Debate Now If Bruce/Kaitlen Jenner is a woman, isn't Rachel Dolazel black by the same argument?

[teapartysamurai]

Think about it. Liberals say Bruce Jenner is a woman because he "feels" like a woman.

By that same argument, isn't Rachel Dolazel black because she "feels" black?

Isn't this a case of liberals will embrace gender bending because it furthers their agenda, but "race" bending doesn't, so they won't embrace it.

I think it proves this isn't about either person, but how liberals want to attack traditional morality. If they can't use it to attack morality, they aren't interested.

1) No screaming racism

2) No flaming members including the op!

3) No derailing threads trying to deflect or change the subject.

4) No complaining this structured debate censors you. If you don't like the structure, start a thread like it somewhere else.

 

[Freewill]

neither are what they claim to be

 

[teapartysamurai]

neither are what they claim to be

Obviously.

But we are told we are intolerant "homphobes" or whatever if we say that about Bruce Jenner.

So, why then is Rachel Dolazal not black because she says she is?

It seem to liberals now, all you have to do, to be someone or something, is simply say you are.

I think I was born a wombat, therefore I must be.

It's ludicrous!

 

[aris2chat]

Think about it. Liberals say Bruce Jenner is a woman because he "feels" like a woman.

By that same argument, isn't Rachel Dolazel black because she "feels" black?

Isn't this a case of liberals will embrace gender bending because it furthers their agenda, but "race" bending doesn't, so they won't embrace it.

I think it proves this isn't about either person, but how liberals want to attack traditional morality. If they can't use it to attack morality, they aren't interested.

1) No screaming racism

2) No flaming members including the op!

3) No derailing threads trying to deflect or change the subject.

4) No complaining this structured debate censors you. If you don't like the structure, start a thread like it somewhere else.

Jenner went through surgery, hormones and conciliating to become who he was supposed to be. He did not reject his parents or family. He is no longer living a lie.

Dolazel is living a lie and taking advantage of school, work and those who are people of color to advance herself. She is resenting herself as something she is not. Dolazel is even trying to say her birth parents are not really her parents to further this lie.

 

[teapartysamurai]

Think about it. Liberals say Bruce Jenner is a woman because he "feels" like a woman.

By that same argument, isn't Rachel Dolazel black because she "feels" black?

Isn't this a case of liberals will embrace gender bending because it furthers their agenda, but "race" bending doesn't, so they won't embrace it.

I think it proves this isn't about either person, but how liberals want to attack traditional morality. If they can't use it to attack morality, they aren't interested.

1) No screaming racism

2) No flaming members including the op!

3) No derailing threads trying to deflect or change the subject.

4) No complaining this structured debate censors you. If you don't like the structure, start a thread like it somewhere else.

Jenner went through surgery, hormones and conciliating to become who he was supposed to be. He did not reject his parents or family. He is no longer living a lie.

Dolazel is living a lie and taking advantage of school, work and those who are people of color to advance herself. She is resenting herself as something she is not. Dolazel is even trying to say her birth parents are not really her parents to further this lie.

I see what you are saying BUT:

Jenner said he always "felt a woman" which made him a woman.

And Dolazel died her hair and tanned herself.

Doesn't that count as well?

 

[Coyote]

It has nothing to do with "agendas".

Race is a culteral and class construct that can be rather arbritrary (for instance 1 drop = black rule).

Gender is more complicated - involves biology, psychology, the way we're wired.

Rachel Dolazel is certainly an outlier and people seem to be trying to make it into an example of something but I'm not sure it is and I'm not sure what her motives are.

For example: I Identify As Black Rachel Dolezal Says In TV Interview The Two-Way NPR

Lauer also asked about a 2002 lawsuit Dolezal filed against Howard University, in which she accused the school of discriminating against her as a white student in graduate school.


