Total Posts:26|Showing Posts:1-26
Jump to topic:

Rachel Dolezal v. CaitlynJenner

ZenoCitium
Posts: 184
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2015 4:02:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I know these are both older stories, but perhaps the fervor has died so that a constructive discussion can take place.

I was wondering why society in general, and the media, took such opposite stances towards these two stories. Dolezal received a lot of negative press, while Jenner received a lot of positive press. What were the differences between the two stories and what do you think is driving the difference in reception?

I don't see many differences between the two, except that obviously one deals with racial identity and the other gender identity. It seems to me, that society is more sensitive to racial identity. I remember Montel Williams being completely furious in an interview. I believe he said something like, "Rachel Dolezal didn't earn her weave". Of course, i'm not sure we should pay much attention to Montel Williams, but it did strike me as odd that a similar styled question was never, and likely will never, be uttered to Caitlyn Jenner.

I do understand that, on the surface, Dolezal was not truthful about her condition as Caitlyn was. However, I have a hard time imagining that the response for Dolezal would have been quite different had she come out and said, "Call me Janiqua". In addition, these types of lies are likely common in situations where personal identity is under construction. This certainly happens in cases of transgendered people as well. Even Bruce was transitioning well before we came out to the press about his transgenderism.

Any thoughts?
Fly
Posts: 2,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2015 5:11:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/31/2015 4:02:41 AM, ZenoCitium wrote:
I know these are both older stories, but perhaps the fervor has died so that a constructive discussion can take place.

I was wondering why society in general, and the media, took such opposite stances towards these two stories. Dolezal received a lot of negative press, while Jenner received a lot of positive press. What were the differences between the two stories and what do you think is driving the difference in reception?

I don't see many differences between the two, except that obviously one deals with racial identity and the other gender identity. It seems to me, that society is more sensitive to racial identity. I remember Montel Williams being completely furious in an interview. I believe he said something like, "Rachel Dolezal didn't earn her weave". Of course, i'm not sure we should pay much attention to Montel Williams, but it did strike me as odd that a similar styled question was never, and likely will never, be uttered to Caitlyn Jenner.

I do understand that, on the surface, Dolezal was not truthful about her condition as Caitlyn was. However, I have a hard time imagining that the response for Dolezal would have been quite different had she come out and said, "Call me Janiqua". In addition, these types of lies are likely common in situations where personal identity is under construction. This certainly happens in cases of transgendered people as well. Even Bruce was transitioning well before we came out to the press about his transgenderism.

Any thoughts?

It seems to me that you have largely answered your own question. Dolezal's story involves a large measure of lies based upon self delusion-- it is hard to discern where the lying ends and the true delusion begins-- while Jenner's story involves open honesty to the point of being ballsy, if you'll pardon the pun.

Put another way-- had some guy pretended to be a woman a la "Mrs. Doubtfire" and become a chapter leader of NOW, the media fallout from that would have been at least as bad as in Dolezal's case.
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,317
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2015 12:38:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Race is a big deal when you are applying for an affirmative action job, and doubly so when heading a racist organization. It's probably one of the few jobs that require racial background checks instead of optional checks. I think she got caught lying on her application.

As said before, I don't think Jenner really got caught lying about anything.
ZenoCitium
Posts: 184
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2015 4:09:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
To say that the only, or even the main difference, between the reactions to the Dolezal and Jenner stories was the lie is to be naive. Jenner has been transitioning for almost 30 years and she only just came clean recently. Caitlyn even said herself, "Bruce always had to tell a lie". To say that Jenner's story was open honesty is not entirely true. Also, i should correct your pun: Jenner still posses male genitala.

To help make my point, let's consider the large number of pundits that immediately ignored Dolezal's plea that she identified as a black person. Many either held that it is not possible to be tranaraced or claimed that only " adoptees" can be transraced. So whether she had lied or not, they would seek to discredit Dolezal but provide Jenner with an award for courage.
Todd0611
Posts: 99
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2015 6:46:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/3/2015 4:09:57 PM, ZenoCitium wrote:
To say that the only, or even the main difference, between the reactions to the Dolezal and Jenner stories was the lie is to be naive. Jenner has been transitioning for almost 30 years and she only just came clean recently. Caitlyn even said herself, "Bruce always had to tell a lie". To say that Jenner's story was open honesty is not entirely true. Also, i should correct your pun: Jenner still posses male genitala.

To help make my point, let's consider the large number of pundits that immediately ignored Dolezal's plea that she identified as a black person. Many either held that it is not possible to be tranaraced or claimed that only " adoptees" can be transraced. So whether she had lied or not, they would seek to discredit Dolezal but provide Jenner with an award for courage.

Just my two cents, but I think that the mainstream media has a lot more empathy for the LGBT community, and so op eds, and the way stories are covered, are shown to be more accepting of Jenner's transition. Bruce was a easy public figure to get behind, and transgender people have their own group for support, and to help sway public opinion.

