Interesting analogy on X - identifying as black

[ItsCoolForCats]

From Diana Alastair:

Imagine a scenario in which large numbers of white people start saying that they “feel black,” and that because of this feeling, and their enjoyment of stereotypically “black behavior,” they are now not just black themselves, but the most marginalized and vulnerable type of black person.

Imagine them insisting that they should be the main focus of all activism meant to help PoC. Imagine them having operations to darken their skin and mimic stereotypically black features. Imagine them walking around in blackface, and saying it’s the exact same thing as actually being black.

Imagine them being honored as black citizens by the White House, being summoned to talk to the President about issues facing the black community, being supported by celebrities, and having laws passed to make white people who identify as black a protected class.

Imagine these people demanding membership in black organizations, insisting that they receive a share of the reparations that CA is about to pay, and demanding they be given awards created specifically to honor black achievement. Then imagine them getting their way.

Now imagine mobs of them showing up to black events that don’t include them, carrying threatening signs and air horns to drown out any speakers with noise. Imagine them coming up with slurs for any black person who doesn’t accept that white people are black if they say they are.

Imagine them calling for the rape, torture, and mass murder of any black person who disagrees with them. Imagine them getting black people doxxed, harassed, assaulted, fired from their jobs, and investigated by the police for saying that you have to be born black to be black.

Now imagine the government supporting their demands.

That’s exactly the position that women are in right now, with a few extras, like being locked in cells with dangerous men, the sexual predation of lesbians via coercion, and the increased risk of sexual assault in what used to be female-only spaces. Our oppressors are now claiming not only the right to oppress us in whole new ways, but the right to erase our identities as women and rewrite the meaning of womanhood in ways that suit - and include - them.

If you wouldn’t support this kind of behavior towards black people, you have no business supporting this kind of behavior towards women.

https://x.com/i/status/1999820932144140700

I want to be a tomato.
(showing my age with that advert from the 80's)

If you ticked the "Tomato" box on a monitoring form, who gets to say you are wrong ?

Tomato rights are human rights!

Rachel D was clearly, 100%, more "valid" a black person than any trans'woman' is a woman.

Genuinely, obviously, transracialism makes infinitely more sense than transgenderism, therefore I am not open to believing in transgenderism until someone first convinces me that white people have a right to be seen as black, and victims of racism based on their white skin being black.

There's been lots of threads on FWR about this, and at one time it was a question posted in public, but became used less as it was implied that a Black person could ask the question but not somebody white.

But it still comes back to the fact that the public as a whole have more awarenes of racism, the reality of being Black, but women are still irrelevant non people whose existence and thoughts aren't worth bothering about.

Although it turned out from some of the older threads (eg 2017) that there are some parts of the Labour Party where they did use the phrase that a group was for people who identified as Black!

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/2907910-Transracial-vs-Transgender-new-Rachel-Dolezal-interview

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/3188596-Rachel-Dolezal-Netflix

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/3375515-fascinating-article-about-Rachel-Dolezal-the-white-woman-who-identifies-as-black

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4013884-Rachel-Dolezal-II

That's not surprising they'd use that language, since you can't really identify who counts as black in an objective way.

IIRC, the "identified as" language started to be used before genderism really became big. Certainly I saw lots of it in the disability community. The idea being that someone might need accommodations and such, but not see themselves as disabled. This came from within the disability community itself, but I always thought it was kind of a foolish approach.

This false equivalence is the epitome how oversimplification leads to flawed reasoning. Women & men share psychological & behavioural characteristics that make them interchangeable. Black & white people don't share skin colour. But pretending its all about 'feelings' & not shared characteristics is how this con succeeds with simpletons.

Yes, so if race was similarly based on feelings, some white guy from Helsinki who was really into funk music, fancy sneakers, and BBQ, could be transracial.

You know though, it strikes me that there is a huge amount of internet stuff these days that is basically about stereotypes of differernt groups. Often ones that reflect reality and are interesting cultural things and even funny, but they are not what you would call nuanced. And I don't ever remember there being this level of focus on dividing up what differernt "kinds" of people are supposed to be like.

So who knows, maybe we will start to see people thinking differently about this too.

I recently read about the author Thomas King, who genuinely believed himself to be American Indian. It became a major feature of his writing. Genetic testing showed he was mistaken. He has duly returned awards meant for indigenous Indian people. In stark contrast, Caster Semenya retains his medals and records despite conclusive testing showing him to be genetically male.

