But, in general, white people who identify into or appropriate black culture benefit from it;
I know this is from a few pages back, but the discussion about transracialism being different interested me and I read one of the linked articles as well as the subsequent discussion.
The statement above makes a huge assumption about people identifying as another race. The people who have been caught and publicised for identifying into black culture have been called out because they were benefitting from it.
But should we extrapolate from the people who have been caught and publicised for negative reasons? We are regularly reminded that we shouldn’t tar everyone with the same brush and make assumptions. How do we know there aren’t many other people who are quietly blending in as having a different race, simply because they feel more comfortable doing so? Just because it’s not as visible, doesn’t mean these people don't exist.
Compare that now to the transgender situation. I think one reason we are seeing backlash against transgender culture now is that we have passed that time period when transsexuals were quietly blending in, simply because they felt more comfortable doing so and have moved into a time when men who claim to be women ARE regularly benefitting, whether that be in sports, in awards, or in being placed in a nicer prison with women who are weaker than you, rather than with potentially hostile men. And don't bother trying to argue that all the men included in those top 100 lists and winning prizes deserve to be there on merit. They are mainly there through male privilege and due to the idea that any man who ‘lowers himself’ by trying to be woman-like must be terribly brave.
I think the current backlash is absolutely based on the same principles as the anger against the transracial people who were caught out. Most people have an instinctive antipathy to anything that seems unfair. So men taking things that were set up to improve equality between the sexes was always going to result in anger.
The argument that one cannot identify into a different race due to ancestry? Who made that rule? Why is ancestry more important in how you feel than hugely significant biological differences.
And the suggestion that it’s not the same, because one of these is much more painful? Firstly, how do you know? Have you spoken to any people who identify as a different race? Have you tried to understand how they feel, or are you potentially basing your opinion of a community on a few bad apples?
And also the crux of the argument that it’s painful leads us right back to the reality of these men not being women, but that they are going through so much distress that we must respect their pain and therefore centre them and give them what they want. And then there are those who claim anyone can be trans... no GD required... and we’re back with conflicting histories, used in turn even though they are contradictory.
Funnily enough, the third reason (first in the article) for suggesting that these two things are different is the accusation that stealing the word transracial from a group of oppressed people is offensive. This made me roll my eyes.
Pot, meet kettle....