So...
When a dude takes hormones and calls himself a woman, he's praised by the left for his courage. But when a white chick darkens her skin and curls her hair and calls herself black, those same people make her an object of pitiless scorn??
I've heard it explained that it's in bad taste to pose as an oppressed minority. So I guess that means females aren't considered oppressed anymore? And the years this woman has spent fighting oppression mean nothing? What the fuck does "courage" even mean at this point?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Blog Archive
-
▼
2015
(128)
-
▼
June
(13)
- The Joylessness of Mastery
- Embarrassed Hotshot/Flattered Footnote
- Why is ISIS So Brutal?
- Explaining the Epidemic of Non-Fact-Based Argument
- Flag Issue Ambivalence
- Nina Conti
- Some Things to Consider (about violence, South Car...
- Lebron's Magical Moment of Inspiration
- Caitlyn and Rachel
- The Best Marketing Advice I Ever Got
- Extremism in Academia
- Happiness in Real Time
- String Theory and Obamacare
-
▼
June
(13)
4 comments:
I think the difference there is that people who take hormones do so because they always felt like they were that sex inside and want their outer shell to reflect that. I very much doubt that this person you are talking about always felt black, whatever that even means.
It's amply clear that this, in fact, IS how she feels inside and how she wants to reflect. She's made it her entire life, her entire presentation, even her career. what reason do you have to "very much doubt it"?
As for "very much doubting" - Dolezal sued Howard University for racially discriminating against her as a white person. However, this can be played against Jenner taking full advantage of being gendered male throughout the entire time that he was an athlete and beyond (very little Title IX when he was competing).
What this will come down to is tribes. Will a tribe, be it women or African-Americans, be willing to accept people into their tribe? I encourage folks to read this op-ed from the Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/opinion/sunday/what-makes-a-woman.html?_r=0 .
I don't know about the tribal angle. I think it's simpler than that. It's about ones right to to dictate how one is perceived. If you're for that, then you should be consistent.
My thoughts are complicated. I think I'm actually NOT for that. I have the right to project the identity I please, but I'd never imagine demanding that people perceive me as I prefer to be perceived. I think that's a step too far. Some people will see Jenner as a woman, some as a guy in drag, and I think both are fine and dandy. We humans don't have the authority to dictate how we're perceived by others. We do our thing and hope to get over, but that's a call for others to make, and it seems daft and controlling to imagine otherwise.
If a man can adroitly pass for a woman, more people will accept it. Same for black or any other damned thing. Myself, I've always (seriously; I'm not being cute) felt super-handsome, yet very few people seem to accept this. I don't lash out or organize empowerment rallies to try to get people more in line with my inner self-image. There are certain things society will accept about me, and certain things it won't, and how I feel about myself can only affect my own behavior, not the judgements of other people.
People certainly seem to look at Jenner and say "woman". Fantastic! Same for Dolezal and her "blackness" over these past years. Good for them! In both cases, the only argument to be made is their right to do so. And arguing against that, IMO, is screechingly ridiculous, especially for those who so staunchly advocate for precisely that.
Post a Comment