I don’t understand how it is possible that these cases of ‘trans’ racialism, and historic examples of blackface don’t wake people up to the utter farce that is TRA and the misogyny inherent in drag.

www.theguardian.com/world/2025/nov/25/canadian-author-thomas-king-not-indigenous-cherokee-inconvenient-indian

Black & white people don't share skin colour.

Some of them do. That's how some Black people have white-passing privilege.

I myself am biracial (though not Black), and I have white-passing privilege too. I wasn't raised at all in my non-white parent's culture, so I don't call myself bi-cultural. Yet, even though I wasn't raised as a boy and I don't have a male body, I should call myself a man, just because I "feel like a man"? That's obvious nonsense.

Women & men share psychological & behavioural characteristics that make them interchangeable.

But sex has nothing to do with psychological or behavioural characteristics. It's purely about biology. It's never been about how we think or feel; it's always been about what body we have. That's always been the one and only characteristic men looked at to determine who they would subjugate as less than them: does it have a vagina or a penis? They never cared about what was in the mind.

I had this realisation a few years ago when I was trying to work out why drag queens made me uncomfortable. I think that’s the moment I peaked actually.

Anyone who says trans identity is about identity is fundamentally wrong.

It is about power and control and always has been regardless of which trans cohort you belong to.

Power and control over their own bodies and against males - often similar in nature to anorexia or often a result of trauma.
Power and control against their homosexuality. Power and control over women and girls, sometimes sexual motivated.
Power and control over adults / authority by placing certain behavioural controls on them.
Power and control over peers, particularly when belonging to a low social group within the social hierarchy.
Parents exercising power and control over their child to prevent their autonomy and as a means of gaining social status within a liberal community.

There are no exceptions to this rule. None.

Women & men share psychological & behavioural characteristics that make them interchangeable.

But sex has nothing to do with psychological or behavioural characteristics. It's purely about biology. It's never been about how we think or feel; it's always been about what body we have. That's always been the one and only characteristic men looked at to determine who they would subjugate as less than them: does it have a vagina or a penis? They never cared about what was in the mind.

It is about the erasure of the concept of sex. Different bodies and how they function are always erased - it's a feature not a bug. The idea of making womenhood a personality trait which ignores physical being.

It's no coincidence that this disembodiment occurred at the time when we had the rise of online communities and online communities have particularly high over representation of those who identify as trans. Not only this, but they have a higher than normal population of individuals who are not in physical relationships and a higher than normal level of people who will never give birth. Sex IS therefore irrelevant to many of them. There's also a higher than normal love of anime which is highly stereotyped and very defined in ideas of feminist and masculinity which isn't reflective of the real world.

The trouble is, they seem to think this applies to the whole real world.

@RedToothBrush

Anyone who says trans identity is about identity is fundamentally wrong.

It is about power and control and always has been regardless of which trans cohort you belong to.

Hmm, food for thought... Thanks !

Sometimes the reason is because an individual is vulnerable.

However unfortunately the way it manifests - because it is based on enforcing a lie and emotional blackmail - it's toxic.

It doesn't stop it being about power and control though.

If you look at power dynamics and particularly toxic power dynamics it replicates them. It's why it sets off women familiar with power and control dynamics.

Yes, I think I see what you mean. I'd never considered it in that way, but it does make a lot of sense.

IIRC, the "identified as" language started to be used before genderism really became big.

It was in use in the early 80s when I started Uni. My first ever DEI form that a very earnest student union rep asked me to complete after I returned it uncompleted (starting a lifelong practice). I asked who checked them, and rather uncomfortably he said no-one. I then said what was there to stop me ticking "black" (I am somewhat under tanned at the best of times). He said it wasn't so much about objective truths, but more how I "identified".

"What a load of bollocks" I said - to no pushback.

better part of 50 years on and it's amusing nothing has changed.

Skippy67, oh, so Thomas Markle isn't Megan's Father, he lied about the fact.

I'm eagerly awaiting the time when I can self-identify as a billionaire.

Funny that wealth is not a protected characteristic.

Neither is gender identity!

Yes, but my gender identity and a dollar gets me a subway fare.

But keeps it to herself

What??

I read this article in the Spectator

https://archive.ph/YbU5V

https://spectator.com/article/why-did-scientists-think-the-beachy-head-lady-was-african/

Struck me as pertinent, go back far enough and we're all black, although not the point the author was making. The poor woman (that's not up for doubt) became a political football, millenia after her death, even though she wouldn't have been unique had she been black.