The white girl, IMO, from what I've read, was just flat out lying. She is white, period, there's no procedure that I'm aware of that can turn her from black to white. People are born into a specific race, and while I can kind of see where she was coming from (relating to black people more than white), I just think that race is more of an issue when it comes to identity. I played basketball in high school, and some college (not professionally), and the majority of my friends were black, and I listened to a lot of rap, hip-hop, and R&B music growing up, so I found it culturally easier to relate to my friends who were black. I think that the racial struggles in our society have been very prevalent for a long time, and that the race relations problems kind of "hit home" harder, and racial issues have been discussed for a longer time period than LGBT issues.
Fly
Posts: 2,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2015 2:15:36 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/3/2015 4:09:57 PM, ZenoCitium wrote:
To say that the only, or even the main difference, between the reactions to the Dolezal and Jenner stories was the lie is to be naive. Jenner has been transitioning for almost 30 years and she only just came clean recently. Caitlyn even said herself, "Bruce always had to tell a lie". To say that Jenner's story was open honesty is not entirely true. Also, i should correct your pun: Jenner still posses male genitala.

To help make my point, let's consider the large number of pundits that immediately ignored Dolezal's plea that she identified as a black person. Many either held that it is not possible to be tranaraced or claimed that only " adoptees" can be transraced. So whether she had lied or not, they would seek to discredit Dolezal but provide Jenner with an award for courage.

I disagree. And I realize the fact of his male genitalia-- it works as a pun either way, you see, considering the subject matter. I have never seen someone attempt to "correct a pun" before!

Dolezal denied her true parentage-- she claimed that a man in a photo was her father when it was not. If I were her father, I would be deeply hurt by that claim. Her fabrications were hurtful. And she did not nobly come clean on her own-- she was essentially outed. Gender confusion, in contrast, does not necessarily involve a denial of biological parentage.

My Mrs. Doubtfire parallel to Dolezal's deceit still stands and shows that I am not looking at this in a naive fashion at all, and it illustrates the difference from Jenner's situation quite well.
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
Heterodox
Posts: 293
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2015 3:54:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/31/2015 4:02:41 AM, ZenoCitium wrote:
I know these are both older stories, but perhaps the fervor has died so that a constructive discussion can take place.

I was wondering why society in general, and the media, took such opposite stances towards these two stories. Dolezal received a lot of negative press, while Jenner received a lot of positive press. What were the differences between the two stories and what do you think is driving the difference in reception?

I don't see many differences between the two, except that obviously one deals with racial identity and the other gender identity. It seems to me, that society is more sensitive to racial identity. I remember Montel Williams being completely furious in an interview. I believe he said something like, "Rachel Dolezal didn't earn her weave". Of course, i'm not sure we should pay much attention to Montel Williams, but it did strike me as odd that a similar styled question was never, and likely will never, be uttered to Caitlyn Jenner.

I do understand that, on the surface, Dolezal was not truthful about her condition as Caitlyn was. However, I have a hard time imagining that the response for Dolezal would have been quite different had she come out and said, "Call me Janiqua". In addition, these types of lies are likely common in situations where personal identity is under construction. This certainly happens in cases of transgendered people as well. Even Bruce was transitioning well before we came out to the press about his transgenderism.

Any thoughts?

I imagine because one was more entertaining than the other. I mean, most of us have seen a black person, but how many of us have seen a man that wants to be a woman...
Kind of like going to a carnival and paying the guy to go into a room and look at some strange looking dead thing in a jar.

Also, I kind of feel like a lot of the black people, you see in media, act like they belong to some special black only club. Where if you aren't black you can't be a member. I don't really know what club Jenner would belong to, but they probably aren't mad at him because he wants to join.
briantheliberal
Posts: 722
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2015 4:13:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/31/2015 4:02:41 AM, ZenoCitium wrote:
I know these are both older stories, but perhaps the fervor has died so that a constructive discussion can take place.

I was wondering why society in general, and the media, took such opposite stances towards these two stories. Dolezal received a lot of negative press, while Jenner received a lot of positive press. What were the differences between the two stories and what do you think is driving the difference in reception?

I don't see many differences between the two, except that obviously one deals with racial identity and the other gender identity. It seems to me, that society is more sensitive to racial identity. I remember Montel Williams being completely furious in an interview. I believe he said something like, "Rachel Dolezal didn't earn her weave". Of course, i'm not sure we should pay much attention to Montel Williams, but it did strike me as odd that a similar styled question was never, and likely will never, be uttered to Caitlyn Jenner.

I do understand that, on the surface, Dolezal was not truthful about her condition as Caitlyn was. However, I have a hard time imagining that the response for Dolezal would have been quite different had she come out and said, "Call me Janiqua". In addition, these types of lies are likely common in situations where personal identity is under construction. This certainly happens in cases of transgendered people as well. Even Bruce was transitioning well before we came out to the press about his transgenderism.

Any thoughts?

Maybe it's because being "transracial" is nothing more than blatant cultural appropriation and glorification of stereotypes? You can't slap on an afro, get a tan, and call yourself 'black' when that in itself shows how ridiculous the very concept even is. Not to mention, Rachael Dolezal LIED, not only about her identity, but her entire life. She lied about being born and living in an African jungle. She adopted two black children and lied about being their biological parent. Then when it was convenient for her, she lied about being discriminated against for being white. Caitlyn Jenner, as much as I cannot stand her, did not lie about and manipulate her gender identity. Despite having to hide it for many years, she eventually acknowledged her newly disclosed trans identity. She did not slap on a wig and pretend to be biologically female. Many people who compare the two do so with the intention to tarnish Caitlyn Jenner and transgender people in general, but it isn't a sound comparison to make when you observe the two holistically. Being 'transracial' is accompanied by stereotypes and self-hatred.
ZenoCitium
Posts: 184
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2015 6:22:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The white girl, IMO, from what I've read, was just flat out lying. She is white, period, there's no procedure that I'm aware of that can turn her from black to white.

