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?

Cao I personally agree with that sentiment. Particularly the erosion of womanhood as it were. But the fact is there are about eleventy billion threads on MN about this sort of thing - this thread is on the verge of going down that road too.
I do think there is an interesting debate to be had about race, cultural social constructs and so forth but you must admit it gets rather tedious rehashing the same trans debate.

Is being "trans" a matter of science (female personality in male body, or vice versa), or is it a matter of political choice?

The very idea that there could be such a thing as a "female personality" is not scientific, it is a matter of political choice.

The only scientific fact, if one can call it that, is that some people have body dysmorphia.

No one in their right mind would suggest that people with a certain kind of delusion in their head should be treated as if their delusions were reality.

If a woman with anorexia thinks she's actually obese, exactly zero people treat her like an obese person. People will sit on the place next to her in public transport, even though in her delusions, this place is filled by her body. If she goes horseriding, no one will ban her from riding the small pony as they would an obese person. And if she goes to see a doctor, she will be told to eat more, not less.

Likewise, a man who thinks his right arm doesn't "belong" to his body. He will be told to leave the disabled facilities to disabled people. People will not offer to fetch things for him.

It is only with transnonsense that we are asked to treat people who suffer from a mental health problem as if their delusions were real.

No one on mumsnet has ever said that we should not acknowledge the mental health problems of people with delusions about their biological sex.
I am sure it feels terrible - much the same way as having anorexia or believing that your arm doesn't belong to you feels terrible.

What we oppose is being forced to play along with their delusions to the point that we are made to risk our very lives for the sake of playing along.

maybe it is time that the terminology is changed it isn't something i thought about when filling in forms apart from ticking white/asian (i do not use the term mixed race for myself)

but we do not always get to discuss our family medical history with our doctors or are even aware of it but at times or in my case my family ethnic background has lead to different screening just because of it

and yes absolutely it can lead to people being dismissed or discriminated against

But once you get into ideas like "non binary" or people who don't have any gender identity, or don't conform in all respects to conventional ideas about their gender (and who does, frankly?), then the term "trans" becomes meaningless.

Exactly. I would say I don't have a gender identity, just a biological sex, because I despise the whole concept of gender. Plus I'm a lesbian geek who works in IT and has no interest in having kids. So apparently I count as trans, despite a total lack of body dysphoria & no desire to change my name or grow a penis.

This is why it's all so bloody ridiculous.

It's not comparable to a transperson. Transpeople have always existed throughout history, and generally they know they are trans from a young age and are compelled to become the other sex. Transgender people are a protected class because they are a discrete group of people. They clearly exist regardless of opinion, and their oppression is a matter of statistics and public record. How many people have been murdered solely for being trans? Transwomen don't actively lie that they are biological women and they don't apply for posts that are exclusively for cis-women and then order their families to lie that they're biologically female. Yes, many transwomen want to pass (in order to avoid abuse and harassment), but I think if a transwoman came across a financial opportunity that said "for cis-women only", they might complain about trans discrimination, but they wouldn't pull their families into a scam pretending they were born with a vagina.

Transracial people are not a protected class because there is no evidence they even exist beyond this one person, and no evidence that one person has ever been victimised for being "transracial." Rachel is the only case afaik of someone identifying as transracial and despite her claims about always feeling black there are court documents and family testimony suggesting that she identified completely as white until her late twenties. She decided to "turn black" in order to apply for a well-paid BAME position after unsuccessfully suing her university for anti-white discrimination, dying her skin and dying and perming her hair in order to pretend to be black, showing photos of a black man she is not related to and lying that he was her father, and instructing her adopted black siblings to pretend she was their birth sister (her siblings are on the record as saying she told them, "I'm pretending to be black, don't give me away.") There have been a few isolated cases of adult men (mainly MRAs), men who never "identified" or presented as anything other than cisgender males, spontaneously at an adult age announcing that they "identify as women" but without doing anything to transition or live as a woman, without giving up male privilege, and in most cases doing so in order to access female-only spaces. Like the male-bodied person who claimed lesbians were obligated to have sex with them and their erect penis. I don't consider those individuals to be trans but cismen exploiting the trans movement for their own ends. I consider Rachel to be the same.

More broadly, race is a non-binary social construct that comprises many different cultural and familial factors and exists just as much as a product of societal attitudes. There is an argument to be made about similarities in terms of cultural/societal trans influences. I know a number of trans people (mainly biological females who choose to identify as genderless) who reject womanhood and female pronouns due to the associated patriarchal crap that comes with it. But they are not transsexual (although they come under the trans umbrella) because they don't identify as men or desire to be male. There are non-white people who have desired to cast off their race due to the simple fact of not wanting to deal with the insane amount of racism that exists in our society, or in some cases internalised racism --- doesn't make them white on the inside.