"The reasons for my full tuition scholarship being removed, and my teaching position as well — my [teacher's assistant] position were that: 'Other people need opportunities — and you probably have white relatives that can afford to help you with your tuition.' And I thought that was an injustice."
​

Another argument against this being similar to Jenner is: Making Sense Of Rachel Dolezal The Alleged White Woman Who Passed As Black Code Switch NPR

On social media, lots of people are comparing Dolezal to Caitlyn Jenner, saying "transracial" identity might be like transgender identity. The Guardian's Meredith Talusan explains why that doesn't hold up:

The people comparing Dolezal to trans people are depicting our actions as rooted in the same deceptions as hers: her apparent use of skin-darkening agents and products to change the texture of her hair are, implicitly or explicitly, likened to what "men" — to use a trans woman's example — doing what we do to "deceive" people into thinking we are women.

But Dolezal engaged in such actions in order to be perceived as black, in a racialized American environment where that matters. Trans people transition in order to be the gender we feel inside and, while there may come a time when posers will appropriate trendy trans culture for profit, right now, there's no advantage to transitioning when you're not trans. Trans people don't even have the legal protections — like laws that protect access to housing, public accommodation and employment opportunities — that black people and other racial minorities have fought so hard to win.​

 

[Freewill]

neither are what they claim to be

Obviously.

But we are told we are intolerant "homphobes" or whatever if we say that about Bruce Jenner.

So, why then is Rachel Dolazal not black because she says she is?

It seem to liberals now, all you have to do, to be someone or something, is simply say you are.

I think I was born a wombat, therefore I must be.

It's ludicrous!

I just thought of one more wingnut left winger that does the same. Jake, he keeps trying to convince people he is a Republican conservative.

 

[Wake]

Jenner went through surgery, hormones and conciliating to become who he was supposed to be. He did not reject his parents or family. He is no longer living a lie.

Using chemicals, surgery, and other scientific means to manipulate your body does not make you into something totally different. His confusion has only been reinforced. You can snip off this and add that and inject these and subtract those, but that doesn't completely change who you are, based on your genetics and your original, born self.

 

[Zander]

Bruce Jenner has an X and a Y chromosone, along with a penis and testicles. He is a biologically a man. He will always be a man. That being said, when and if he chops his junk off and installs a shiny new "Vaginamatic 1000", I will, out of respect, call him, her. Cutting off your cock and balls is a serious commitment!

Dolezal is an overweight, ugly, white woman with a cheap spray tan and a severe ethics problem. She is the epitome of the sleazy, opportunistic, liberal. She's a fraud who deserved to be shunned by all. Better yet, she should be prosecuted for fraud.

Her role model is the equally sleazy Elizabeth "Shitting Bull" Warren.

 

[bodecea]

Checking to see if this affects me in any way.

 

[Foxfyre]

I'm sure you have all seen this photo graphic as it has pretty well gone viral. Admittedly every photo may not be entirely fair, but it does speak to the 'truth is in the eye of the beholder' kind of thing that seems to pervade our society in a way that I can't remember ever happening before. The question is, are we obligated to define people as they see and describe themselves? Or are we allowed to call bullsh*t when we see it?

 

[LoneLaugher]

I'm sure you have all seen this photo graphic as it has pretty well gone viral. Admittedly every photo may not be entirely fair, but it does speak to the 'truth is in the eye of the beholder' kind of thing that seems to pervade our society in a way that I can't remember ever happening before. The question is, are we obligated to define people as they see and describe themselves? Or are we allowed to call bullsh*t when we see it?

You should report yourself.

 

[LoneLaugher]

To answer the OP....who is clearly struggling with this issue...........no.

 

[Michelle420]

neither are what they claim to be

Obviously.

But we are told we are intolerant "homphobes" or whatever if we say that about Bruce Jenner.

So, why then is Rachel Dolazal not black because she says she is?

It seem to liberals now, all you have to do, to be someone or something, is simply say you are.

I think I was born a wombat, therefore I must be.

It's ludicrous!

Those categories are social constructions, so yes she can identify as whatever she wants to.

Race is an issue because of the categories social construction puts different races in, same thing with gender and social class.

 

[Moonglow]

neither are what they claim to be

Obviously.

But we are told we are intolerant "homphobes" or whatever if we say that about Bruce Jenner.

So, why then is Rachel Dolazal not black because she says she is?

It seem to liberals now, all you have to do, to be someone or something, is simply say you are.

I think I was born a wombat, therefore I must be.

It's ludicrous!

Being an Okie you have a love of Jesus, Santa, Frosty, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy and cowpokes that wrestle goats, but never mention gheys or trannies in that group...