If you want to get technical, there is no procedure to turn someone from male to female. You can mutilate your genitalia, but there is more to the biology of gender than organs. Besides, transgenderism is not necessarily identifying exclusively as one gender or the other.
jimtimmy8
Posts: 383
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2015 6:36:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Legitimate question. Not sure I see the clarifying difference between the too. Using SJW logic, both are essentially the same.
ZenoCitium
Posts: 184
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2015 7:14:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I disagree. And I realize the fact of his male genitalia-- it works as a pun either way, you see, considering the subject matter. I have never seen someone attempt to "correct a pun" before!

I suppose the pun does work either way. I did not mean to offend you with my correction. Most of the people I've talked with on the subject of Jenner assumed, incorrectly, that she got gender reassignment surgery.

Dolezal denied her true parentage-- she claimed that a man in a photo was her father when it was not. If I were her father, I would be deeply hurt by that claim. Her fabrications were hurtful. And she did not nobly come clean on her own-- she was essentially outed. Gender confusion, in contrast, does not necessarily involve a denial of biological parentage.

While true, likely most cases of gender confusion do not involve a denial of biological parentage but they do involve denial. Anytime you have an identity mismatch, you have a life that involves deceit, at least for some time. Even Caitlyn admitted this, in the quote I provided. This is one of the sources of stress and crises for transgendered individuals and the reason why there is an estimated 41% suicide rate among the group.

My Mrs. Doubtfire parallel to Dolezal's deceit still stands and shows that I am not looking at this in a naive fashion at all, and it illustrates the difference from Jenner's situation quite well.

I don't think the media fallout would have necessarily been as bad. Also, if Dolezal had come out, instead of getting caught in her deceit, and said "Call me Janiqua" she would not have gotten the press that Caitlyn received. I doubt she would have even got any different press than what she received recently.

Can you speak to my point on the denial of transracism as a conflict? This shows that, regardless of how either Dolezal or Jenner came out to the media, that the vast amount of media coverage would have still regarded Dolezal as a fraud because they discount transracism as possible.
ZenoCitium
Posts: 184
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2015 7:31:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Maybe it's because being "transracial" is nothing more than blatant cultural appropriation and glorification of stereotypes? You can't slap on an afro, get a tan, and call yourself 'black' when that in itself shows how ridiculous the very concept even is.

Comparatively, can you augment your breasts and call yourself a woman? The point of transracial or transgender is that you identify with something other than your physical or natural identity.

Not to mention, Rachael Dolezal LIED, not only about her identity, but her entire life. She lied about being born and living in an African jungle. She adopted two black children and lied about being their biological parent. Then when it was convenient for her, she lied about being discriminated against for being white. Caitlyn Jenner, as much as I cannot stand her, did not lie about and manipulate her gender identity. Despite having to hide it for many years, she eventually acknowledged her newly disclosed trans identity. She did not slap on a wig and pretend to be biologically female. Many people who compare the two do so with the intention to tarnish Caitlyn Jenner and transgender people in general, but it isn't a sound comparison to make when you observe the two holistically. Being 'transracial' is accompanied by stereotypes and self-hatred.

Can you elaborate on how being transracial involves stereotypes and self-hatred?

Perhaps some have ill conceived intentions when making the comparison. However, I can assure you that I don't. To disregard transracism is, in similar fashion, intended to tarnish people like Rachel Dolezal.

It seems to me, that our culture is extremely sensitive to racial identity. Until now, it was possible to be transracial only if you were black and adopted by a white family. Essentially, transracial is only applicable to those that are black. Is it possible to be black but identify as white, but not the other way around?
briantheliberal
Posts: 722
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2015 11:20:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/4/2015 7:31:34 PM, ZenoCitium wrote:
Maybe it's because being "transracial" is nothing more than blatant cultural appropriation and glorification of stereotypes? You can't slap on an afro, get a tan, and call yourself 'black' when that in itself shows how ridiculous the very concept even is.

Comparatively, can you augment your breasts and call yourself a woman? The point of transracial or transgender is that you identify with something other than your physical or natural identity.

Being a trans woman doesn't require a breast augmentation, or any surgery for that matter. There are trans women (and men) of various sorts who make decision that they want with their own bodies, and those decision do not require them to get a sex change operation, or act stereotypically "masculine" or "feminine" either. Gender is relative after all, being black is not. Liking rap music doesn't make a person black, neither does wanting darker skin.

https://www.youtube.com...
https://www.youtube.com...

Not to mention, Rachael Dolezal LIED, not only about her identity, but her entire life. She lied about being born and living in an African jungle. She adopted two black children and lied about being their biological parent. Then when it was convenient for her, she lied about being discriminated against for being white. Caitlyn Jenner, as much as I cannot stand her, did not lie about and manipulate her gender identity. Despite having to hide it for many years, she eventually acknowledged her newly disclosed trans identity. She did not slap on a wig and pretend to be biologically female. Many people who compare the two do so with the intention to tarnish Caitlyn Jenner and transgender people in general, but it isn't a sound comparison to make when you observe the two holistically. Being 'transracial' is accompanied by stereotypes and self-hatred.

Can you elaborate on how being transracial involves stereotypes and self-hatred?