And it's really about power dynamics. Yes, male privilege and white privilege exists, but it is a mistake to assign male privilege to transwomen, when transwomen are so much more vulnerable and have much higher rates of abuse, harassment, discrimination and murder than ciswomen. Transwomen are not cismen and they do not have the option to just magically not be trans because it would cause legitimate psychological damage, plus would be physically impossible for individuals who are further down the line in their reassignment. Black people don't have the option to stop being black. If Dolezal wants to take a break from the oppression of being black (assuming she experiences any) all she has to do is remove the makeup and fake hair. Do you think it would cause her real psychological harm to do so? And if she really is black on the inside, why the blackface? Not all transwomen wear skirts and makeup. There are transwomen who do not adopt "stereotypical" female/feminine appearance because being trans goes a lot deeper than a bit of lipstick. Being trans is more than a cheap drag act and that is what Rachel is reducing the black experience to.

"It would be interesting to know how 'trapped' she felt and the steps she took to resolve her issues.

Many transpeople go to extreme lengths to alter their body, drug taking off the internet and feel a massive hate for their body. It doesn't fit with the mental image. It's to do with how they are perceived. Self harm and suicidal thoughts. "

Ego, for the billionth time, suffering is not, in itself, proof of anything except suffering.

Suffering should be alleviated. Sufferers should be helped. But the argument from suffering doesn't go any further than that.

"Transpeople have always existed throughout history, "

Really? Don't appropriate people cross - dressing, or homosexuality, or gender-non conformity and conflate it with trans in the 21C sense. I am not sure I am aware of a long history of trans ness in the sense in which it is being used today.

transwomen are so much more vulnerable and have much higher rates of abuse, harassment, discrimination and murder than ciswomen

Really?

Also, gender is a 'non-binary social construct that comprises many different cultural and familial factors and exists just as much as a product of societal attitudes' - and every time someone talks about 'cis' or being 'born in the wrong body', they are making it out to be a binary which they and only they get to avoid, whilst entrenching it for everyone else.

What is this 'a lot deeper than a bit of lipstick'? What is the deep reality of being a woman that trans people are claiming? Because when they claim it, they're suggesting it exists, and yet I'm a woman and I don't know what the fuck it is, and I also firmly reject the idea that there's some mystical Thing about being a woman that is neither my body nor my experience.

Trans people have not existed throughout history. If they have, it's in the 'drag act' sense you disparage, not in the modern 'gender identity' sense.

"Transwomen don't actively lie that they are biological women and they don't apply for posts that are exclusively for cis-women and then order their families to lie that they're biologically female. Yes, many transwomen want to pass (in order to avoid abuse and harassment), but I think if a transwoman came across a financial opportunity that said "for cis-women only", they might complain about trans discrimination, but they wouldn't pull their families into a scam pretending they were born with a vagina."

This is a very interesting argument to me. (I don't think it is relevant to the RD case for various factual reasons, but that doesn't matter - let's think about it anyway.)

the very strong impression I am getting from the transactivist position is that it is absolutely unacceptable and transphobic even to draw a distinction between women and trans women. A post advertised "for cis women" would indeed be resented and perhaps even challenged and perhaps that institution would even suffer various reprisals for publishing something so "transphobic". My understanding is that what transactivists is demanding, is that transwomen are eligible for each and every circumstance that applies to women in general, with no exceptions.

so I would expect a transwoman not only to put herself forward for such a post, if otherwise appropriate, but to campaign vigorously for her acceptance to it.

Anti -
Some female brains are at war with the female bodies they got put into.
Therefore some male brains have always been at war with the female bodies etc
War is peace
Freedom is slavery
Ignorance is strength.
Transwomen are women.

If I am mistaken - if transactivism is about supporting trans people in all aspects of their lives, including to full access to education, sport, healthcare, and employment, with equal rights under the law; BUT recognises that there are circumstances where it is not appropriate for them to have access to all spaces, stations, activities which are IDENTICAL to those provided for people born of that sex: if THAT is what transactivism is, then I support it

I am so sick and tired of this continually repeated idea that transgender males are so much more vulnerable and at risk than women and girls. I don't believe it for a second. Two (or is it three now) women a week are killed by their male partners in this country and a third of us have been subject to sexual violence.

And let's not forget, shall we, that the people who do put transgender males at risk (and I mean real risk of actual violence not being "misgendered" on the internet) are again MALE

The power dynamics are thus: transgender women are male, and males have more power than females. Thus the transgender movement has been able to make large strides in a short time because men have more power than women in society.

Don't tell me that women have power over biological males because the latter are claiming to be women. It's bullshit.

Interestingly the door for the acceptance of transracialism is much more wide open than the door for transgenderism.

Mainstream science - in both biology and sociology - has argued for decades that race and ethnicity are not biological. Rather they are cultural/social constructs.

So while it does feel instinctively absurd to accept Dolezal's claims, contemporary science would back her up. If she thinks and feels "black" then that must be she is.

I am so sick and tired of this continually repeated idea that transgender males are so much more vulnerable and at risk than women and girls

Do you think that transwomen are more likely to end up in areas such as prostitution than the average women is?

If so, do you think that is more likely to expose them to the associated risks that comes with that such as drugs and violence?

Do you think that transwomen are more likely to end up in areas such as prostitution than the average women is?

But correlation does not equal causation. There are generally lots of other comorbidities that go along with "transgenderism" which would increase an individual's vulnerability.

