, I guess people can't help who or what they are, and surely people wouldn't be chopping bits off their body (genitals/breasts etc,) just for attention!

• But I don't understand why a man will suddenly decide to start dressing as a woman (or even become a woman) at 45-55 y.o. And to put it politely, they never look good.

It's like I don't get how or why some people are married or in relationships for 20-30 years, right up to middle age or older, with someone of the opposite sex; and then they announce they are gay. Were they all along? Or did they suddenly start fancying people who are the same sex as them after 20-30 years or more of being with someone of the opposite sex? I just don't get it.

*I mentioned men becoming women at 45-55 y.o. ish, as it seems to be men that do this a lot more than women. I hardly ever see middle aged (and older) women transitioning into men, but loads of middle aged (and older) men transitioning into women.

I wonder why that is???

They're not all chopping bits off. That's part of the point. Plenty don't.

Utter bollocks. The woman is an attention seeking bore fest

I thought they were fairly certain that her initial motivation was because as a white student of African American studies she was being turned down for scholarships and funding on the basis of race? The first traces found of her 'passing' were on applications concerning that.

And it didn't come out because of a police chief 'digging up dirt' on her. It came out because she made an allegation that racist letters had been put in her PO box. It was investigated and found that nobody but her could have put the letters in there. This made the news because of her position in NAPAC and her parents saw it and came forward with the story.

I don't think there's anything medically wrong with her
I think she has been psychologically damaged by her parents and exh.
I also think she committed fraud by omission (what she didn't say. I guess when she stopped correcting people she got used to that mindset and was happy that she "passed". I still think there's argument that she threw others under the bus in taking a scholarship/taking up a position but if actions speak louder than words then she was trying to do her best for the community, it just wasn't necessarily her place to do that).

She needs to make money as she is flat broke and has a toddler and other dependants. It might be her fault but if she can't make enough from hairdressing then she is probably desperate.

Michael Jackson didn't want to be white, no. I do think he was suffering from body dysmorphic disorder though. I agree he was gorgeous back in the day. His father has a lot to answer for.

I do not know the stats for late transitioning transmen. To a certain extent I can imagine it might be easier to pass though.

Kellie Maloney is an older trans woman. I think she looks fine but she has both spent and suffered a lot (facial reconstruction) to look more
"feminine". Sadly, her voice will give her away although I do know that vocal training help some. Rebecca Root is evidence of that.
I think if there is help with wardrobe as opposed to a "drag" look then trans women, whether they pass or not, can look elegant.

As for why it can takes two decades to transition or come out the closet, I guess it's called denial or trying desperately to fit until it is just not sustainable anymore. I can understand the hurt of spouses being confronted with that.
I'd rather see late transitioners than those who are so young they might not know who they are just yet.
But no one should force themselves to live a lie.

I do not know how many pre op trans women are refused surgery on medical grounds or just cannot afford it. Those that transition without hormones or surgery, both of which have health implications, make it harder for those that have though.
Sadly it is the non trans abusing the system (Ian Huntley) or the vocal trans activists who are throwing transgender people under the bus.

To those who then protest that transgender people need to be more vocal in protesting, many Sparticans admit they express on here as it is safer to do so, therein lies the answer: transgender people will also receive the same abuse. Not everyone can be an activist.

Which brings us back to the thread topic: Rachel was a charlatan but from what I read advocated well/was a good activist.
is an activist less of an activist if the issues they are campaigning on have never or will never affect them. Do you have to have lived experience to be an ally?

I'd have to look it up but didn't they want to take away her scholarship because she was pregnant? So sexual discrimination.
But because white= white privilege wasn't it the case that those in charge said her rich, white parents could pay?

Hence her lawyer filing for racial discrimination, based on that comment.
She had dependents so couldn't afford to lose it but lost anyway? Whether she should have got it in the first place is up for debate (how do you sound black on the phone?) but afaik it was open to all applications.
She was believed to have made up allegations of hate mail, nooses etc
But I thought her acting as an ombudsman accusing the police of corruption caused the police chief to hire a private detective to discredit her.

All that said, the article quencher linked to was excellent so I really must apologise for bumping this thread.