Well for one, why else would a person pretend to come from a racial background in which they don't belong? Because they hate themselves. Biracial (black and white) people do this all the time. If they pass for white, they deny and degrade their black side, or vice versa. If it is not rooted in hatred, there is always some other ulterior motive behind this. In the case of Rachael Dolezal, she had her own familial issues that caused her to separate herself from her relatives and assume a new identity that wasn't hers to be accepted into a community in which she did not originally belong.

Perhaps some have ill conceived intentions when making the comparison. However, I can assure you that I don't. To disregard transracism is, in similar fashion, intended to tarnish people like Rachel Dolezal.

I never really mean you in particular, just mentioning that it happens. Many people make this comparison because they know both cases are looked down upon but transgender people are gaining acceptance. There is really no fundamental or psychological basis of being "transracial" - there is always another underlying cause for why very few people assume another socially constructed racial identity aside from the one society assigned to them.

It seems to me, that our culture is extremely sensitive to racial identity. Until now, it was possible to be transracial only if you were black and adopted by a white family. Essentially, transracial is only applicable to those that are black. Is it possible to be black but identify as white, but not the other way around?

Being black and adopted by a white family doesn't make a person "transracial". It makes them black and adopted by a white family. Being adopted by white parents doesn't make them not black anymore, and I don't recall it ever being socially acceptable for black children of white parents to identify as white. Maybe I am just unaware of this.
Fly
Posts: 2,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2015 1:28:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/4/2015 7:14:50 PM, ZenoCitium wrote:
I disagree. And I realize the fact of his male genitalia-- it works as a pun either way, you see, considering the subject matter. I have never seen someone attempt to "correct a pun" before!

I suppose the pun does work either way. I did not mean to offend you with my correction. Most of the people I've talked with on the subject of Jenner assumed, incorrectly, that she got gender reassignment surgery.

No offense taken. Rather, I was just amazed at your reaction.

Dolezal denied her true parentage-- she claimed that a man in a photo was her father when it was not. If I were her father, I would be deeply hurt by that claim. Her fabrications were hurtful. And she did not nobly come clean on her own-- she was essentially outed. Gender confusion, in contrast, does not necessarily involve a denial of biological parentage.

While true, likely most cases of gender confusion do not involve a denial of biological parentage but they do involve denial. Anytime you have an identity mismatch, you have a life that involves deceit, at least for some time. Even Caitlyn admitted this, in the quote I provided. This is one of the sources of stress and crises for transgendered individuals and the reason why there is an estimated 41% suicide rate among the group.

But Jenner's new identity is not founded upon fraud. Her back story, and even past lies, were fully accounted for in an open fashion at the time of the media blitz. It's not like someone ripped off his wig and said, "It's a man, baby!!"

And you seem to gloss over the depth of deceit in denying one's parentage.

My Mrs. Doubtfire parallel to Dolezal's deceit still stands and shows that I am not looking at this in a naive fashion at all, and it illustrates the difference from Jenner's situation quite well.

I don't think the media fallout would have necessarily been as bad. Also, if Dolezal had come out, instead of getting caught in her deceit, and said "Call me Janiqua" she would not have gotten the press that Caitlyn received. I doubt she would have even got any different press than what she received recently.

I disagree. That's all I can really do at this point. We see the situations differently even after explaining ourselves. I have to say though, that insinuating that racial identity also involves a stereotype name change is a bit insensitive.

Can you speak to my point on the denial of transracism as a conflict? This shows that, regardless of how either Dolezal or Jenner came out to the media, that the vast amount of media coverage would have still regarded Dolezal as a fraud because they discount transracism as possible.

Not sure what you're getting at. I knew a woman who preferred the company of black people-- she went to a majority black church, married a black man, etc. None of that required falling asleep in a tanning booth, getting corn rows, and calling herself Janiqua, and denying her parentage. That is the part you don't seem to get...
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
ZenoCitium
Posts: 184
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2015 3:33:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Being a trans woman doesn't require a breast augmentation, or any surgery for that matter. There are trans women (and men) of various sorts who make decision that they want with their own bodies, and those decision do not require them to get a sex change operation, or act stereotypically "masculine" or "feminine" either. Gender is relative after all, being black is not. Liking rap music doesn't make a person black, neither does wanting darker skin.

I agree that breast augmentation is not required to be a trans woman. As I stated, "the point of transracial or transgender is that you identify with something other than your physical or natural identity."

I think I see where the disconnect is, now. You state that gender is relative and being black is not. It seems to me that a person has a racial identity just as they have a gender identity. There are social norms for gender just as there are for race, and as such they are assigned by society. You even wrote yourself, "there is always another underlying cause for why very few people assume another socially constructed racial identity aside from the one society assigned to them." So isn't it possible that society can assign a racial identity that is mismatched just as it can assign a gender identity that is mismatched to your true identity? There are cases of transracism; it was once an accepted term. You can find many sources that will educate you on the affliction. I'll include one below. It mainly concerns those that are non-Caucasian that are adopted by Caucasian parents. They have identity issues, much like transgendered individuals. Opposition to transracial adoption includes the NAACP, which labeled it "cultural suicide".

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Well for one, why else would a person pretend to come from a racial background in which they don't belong? Because they hate themselves. Biracial (black and white) people do this all the time. If they pass for white, they deny and degrade their black side, or vice versa. If it is not rooted in hatred, there is always some other ulterior motive behind this. In the case of Rachael Dolezal, she had her own familial issues that caused her to separate herself from her relatives and assume a new identity that wasn't hers to be accepted into a community in which she did not originally belong.