Maybe certain types of transwomen who are exposed through their lifestyle are at more of a danger from male violence than other transwomen.

Some transwomen are at less danger than other transwomen from male violence.

Some transwomen are going to be exposed to more danger from male violence than other transwomen.

There are generally lots of other comorbidities that go along with "transgenderism" which would increase an individual's vulnerability

Indeed. Some people are more likely to be victims of male violence than other people.

Yes. I don't think anyone would argue that transpeople are not at greater risk than the general population - people with differences are always singled out.

However the disadvantages that MtT may face, are not the same as the disadvantages that women face. Just as the abuse Dolzal faces for being trans - racial is not the same as the oppression that black people face.

Transwomen don't actively lie that they are biological women and they don't apply for posts that are exclusively for cis-women and then order their families to lie that they're biologically female. Yes, many transwomen want to pass (in order to avoid abuse and harassment), but I think if a transwoman came across a financial opportunity that said "for cis-women only", they might complain about trans discrimination, but they wouldn't pull their families into a scam pretending they were born with a vagina."

Have you seen what is happening in women's sport? Women being beaten repeatedly by transwomen who do not mind utilising their superior male strength/physique/testosterone allowance in order to win/

The interview I linked to upthread answers some of the questions posters have about RD. For example, it says:

Blond and freckled, “like Pippi Longstocking”, she recalls choosing brown crayons to draw pictures of herself with dark skin and curly hair, like the Bantu women she saw in National Geographic. She would hide in the garden, smear herself in mud, and fantasise that she had been kidnapped from Africa. What she describes as a profound sense of not belonging followed her to school, where the other children wore trainers and had Doritos in their packed lunches, not elk tongue sandwiches. She did everything she could to fit in, picking huckleberries to earn money to buy Nikes, “but I knew I wasn’t one of them. I was always on the fringe.”

This sounds remarkably like the accounts some parents give of their children who identify as transgender: they were always different, on the outside; they played with the "wrong" toys for their sex; they played fantasy games that they were the other sex etc etc

Vestal: "The very idea that there could be such a thing as a "female personality" is not scientific, it is a matter of political choice."

I agree with you about the first bit. I expressed it rather clumsily, but what I'm trying to say is that there seems to be a distinct difference between people who feel, very passionately, that they were born into the "wrong" body, and those who have political reasons for not identifying with their biological sex. And I feel it's very wrong of organisations like Stonewall to muddy that distinction.

To get back to Rachel Dolezal - I read a big article about her in one of the Sunday Supplements a few weeks back, not sure which one (I dot about a bit with Sunday papers).

I could be wrong, but my impression was that she knew she was not black, but that she IDENTIFIED with the culture and hence adopted an appearance that allowed her to blend in. She did not have a good time as a white person, what with religious zealot parents who were big on making their daughter feel shame about her body. The first time this woman ever received anything approximating love and affection was from her adopted black brothers. She got into black culture as an attempt to keep those brothers in touch with their culture. You don't have to be Brain of Britain to see how that ball was going to start rolling. I know I can look back on stuff in my life and feel it happened to somebody else - how greater must the disconnect be for someone who can look back on really horrible stuff?

And NotCaryl - I don't know if RD had cervical cancer, I don't remember mention of it from the Sunday Supplement I read. You're saying she faked it. I'm guessing you're basing that on her brother Ezra saying :
"he doesn't believe anything Rachel has said or done over the past few years, including her claims of being diagnosed with cervical cancer in 2006. "I wasn't in touch with her regularly during that time, but she didn't mention anything about having cancer until very recently," he said." (Buzzfeed article) The jury's still out for me. I wouldn't neccessarily mention cervical cancer to a brother, especially not one I wasn't in touch with regularly. A combination of 'too intimate' and 'don't want to worry him'.

So my impression was of a trouble woman with an unhappy past who lied more by omission than directly. Yes, what she did was wrong. No, she's not black. But I can't consider her an utter charlatan as in the thread title, because I do not pity charlatans and I pity her. Her life is pretty fucked now, can't get a job even after changing her name because she's pretty recognisable.

But as to her claim to be 'transracial' - well, her arguments are the same as the transgender lobby, it has to be said. So if one of these trans can be real, then so can the other, logically speaking. That this is being disputed just makes me think people are a lot more comfortable with Danny La Rue's female impersonator that The Black and White Minstrel Show. Ooh, can't be racist but sexist is OK .

The risks associated with prostitution are confounding variables, therefore you adjust the data accordingly.

Saying "trans women are likely to be prostitutes, this is why they're at higher risk of violence" is having your statistical cake and eating it.

By adjusting for confounding, you remove prostitutes from the group you're looking at.

Lo and behold, it turns out that the average woman is at greater risk from violence than the average transwoman. As was suspected all along.

The risk of violence comes from prostitution, not "being trans". They are targeted with violence because they look like female prostitutes, not because they are trans. Further reinforcing the argument that women are at huge risk in a patriarchal environment that uses female bodies as sexual currency.

WhereYouLeftIt - this interview with Decca Aitkenhead in the Saturday Guardian, perhaps?