 

[teapartysamurai]

neither are what they claim to be

Obviously.

But we are told we are intolerant "homphobes" or whatever if we say that about Bruce Jenner.

So, why then is Rachel Dolazal not black because she says she is?

It seem to liberals now, all you have to do, to be someone or something, is simply say you are.

I think I was born a wombat, therefore I must be.

It's ludicrous!

Those categories are social constructions, so yes she can identify as whatever she wants to.

Race is an issue because of the categories social construction puts different races in, same thing with gender and social class.

Well what the hell is a "social construction."

That's just social babble.

Was he/she born with a penis? Yes.

And don't tell me you can't change Skin color.

Michael Jackson proves that wrong.

 

[Michelle420]

neither are what they claim to be

Obviously.

But we are told we are intolerant "homphobes" or whatever if we say that about Bruce Jenner.

So, why then is Rachel Dolazal not black because she says she is?

It seem to liberals now, all you have to do, to be someone or something, is simply say you are.

I think I was born a wombat, therefore I must be.

It's ludicrous!

Those categories are social constructions, so yes she can identify as whatever she wants to.

Race is an issue because of the categories social construction puts different races in, same thing with gender and social class.

Well what the hell is a "social construction."

That's just social babble.

Was he/she born with a penis? Yes.

And don't tell me you can't change Skin color.

Michael Jackson proves that wrong.

Social construction are things society makes up and attaches meaning to such as gender roles, race or social classes, they can have different meanings depending on the society or culture you belong to. In and of itself there is no such thing naturally. So social construction serves the purpose of putting a label on things to regulate each other.

1. Social construction is how society groups people and how it privileges certain groups over others. For example, you are a woman or a man because society tells you that you are, not because you choose to be. Simple as that. Just like it tells you what race you're classified as and what social class you belong in.

 

[teapartysamurai]

neither are what they claim to be

Obviously.

But we are told we are intolerant "homphobes" or whatever if we say that about Bruce Jenner.

So, why then is Rachel Dolazal not black because she says she is?

It seem to liberals now, all you have to do, to be someone or something, is simply say you are.

I think I was born a wombat, therefore I must be.

It's ludicrous!

Those categories are social constructions, so yes she can identify as whatever she wants to.

Race is an issue because of the categories social construction puts different races in, same thing with gender and social class.

Well what the hell is a "social construction."

That's just social babble.

Was he/she born with a penis? Yes.

And don't tell me you can't change Skin color.

Michael Jackson proves that wrong.

Social construction are things society makes up and attaches meaning to such as gender roles, race or social classes, they can have different meanings depending on the society or culture you belong to. In and of itself there is no such thing naturally. So social construction serves the purpose of putting a label on things to regulate each other.

1. Social construction is how society groups people and how it privileges certain groups over others. For example, you are a woman or a man because society tells you that you are, not because you choose to be. Simple as that. Just like it tells you what race you're classified as and what social class you belong in.

Well there you are.

It's something MADE UP by a bunch of people

Social Darwinism was MADE UP by a bunch of people.

That didn't make it any more valid that this "social construct."

 

[Michelle420]

neither are what they claim to be

Obviously.

But we are told we are intolerant "homphobes" or whatever if we say that about Bruce Jenner.

So, why then is Rachel Dolazal not black because she says she is?

It seem to liberals now, all you have to do, to be someone or something, is simply say you are.

I think I was born a wombat, therefore I must be.

It's ludicrous!

Those categories are social constructions, so yes she can identify as whatever she wants to.

Race is an issue because of the categories social construction puts different races in, same thing with gender and social class.

Well what the hell is a "social construction."

That's just social babble.

Was he/she born with a penis? Yes.

And don't tell me you can't change Skin color.

Michael Jackson proves that wrong.

Social construction are things society makes up and attaches meaning to such as gender roles, race or social classes, they can have different meanings depending on the society or culture you belong to. In and of itself there is no such thing naturally. So social construction serves the purpose of putting a label on things to regulate each other.

1. Social construction is how society groups people and how it privileges certain groups over others. For example, you are a woman or a man because society tells you that you are, not because you choose to be. Simple as that. Just like it tells you what race you're classified as and what social class you belong in.