You are making speculations as to why Rachael Dolezal has a racial identity conflict. Does it really matter why, anyhow? No one has asked Bruce Jenner why he feels like he should be a woman?
ZenoCitium
Posts: 184
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2015 3:56:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
But Jenner's new identity is not founded upon fraud. Her back story, and even past lies, were fully accounted for in an open fashion at the time of the media blitz. It's not like someone ripped off his wig and said, "It's a man, baby!!"

And you seem to gloss over the depth of deceit in denying one's parentage.

Firstly, there have been long time speculations that Bruce has been transitioning. He has not been honest about it until now, 30 years later. It's not really possible to rip "off his wig", as you put it, since he's a celebrity and everyone already knows he's a man. I don't see any difference and I think you ignore that purposefully to support your intolerance against transraced individuals.

Secondly, not everyone can "come out" on national T.V. with Diane Sawyer.

I'm not sure why the deceit in denying one's parentage is any more severe than the deceit of denying one's gender or gender roles assigned by society. It seems that where there is an identity mismatch there is also deceit. Instead of condoning, we should all be more sympathetic.

Not sure what you're getting at. I knew a woman who preferred the company of black people-- she went to a majority black church, married a black man, etc. None of that required falling asleep in a tanning booth, getting corn rows, and calling herself Janiqua, and denying her parentage. That is the part you don't seem to get...

That is somewhat insensitive to write. Being transraced or transgendered has nothing to do with the preference of your company. It has to do with an ingrained identity, that you are born with and that cannot be changed. Bruce Jenner is not transgendered because he feels more comfortable around women.
Fly
Posts: 2,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2015 12:23:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/5/2015 3:56:18 PM, ZenoCitium wrote:
But Jenner's new identity is not founded upon fraud. Her back story, and even past lies, were fully accounted for in an open fashion at the time of the media blitz. It's not like someone ripped off his wig and said, "It's a man, baby!!"

And you seem to gloss over the depth of deceit in denying one's parentage.

Firstly, there have been long time speculations that Bruce has been transitioning. He has not been honest about it until now, 30 years later. It's not really possible to rip "off his wig", as you put it, since he's a celebrity and everyone already knows he's a man. I don't see any difference and I think you ignore that purposefully to support your intolerance against transraced individuals.

Secondly, not everyone can "come out" on national T.V. with Diane Sawyer.

I'm not sure why the deceit in denying one's parentage is any more severe than the deceit of denying one's gender or gender roles assigned by society. It seems that where there is an identity mismatch there is also deceit. Instead of condoning, we should all be more sympathetic.

We will have to agree to disagree on the severity of hurtfullness involved in denying one's parentage.

Not sure what you're getting at. I knew a woman who preferred the company of black people-- she went to a majority black church, married a black man, etc. None of that required falling asleep in a tanning booth, getting corn rows, and calling herself Janiqua, and denying her parentage. That is the part you don't seem to get...

That is somewhat insensitive to write. Being transraced or transgendered has nothing to do with the preference of your company. It has to do with an ingrained identity, that you are born with and that cannot be changed. Bruce Jenner is not transgendered because he feels more comfortable around women.

I disagree. First of all, you fail to explain what being "transraced" is. Second, you speak as though race is as much a psychological and biological reality as gender-- also without explanation. Cites from clinical sources backing all this would be welcome.

All that aside, I am curious: do you think that Dolezal should have received the same welcoming tone from the media as Jenner received, or no? What would you have preferred the response to both cases to have been? Keep in mind that much of the reason for Jenner's extensive coverage was because of the backlash the story got from much of the public-- resentment over the positivity of the coverage.
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
ZenoCitium
Posts: 184
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2015 9:18:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I disagree. First of all, you fail to explain what being "transraced" is. Second, you speak as though race is as much a psychological and biological reality as gender-- also without explanation. Cites from clinical sources backing all this would be welcome.

I am not an expert in this field, and I know there is a better definition and explanation available of what "transraced" is. I'll include a source below that might help. I will attempt to define it myself

A transraced person is someone that experiences a mismatch between their race identity and their assigned race. Just as the case for transgendered people, where biology plays a roll in a person's assigned gender, biology plays a roll in a person's assigned race. However, society also plays an equal role in both as we develop a social identity. A person can be born as a girl, biologically, but may feel privately that they are a boy. If they engage in behavior out-of-line with their assigned gender role, they might be called a "tomboy". A person can be born with brown skin, but feel privately that they are white. If they engage in behavior out-of-line with their assigned race role, they might be called an "oreo". Please know that I would not use either of these derogatory terms, I am only presenting them as evidence of the labeling done by society in regard to socially assigned roles.

Here is the journal article I linked in an earlier post on this thread:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

There are a lot of links within this journal article to other studies. The studies pertain to adoption because adoption is the main vehicle for transplanting a person that is developing their personal identity into an environment that may not match the common upbringing for their assigned race.

All that aside, I am curious: do you think that Dolezal should have received the same welcoming tone from the media as Jenner received, or no? What would you have preferred the response to both cases to have been? Keep in mind that much of the reason for Jenner's extensive coverage was because of the backlash the story got from much of the public-- resentment over the positivity of the coverage.

