I’m sure I’ll be accused of being a huge troglodyte, but I can’t say I really understand the difference between people like Caitlyn Jenner who claim to be* transsexual and people like Rachel Dolezal who claim to be transracial.
Is there any substantive difference? If so, what is it? What rhetorical, philosophical and sociological knots must most of the left twist itself into to assert their definitive difference?
Both are co-opting and inhabiting lived experiences that are not their own.
I fail to see the difference, really.
*I am not evaluating truth claims here. But claims precede action in this case and most others.
I would never call you a troglodyte, but I’d hesitate to call you an ally, either. Since your recent links on Epicene Cyborg include that notorious TERF hit piece from NYT, and also something from Mahablog in enthusiastic support of it. I want to believe these links were offered in a “just putting it out there” spirit, but ultimately it’s your call, of course.
As for Rachel Dolezal, I’m content to defer to the African American community for analysis of that situation. Perhaps that’s just a cop-out on my part, or maybe it even proves your point, since it is something of an exception to my usual policy of taking identity “claims” (you use asterisks I use scare quotes) at face value.
That NYT article was wide-ranging, so portions I agreed with and some I did not.
I’m not a TERF or TERF-allied, and yet I don’t really buy into that a trans woman who decided at 20 or 30 or 40 to be a woman is the same exact type of woman as someone who lived her entire life with the slights, aspersions (and yes some benefits) as a lifelong biological woman.
Human experience tells me that is impossible. Acculturation matters a whole lot for humans.
So to me it’s logically inconsistent to deny self-definition in some arenas while allowing it, even embracing it, in others — when the categories defined and self-defined are arbitrary, capricious and constantly shifting culturally.
Generally, I’m for the most freedom possible in human affairs, so where to draw these lines seems awfully arbitrary and irrelevant to me.
I agree. I haven’t seen any explanation on why Jenner should be celebrated and Dolezal excorciated. It’s just taken as an article of faith or waved away with magic incantations about appropriation and lived experience (which seem to apply equally to Jenner to be honest).
I can tolerate both (okay, maybe the NAACP thing is weird but was she making money from that? plus the others in the NAACP seemed to have no problem with her) but I don’t understand how one can distinguish the two (and/or defend ‘passing’ as white and then criticize Dolezal).
I think if anything it’s an illustration of the idea that the less rooted in reality a distinction is the more tenaciously it will be held onto.
I think part of it is down to fashion. Despite the moral benefits of allowing self-determination, it is fashionable among a large set of the left to be utterly supportive of trans-sexual people. This is mostly a good thing, but it is based on dogmatic thought processes and not actual analysis.
Because there is fashion and no framework for transracial people, there is no support for such ideas.
This is not all the objection to the idea and practice, but this is the vast majority. As it’d have to be — most people even on “my” side simply do not think very much about much of anything.