Why is it seen as acceptable for a person be born the wrong sex but not the wrong ethnicity?

[goldtinged]

I saw a somewhat recent article about Rachel Dolezal, the caucasian American woman who identifies as a black woman, and it made me wonder. Why is this clearly wrong but it is (largely) socially acceptable for a man to identify as a woman? She says she has always felt she was a black person from a young age, and she was denounced for this. But if you denounce a man for saying he identifies as a woman, you are a bigot?

Sorry if this is a thick question, I really don’t understand why one is wrong and the other isn’t (I know it is wrong to GC feminists but I mean widely speaking it isn’t seen as wrong). I understand why it is wrong to pretend to be a black person, just in case that isn’t clear.

It isn't any different really in the scheme of things.
But one is regarded as quite racist.

Cognitive dissonance, I suppose.

The irony of course is that race is far more fluid than sex, which isn’t at all.

Don't be coming round'ere with your common sense.

Thanks all, I thought I was missing something obvious that others got but which eluded me.

I find it bizarre. People who go along with the idea of ‘sex change’ and gender ideology are either the stupidest people who ever walked the Earth or they’re lying.

Race is a social construct whereas biological sex is immutable.

It’s all absolutely ridiculous

Because there are men in racial groups, and appropriating men's culture and identity is bad?

I am hoping that someone comes up with an answer, so I am parking myself here.

I asked Chat GPT to tell me and I’m none the wiser.

’Identifying as a race you're not, like a white person identifying as Black, is considered problematic because it appropriates a culture, history, and lived experience that is deeply tied to systemic oppression and historical context. It often ignores the real discrimination that people of that race face and can be seen as taking on the "identity" without facing the same challenges.

In contrast, when someone identifies as a gender different from the one assigned at birth, they are expressing their internal experience of their identity. Gender identity is a deeply personal experience and not directly tied to the appropriation of another group's cultural history or experiences of oppression in the same way race is. Trans women, for example, identify as women because that is their authentic gender identity, and their intention isn't to exploit or demean women but rather to live authentically.

The difference lies in the contexts of cultural appropriation and systemic issues. Racial identification by someone outside of that race often disregards historical and cultural significance, while gender identity is about self-recognition and personal authenticity rather than claiming an external group's identity for personal gain.’

“…can be seen as taking on the "identity" without facing the same challenges.”

Which is so different

Chat GPT just regurgitates whatever text has been inputted into it.

If it’s been fed incoherent nonsense, or lies, it regurgitates that incoherent nonsense and lies.

The most persuasive explanation I have heard is that, given your parents and their heritage, you could genuinely have been either sex at conception but not a different race.

It is true. But a poor argument used by people pretending to be something they're not.

Comparing to transabled is a bit less contentious, you could have been born without limbs but we recognise that someone who identifies as such is very ill.

That’s not a persuasive argument King. That argument is: “if I’d been born a different person, I’d be a different person. Therefore I can assert that I am that different person.”

Edited to add: as you say, it’s a poor argument, not a persuasive argument.

A thread on the same topic pops up every couple of months. Occasionally a black woman is kind enough to come on and explain how the two things are not equivalent. Generally she gets ignored.
That's not to say that either are ok. But using racism as a gotcha for trans ideology is pretty lazy, especially when they only time you mention it is in the context of calling out trans ideology.

I think it is because in left wing circles it is OK to be misogynist but very unacceptable to be racist. The same reason that leftists rightly disparaged and boycotted South Africa in the 80s but don't say anything about Saudi and Iran. In my world both are bad.

I read somewhere that it’s to do with how “race” and “gender” are treated in academia. Critical Race Theory v Queer Theory. One wants to breakdown a reality based category and the other wants to concretise a social construct. Something like that anyway.

It’s not a gotcha.

There is no logical reason why “race” (a social construct) should be less mutable than sex (a biological reality). If you believe that people are what they say they are there is no reason at all this shouldn’t apply to all identity categories. We know that there are individuals who identify as transgender transabled, transage, transhuman, transspecies. Personally I think all of these are batshit ideas but if you are going to go along with the idea that these things are possible, I’ve never seen a logical argument from anyone as to why transrace should be treated any differently from the others.

DoIEver But using racism as a gotcha for trans ideology is pretty lazy, especially when they only time you mention it is in the context of calling out trans ideology.

The OP poses a genuine question that is genuinely puzzling. So it's not necessarily 'a lazy gotcha for trans ideology'.

I'm sure there are people who only 'mention racism in the context of calling out trans ideology', there are many who also call out racist ideology as equally abhorrent, but who still wonder about why appropriating women's identities is seen as not only OK but 'progressive' or 'radical'.

I’m genuinely interested in the answer too - from the perspective of someone that is completely ok with people being transgender and doesn’t understand why trans-racial is treated completely differently.

An act of desperation which got me precisely nowhere.

Interesting point actually. If I said I was a man all the "woke" ppl would say I was able to be and allow me all sorts of privileges, but if I said I was black I'd be treated as the Devil. Probably rightly so. I don't know the hardships of being black.
But then I don't know the "hardships" lol of being a man, so that shouldn't be allowed either.
But just imagine: I'd have the "advantage" of visiting men's toilets & changing rooms.
I think I'll stay a white woman!!

But 50 or 100 years ago did anyone actually say 'I identify as' sure people did dress and women or men but this sticking a label on things only seems a fairly recent thing

I don't identity as a female, mother, wife etc. I just am those things

There was an academic who argued from this perspective. Didn’t go well for them…

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/18/opinion/the-uproar-over-transracialism.html

Archive…

https://archive.ph/2GxTH

That ChatGPT answer is fascinating isn't it?

So I, a white person, cannot identify as black because I have no lived experience of being black.

But a man can identify as a woman, despite having no lived experience of being a woman.