I think that some of the negativity toward Dolezal is understood. I think there Jenner was strong and intrepid, she was not. However, I don't think we should dwell on condoning her, either. I think the main source of the negativity was created by the embarrassment of not only the NAACP but also the black community. It seems to me that the black community, understandably so, is very proud of their culture. As such, they would be especially embarrassed and feel that such an act mocks not only their culture but their past struggles as a group. Montel Williams stated that Dolezal, "Hasn't earned her weave". I think this is a good example of both the pain and anger felt by the community as well as the strictest belief that the community is exclusive (so much so that he proposed that there is a sort of indicative test for admittance).

Like you, and many others, I am suspicious of Dolezal's claims. However, I feel that we should be, at least, equally distrusting of Jenner, who is more of a T.V personality than an athlete at this point. I think there are a remarkably many similarities between the two stories and that we should either be equally accepting or equally condoning. The fact that we are not, underlines the issues with race that we have in our country.
Fly
Posts: 2,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2015 7:09:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/6/2015 9:18:26 PM, ZenoCitium wrote:
I disagree. First of all, you fail to explain what being "transraced" is. Second, you speak as though race is as much a psychological and biological reality as gender-- also without explanation. Cites from clinical sources backing all this would be welcome.

I am not an expert in this field, and I know there is a better definition and explanation available of what "transraced" is. I'll include a source below that might help. I will attempt to define it myself

A transraced person is someone that experiences a mismatch between their race identity and their assigned race. Just as the case for transgendered people, where biology plays a roll in a person's assigned gender, biology plays a roll in a person's assigned race. However, society also plays an equal role in both as we develop a social identity. A person can be born as a girl, biologically, but may feel privately that they are a boy. If they engage in behavior out-of-line with their assigned gender role, they might be called a "tomboy". A person can be born with brown skin, but feel privately that they are white. If they engage in behavior out-of-line with their assigned race role, they might be called an "oreo". Please know that I would not use either of these derogatory terms, I am only presenting them as evidence of the labeling done by society in regard to socially assigned roles.

Do you really think that race and gender are equivalent classifications? I have little reason to believe that race identity parallels gender identity as closely as you believe. Also, you fail to recognize that Dolezal never claimed to be transraced. She claimed to have a black father at one point, if you will recall. Other than that, she just dismissed her deceit by saying her ethnic background is "complicated." Yeah, as complicated as a Swede's!

Here is the journal article I linked in an earlier post on this thread:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

There are a lot of links within this journal article to other studies. The studies pertain to adoption because adoption is the main vehicle for transplanting a person that is developing their personal identity into an environment that may not match the common upbringing for their assigned race.

I took a brief gander, which was all I needed to see that you are getting colder with this one. Dolezal was not adopted by parents of another race. To the contrary, she wanted to believe, and wanted others to believe that she had a black biological father when she instead had white biological parents who raised her. She is not fully in touch with reality, it seems...

You are mixing your apples with your oranges by likening Dolezal's story with cross racial adoption.

All that aside, I am curious: do you think that Dolezal should have received the same welcoming tone from the media as Jenner received, or no? What would you have preferred the response to both cases to have been? Keep in mind that much of the reason for Jenner's extensive coverage was because of the backlash the story got from much of the public-- resentment over the positivity of the coverage.

I think that some of the negativity toward Dolezal is understood. I think there Jenner was strong and intrepid, she was not. However, I don't think we should dwell on condoning her, either. I think the main source of the negativity was created by the embarrassment of not only the NAACP but also the black community. It seems to me that the black community, understandably so, is very proud of their culture. As such, they would be especially embarrassed and feel that such an act mocks not only their culture but their past struggles as a group. Montel Williams stated that Dolezal, "Hasn't earned her weave". I think this is a good example of both the pain and anger felt by the community as well as the strictest belief that the community is exclusive (so much so that he proposed that there is a sort of indicative test for admittance).

Like you, and many others, I am suspicious of Dolezal's claims. However, I feel that we should be, at least, equally distrusting of Jenner, who is more of a T.V personality than an athlete at this point. I think there are a remarkably many similarities between the two stories and that we should either be equally accepting or equally condoning. The fact that we are not, underlines the issues with race that we have in our country.

You have not explained why Jenner's current narrative should be equally distrusted. She is coming clean on a lifelong struggle. That is the opposite of untrustworthy on the subject. As I have explained, I see quite a few differences between the two stories, and I have explained why I disagree with your perceived similarities. Also, you use "condone" as an antonym for "accept" when it is not. I had to reread what you said after I realized the misuse of the word.

The bright side is that you asked for views differing from your own on the subject, and they have been given!
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
Df0512
Posts: 966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2015 2:23:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/31/2015 4:02:41 AM, ZenoCitium wrote:
I know these are both older stories, but perhaps the fervor has died so that a constructive discussion can take place.

I was wondering why society in general, and the media, took such opposite stances towards these two stories. Dolezal received a lot of negative press, while Jenner received a lot of positive press. What were the differences between the two stories and what do you think is driving the difference in reception?

I don't see many differences between the two, except that obviously one deals with racial identity and the other gender identity. It seems to me, that society is more sensitive to racial identity. I remember Montel Williams being completely furious in an interview. I believe he said something like, "Rachel Dolezal didn't earn her weave". Of course, i'm not sure we should pay much attention to Montel Williams, but it did strike me as odd that a similar styled question was never, and likely will never, be uttered to Caitlyn Jenner.

