Rachel Dolezal II

[zanahoria]

If we get a few more will they start claiming their rights?

www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/03/jessica-krug-white-professor-pretended-black

Aarrgh, my own sentence makes my head hurt. Writing like this is painful.

The people making a fuss had to work quite hard to pretend that Benaway's claim to be indigenous was outrageous while totally ignoring any issues about Benaway's claim to be a women.

Phew.

There is a documentary about her on Netflix .. it's fascinating .. she is fascinating but not in a great way !

@NecessaryScene1

If only she'd claimed to be a man as well. Then people would have had to tie themselves up defending why she is definitely a man but not black.

There was such a case in Canada recently - Gwen Benaway.

They had to work quite hard to pretend that their claim to be indigenous was outrageous while totally ignoring any issues about their claim to be a woman.

Made my head hurt a bit.

Sorry I didn't see this before I posted. The lopsided condemnation here is quite surreal.

@EmmaGrundyForPM - I think that actually as a Jewish woman, Krug will likely also have experienced racism, and in the US, that could have been from those who saw her as Jewish or it could have been from those who (mistakenly) believed she was black. Krug's case is not the same as Dolazel's. Krug does actually come from a community that experiences racism in real life. I doubt Kansas is very Jew-friendly either.

As a Jewish woman, I've certainly experienced both anti-Semitism but also racism from those who mistakenly assumed I was a different race. I have been called a P*. I've also experienced racism from people who thought I was Roma. So I know from my own experience that Jewish doesn't fit squarely into 'white' either.

So I'm not sure that you can excuse Anthony Lennon but not Krug under the same grounds. They probably both experienced some racism, but that doesn't of course make it OK for them to claim to be African and claim money on the basis of it.

In reality, 'race' is a very blurry concept. Racism, however, is not. So I can well believe that both Krug and Lennon did experience racism as a result of looking not-quite-white. And this may have affected them psychologically and led them to identify as black.

BUT there is a clear line between looking and being victimised for looking not-quite-white and actually claiming quite specific African or Caribbean ancestry and making money off it, that was intended to support someone from that specific background. I have sympathy for them for the former, but the latter appears pathological and/or dishonest.

Dolazel I have no sympathy for at all as she is and looks completely white (without the heavily dyed and curled hair etc) and I can't imagine she would ever have experienced racism.

Thank you to PP for linking to Gwen Benaway. Yes, some tip toeing going on in the sources I read.

The theatre guy's story does illustrate though, that it's legitimate to have white parents but to still identify with another race because A) you look that race and B) you've got deeper mixed heritage.

Black men can have white grandparents and vice versa. There is more fluidity there and as we travel more, as a species, we will see more of this. It's is a natural consequence of mixed populations.

Same can't be said for the other side of the equation.

It makes a mockery of 'identity' if it's just something you can step out of. You can't step out if a body as easily as all that, whether it's skin tone or chromosomes.

@NotTerfNorCis

This person is trying to argue that trans race is not the same as transgender. It's unconvincing for two reasons. First, not all trans people have dysphoria these days - the trans umbrella is extremely broad. Secondly, the author here is speculating about what's going on in the minds of trans race people. Perhaps, as Dolezal claimed to be, they are genuinely convinced that they belong to their chosen race? This is after all in the mind, it's a mental state that can't be objectively measured.

Interesting - she’s trying to head off any debate on this newer angle. They often seem to be trying to get ahead of the argument - I sometimes wonder if they look here for inspiration on the facts and arguments that they need to try and refute next. Unfortunately her explanation missed out the largest group of trans women who choose not to transition their appearance - the ones apparently without dysphoria and as someone on the thread points out the non binary angle tends not to work either. They tie themselves in knots trying to explain the unexplainable.

It is interesting about the theatre actor/director in UK how it was discussed: this anonymous letter by a woman in the same industry shows a chilling effect on what she felt could be talked about openly. It’s also what GC women say: ‘I would be genuinely concerned to voice my thoughts on this matter for fear it would have a negative impact on my career.’
www.theguardian.com/stage/2018/nov/20/anthony-ekundayo-lennon-and-other-perspectives-on-race-and-identity

@Deliriumoftheendless

There’s people decrying this now who will seem like terrible bigots in the future.