Well there you are.

It's something MADE UP by a bunch of people

Social Darwinism was MADE UP by a bunch of people.

That didn't make it any more valid that this "social construct."

Race, class and gender roles are social constructions, as far as a sex you are born with that is different than a gender you identify with, these are two different things here, Gender is a socially constructed role that a society has determined a person born a certain sex has to behave like, look like or just is by default of being born a with a certain anatomy.

However, just because you are born with a biology of a vagina or penis does not automatically make you fall into those socially constructed categories of behavior or societal expectations of being a man or women.

So having a biological theory only proves that people are born genetically different, that doesn't mean that because of their genetics they are automatically pre existing as a specified mode of behavior or feel a certain way.

You can be born rich and into an affluent family, and all that does is give you an advantage but as far as your biology you are no different then someone born in the ghetto, in social construction terms you are going to have better healthcare, education and opportunities, but this is only true in a society that values a social class system.

If you were born in a society that did not measure social class that way, then there would be no advantage. All race, gender ad social class is socially constructed, meaning these are made up roles a society narrates.

 

[Foxfyre]

Obviously.

But we are told we are intolerant "homphobes" or whatever if we say that about Bruce Jenner.

So, why then is Rachel Dolazal not black because she says she is?

It seem to liberals now, all you have to do, to be someone or something, is simply say you are.

I think I was born a wombat, therefore I must be.

It's ludicrous!

Those categories are social constructions, so yes she can identify as whatever she wants to.

Race is an issue because of the categories social construction puts different races in, same thing with gender and social class.

Well what the hell is a "social construction."

That's just social babble.

Was he/she born with a penis? Yes.

And don't tell me you can't change Skin color.

Michael Jackson proves that wrong.

Social construction are things society makes up and attaches meaning to such as gender roles, race or social classes, they can have different meanings depending on the society or culture you belong to. In and of itself there is no such thing naturally. So social construction serves the purpose of putting a label on things to regulate each other.

1. Social construction is how society groups people and how it privileges certain groups over others. For example, you are a woman or a man because society tells you that you are, not because you choose to be. Simple as that. Just like it tells you what race you're classified as and what social class you belong in.

Well there you are.

It's something MADE UP by a bunch of people

Social Darwinism was MADE UP by a bunch of people.

That didn't make it any more valid that this "social construct."

Race, class and gender roles are social constructions, as far as a sex you are born with that is different than a gender you identify with, these are two different things here, Gender is a socially constructed role that a society has determined a person born a certain sex has to behave like, look like or just is by default of being born a with a certain anatomy.

However, just because you are born with a biology of a vagina or penis does not automatically make you fall into those socially constructed categories of behavior or societal expectations of being a man or women.

So having a biological theory only proves that people are born genetically different, that doesn't mean that because of their genetics they are automatically pre existing as a specified mode of behavior or feel a certain way.

You can be born rich and into an affluent family, and all that does is give you an advantage but as far as your biology you are no different then someone born in the ghetto, in social construction terms you are going to have better healthcare, education and opportunities, but this is only true in a society that values a social class system.

If you were born in a society that did not measure social class that way, then there would be no advantage. All race, gender ad social class is socially constructed, meaning these are made up roles a society narrates.

To some degree I would agree. There are social and cultural expectations imposed on us all and we all grow up within those cultures and expectations that we either accept as the way things are or we rebel against them, sometimes to our own or others detriment. And sometimes we ignore the culture and mores we are expected to conform to and we become pioneers who pave the way for a better way to see or do things.

For this reason I do not personally judge Bruce Jenner--so far as I am concerned he has an unalienable right to live his life as he chooses so long as he doesn't require me or anybody else among the unwilling to participate in or contribute to that. But I won't ever consider him a natural woman and I don't think anybody should be able to demand that I do.

Ditto for those who choose to be seen as black or white or Native American or whatever. They have an unalienable right to see themselves as whatever they choose to be. But they should never have a right to demand that I accept that as natural or require that I participate in or contribute to that.

IMO, people have a right to be who or what they are or choose to be so long as they aren't requiring unwilling participation or contribution by others. And we all have a right to our own opinions of what we see as foolishness, bullsh*t, and/or immorality too.