I do understand that, on the surface, Dolezal was not truthful about her condition as Caitlyn was. However, I have a hard time imagining that the response for Dolezal would have been quite different had she come out and said, "Call me Janiqua". In addition, these types of lies are likely common in situations where personal identity is under construction. This certainly happens in cases of transgendered people as well. Even Bruce was transitioning well before we came out to the press about his transgenderism.

Any thoughts?

Rachel Dolezal: In her case, I feel like she is saying being black is a choice. It's cool. It's something you do or can be to make yourself look or feel better. She says she identifies with being black? Ok what exactly is she identifying herself with? Rap music, big booties, nappy hair I don get it. This is a step back for black people. Thinking that by simply dying your skin and calling yourself "Janiqua" means your black. I mean I know she works a the Naacp but it this is what she thinks being black is I'ma bit offended.

In Caitlyn case, it's just not as offensive.
ZenoCitium
Posts: 184
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2015 2:50:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Do you really think that race and gender are equivalent classifications? I have little reason to believe that race identity parallels gender identity as closely as you believe. Also, you fail to recognize that Dolezal never claimed to be transraced. She claimed to have a black father at one point, if you will recall. Other than that, she just dismissed her deceit by saying her ethnic background is "complicated." Yeah, as complicated as a Swede's!

It appears that you are deliberately misrepresenting the facts. Dolezal may not have used the actual term "transraced", but she did say, "I identify as black". She didn't say that her ethnic background was "complicated", as far as I know. Can you cite this quote? When asked about her ethnicity, she said, "it's a little more complex", meaning that her identity is a little more complex than the sum of her ethnic backgrounds. She went on to state that as a child she drew herself with a "black crayon instead of the peach crayon".

I took a brief gander, which was all I needed to see that you are getting colder with this one. Dolezal was not adopted by parents of another race. To the contrary, she wanted to believe, and wanted others to believe that she had a black biological father when she instead had white biological parents who raised her. She is not fully in touch with reality, it seems...

The majority of research concerning transracism, up to now, has involved adopted children. However, there's no reason to believe that transracism is exclusive to adopted children (and those sources don't make this claim either).

You have not explained why Jenner's current narrative should be equally distrusted. She is coming clean on a lifelong struggle. That is the opposite of untrustworthy on the subject. As I have explained, I see quite a few differences between the two stories, and I have explained why I disagree with your perceived similarities. Also, you use "condone" as an antonym for "accept" when it is not. I had to reread what you said after I realized the misuse of the word.

It seems your intolerance is showing.

You state that Jenner is "coming clean" in a T.V interview, after decades of ignoring reporters question about his womanly features and random rumors. Likewise, Dolezal explains how she identifies as black in a T.V interview after her own lies were exposed. Wouldn't you say that they both have come clean?

I trust that Jenner's struggle is real. However, I will say that there are reasons to distrust Jenner based on her history, her reliance on publicity as a T.V personality, and the fact that she is part of the Kardasian family.

You are correct, where I said "condone" I meant "condemn".
Fly
Posts: 2,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2015 3:15:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/8/2015 2:50:30 AM, ZenoCitium wrote:
Do you really think that race and gender are equivalent classifications? I have little reason to believe that race identity parallels gender identity as closely as you believe. Also, you fail to recognize that Dolezal never claimed to be transraced. She claimed to have a black father at one point, if you will recall. Other than that, she just dismissed her deceit by saying her ethnic background is "complicated." Yeah, as complicated as a Swede's!

It appears that you are deliberately misrepresenting the facts. Dolezal may not have used the actual term "transraced", but she did say, "I identify as black". She didn't say that her ethnic background was "complicated", as far as I know. Can you cite this quote? When asked about her ethnicity, she said, "it's a little more complex", meaning that her identity is a little more complex than the sum of her ethnic backgrounds. She went on to state that as a child she drew herself with a "black crayon instead of the peach crayon".

Dolezal has merely been backpedalling after having been outed by her *ahem* actual parents.

After honestly presenting and backing my position, you have the audacity to call me a liar? (in a thinly veiled way, of course) It APPEARS that you are deliberately being a horse's arse-- the part where the poop comes out, if you don't get the reference.

I took a brief gander, which was all I needed to see that you are getting colder with this one. Dolezal was not adopted by parents of another race. To the contrary, she wanted to believe, and wanted others to believe that she had a black biological father when she instead had white biological parents who raised her. She is not fully in touch with reality, it seems...

The majority of research concerning transracism, up to now, has involved adopted children. However, there's no reason to believe that transracism is exclusive to adopted children (and those sources don't make this claim either).

You have not explained why Jenner's current narrative should be equally distrusted. She is coming clean on a lifelong struggle. That is the opposite of untrustworthy on the subject. As I have explained, I see quite a few differences between the two stories, and I have explained why I disagree with your perceived similarities. Also, you use "condone" as an antonym for "accept" when it is not. I had to reread what you said after I realized the misuse of the word.

It seems your intolerance is showing.

You are reduced to making emotional, ad hominem comments. That's a shocker because your views have been so well founded [sarcasm] What started as your purported effort at mature discussion and exchange of ideas has been revealed for the agenda based, arrogant ignorance of "I'm right; you're wrong" preaching thread that it is. Other than that, good thread! [sarcasm]

We are done here.

Peace, out, bro! (<--- Hey, does that mean I am black, too? Things that make you go "Hmmm?")