Totally. Wrong side of history!

I read the Dianna E. Anderson thread that NotTerf linked - the one explaining why transrace and transgender are different. Basically it's a matter of epistemological and ontological ideas coming together doncha know.

Someone said it was the best clarification they'd read so I'm not hopeful of understanding this any time soon.

The theatre guy had a DNA test which showed black ancestry so that case is a bit different. He identified as black because society had treated him as black due to the way he looked.

These cases are interesting because race is very much a social construct and people are able to choose their own identity, for example a person with one black parent who looks ‘white’ is legitimately able to tick the mixed race box on a form but they may also legitimately tick the white box.

@Floisme

I read the Dianna E. Anderson thread that NotTerf linked - the one explaining why transrace and transgender are different. Basically it's a matter of epistemological and ontological ideas coming together doncha know.

Someone said it was the best clarification they'd read so I'm not hopeful of understanding this any time soon.

Quoting from twitter:
"Dianna E. Anderson @diannaeanderson
14h Replying to @diannaeanderson
Note that Krug and Dolezal took on blackness in a very particular way: they took on the respectable black woman stereotype. It's important that both of these women are involved in academia - these women thought "I'd be able to speak better on this if I was black.'"

"Dianna E. Anderson @diannaeanderson
14h
So instead of acknowledging that taking on blackness was not their place, they instead fetishized and cannabilized black womanhood for their own ends, to be seen as more authoritative speaking to an experience they lacked access to."

And what about Jenner coming out as a sex kitten whose only struggle 'as a woman' is to choose what to wear? I imagine it was also 'advantageous' to take on a stereotypical feminine aesthetic to appear on magazine covers, rather than a more butch or simply normal female 'look'.

What about that banker who part-times as a woman (in lacey dresses which would raise all manner of judgment if a natal woman dressed similarly), winning 'woman of the year' awards?

What about the trans athletes stomping the competition and taking podium places?

Self interest, fetishization and cannibalization of womanhood, indeed.

BBC has Dolezal discussing parallels between transgenderism and transracialism.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-54008495

In one video posted earlier this year, she berated white New Yorkers for failing to "yield their time for Black and Brown indigenous New Yorkers".

Not the point of the thread, but what does she mean ‘indigenous New Yorkers?’. Unless she means people whose ancestors lived there before 1500’s, it sounds a bit Nigel Farage.

If biology is banned, you can't use anything that came up in a DNA test to build your identity, surely?

It has to be all about the feelz, so I reckon anything goes. Any white woman academic can identify as black, I guess, just as any strapping xy rugby player can identify as female. People just need to be kiiiiind!

Indigenous will be the next word on the list for re-definition.

"I don't think indigenous means what you think it means!"

these women thought "I'd be able to speak better on this if I was black.'"

I think it’s more accurate to say that they enjoyed being part of a community/tribe.

If they had a tiny amount of self awareness they would notice that America is not short of black people who can speak.

Shaun King is way more problematic. What she did was 100% wrong but I notice no men who've done this have trended at number 1 in the news. In fact men have been supported for pretending to be black because of feelings.

If somebody is perceived as black from childhood they can experience racism regardless of DNA.

I suspect that with Dolzeal and this woman there was a moment when somebody assumed that they had mixed race parents and they just leaned into it. The difference is that they were adults who felt included.

Race is fluid, it is not at all binary like sex is.

There is an argument that race is also a social construct. Though that wouldn't get any traction or funding in academia at the moment.

Yeah I can understand someone being perceived as black and moving incrementally from not challenging the assumption, to going along with it, to actively presenting as black.
I can't imagine that happening in the case of a transwoman.

@KayakingOnDown

Race is fluid, it is not at all binary like sex is.

There is an argument that race is also a social construct. Though that wouldn't get any traction or funding in academia at the moment.

Racism is a social construct, though.

Academia has always claimed race is a social construct.