You state that Jenner is "coming clean" in a T.V interview, after decades of ignoring reporters question about his womanly features and random rumors. Likewise, Dolezal explains how she identifies as black in a T.V interview after her own lies were exposed. Wouldn't you say that they both have come clean?

I trust that Jenner's struggle is real. However, I will say that there are reasons to distrust Jenner based on her history, her reliance on publicity as a T.V personality, and the fact that she is part of the Kardasian family.

You are correct, where I said "condone" I meant "condemn".
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
ZenoCitium
Posts: 184
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2015 2:55:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Dolezal has merely been backpedalling after having been outed by her *ahem* actual parents.

After honestly presenting and backing my position, you have the audacity to call me a liar? (in a thinly veiled way, of course) It APPEARS that you are deliberately being a horse's arse-- the part where the poop comes out, if you don't get the reference.

I did not call you a liar. I just insinuated that you were being ignorant and asked for you to back-up your position in order to prove me otherwise; for instance by citing what you had in quotes for Dolezal. Interesting enough, instead of providing a source you chose to spout insults.

You are reduced to making emotional, ad hominem comments. That's a shocker because your views have been so well founded [sarcasm] What started as your purported effort at mature discussion and exchange of ideas has been revealed for the agenda based, arrogant ignorance of "I'm right; you're wrong" preaching thread that it is. Other than that, good thread! [sarcasm]

We are done here.

Peace, out, bro! (<--- Hey, does that mean I am black, too? Things that make you go "Hmmm?")

Intolerant to the very end, eh? I don't think I could have provided a better example for this thread on the behavior I meant to outline. For that, I can actually offer thanks.

I'll end with a quote.

"I have seen great intolerance shown in support of tolerance."
- Samuel Taylor Coleridge
Fly
Posts: 2,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2015 4:17:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
ZC, your pathetic attempt at backpedalling is noted. You DID accuse me of being deliberately dishonest, if you'll read your own writing, and that crosses a line with me-- or most anyone, for that matter. You cannot just turn around and play the innocent victim after being rightly called out on your poor behavior. You insulted me (reread that as necessary, please) and as I already pointed out, you resorted to an emotional response of a personal nature when your reasoning was evidently failing you. I am just calling you out on your immature arrogance here for what it is-- that of a horse's hindquarters. Try and turn the tables on me all you like, but there is no better testament to the truth of my words and the feebleness of yours than the recorded text in this thread. You have only yourself to blame for the unseemly demise of our discussion. Seeing how it was going for you and, it appears, your compulsion to be right, perhaps that was exactly what you wanted?

To put it gently, you are certainly not the first egotistical type here to suddenly reject civility, as you have, or lose composure when he has shown himself unable to get the upper hand in a disagreement. Nor will you be the last, I'm afraid. I will admit that there is some entertainment value to be had in watching such egos suddenly deflate, but alas, it is countered by the disappointing realization that I had overestimated the poster's maturity level.

Evidently, having your views cogently and politely challenged is not what you were seeking out, contrary to your initial claim. Better luck next time, perhaps?
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
ZenoCitium
Posts: 184
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2015 2:19:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/9/2015 4:17:51 AM, Fly wrote:
ZC, your pathetic attempt at backpedalling is noted. You DID accuse me of being deliberately dishonest, if you'll read your own writing, and that crosses a line with me-- or most anyone, for that matter. You cannot just turn around and play the innocent victim after being rightly called out on your poor behavior. You insulted me (reread that as necessary, please) and as I already pointed out, you resorted to an emotional response of a personal nature when your reasoning was evidently failing you. I am just calling you out on your immature arrogance here for what it is-- that of a horse's hindquarters. Try and turn the tables on me all you like, but there is no better testament to the truth of my words and the feebleness of yours than the recorded text in this thread. You have only yourself to blame for the unseemly demise of our discussion. Seeing how it was going for you and, it appears, your compulsion to be right, perhaps that was exactly what you wanted?

To put it gently, you are certainly not the first egotistical type here to suddenly reject civility, as you have, or lose composure when he has shown himself unable to get the upper hand in a disagreement. Nor will you be the last, I'm afraid. I will admit that there is some entertainment value to be had in watching such egos suddenly deflate, but alas, it is countered by the disappointing realization that I had overestimated the poster's maturity level.

Evidently, having your views cogently and politely challenged is not what you were seeking out, contrary to your initial claim. Better luck next time, perhaps?

I stated that it appeared that you were deliberately misrepresenting the facts. I suppose, now that I reread that, I understand where you're coming from. However, I would argue that the statement is not as direct or as rude as you put it. I presented my case regarding that claim, which included what I thought was the quote you had garbled and the correct context. Frankly, i'm surprised you took such offense. I apologize for you feeling that way, but there's no reason to retract that statement until you can provide a source for your quote regarding Dolezal.

I'm not sure why, or how, you say that I have resorted to an emotional response, or immaturity, or that I have rejected civility. You believe this because .... I insinuated you were misrepresenting the facts and asked that you cite an off-the-wall quote ... because I called you intolerant? In the last several posts, you have called me a horse's hindquarters (twice & insinuated that I was too ignorant to understand where horse fecies came from), you have called me immature, ignorant (through sarcasm), arrogant and egotistical. These personal attacks, each wave proliferating greater than the last, are the only response to unanswered questions that deserve close consideration.

If you want to return to the discussion, with an improved attitude, we can start over clean. Otherwise, perhaps we should both retire from the conversation?