MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

UPDATED! Don't Confuse Rachel Dolezal with Caitlyn Jenner

There's a pretty bright line between being a fraud and being trans. Unless you're a conservative pundit.

Note: I've updated this post below in response to various reactions.

So it turns out that Rachel Dolezal, president of the Spokane NAACP chapter, was born white and has been passing herself off as black. Despite getting generally positive reviews for her performance in that position, what's she been up to is a form of professional fraud. 

This isn't fraud in a legal sense, but it's still fakery and trickery designed to get certain outcomes otherwise unlikely. Which isn't to say the NAACP has a problem with it (and as her employer, its position is most important). In a story that gives a concise overview of Dolezal contentious relationship with her (white) parents, the Washington Times' Jessica Chasmar reports the rights organization is standing behind its officer.

SooperMexican.comSooperMexican.comThanks to such odd, if not downright pathological, behavior, Dolezal can't even be seen as the latest in a long line of wiggers ranging from Norman Mailer (whose 1957 essay, "The White Negro: Superficial reflections on the hipster" pretty much conceptualized the category) to Eminem (and virtually all white rappers to one degree or another) to Johnny Otis (the Greek-American rock-and-roll pioneer who explicitly chose a black identity, saying "As a kid I decided that if our society dictated that one had to be black or white, I would be black.") In this sense, Dolezal is more akin to Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who asserted without evidence (or worse still, contra evidence) that she was part Cherokee.

If progressive social activists are largely pissed at Dolezal's unmasking, conservatives are yukking it up, and for obvious reasons. Dolezal is an embarrassment and confirmation of conservatives' sense that most left-wing, liberal, or progressive race-based discourse is a form of phony special pleading, of trying to explain away relatively negative outcomes for African Americans in a country that is no longer racist and where race no longer matters. As anyone who has caught five or 10 minutes of Al Sharpton over the past 20 or so years can attest, conservatives aren't all wrong. The country is massively less racist than it was just a few decades ago and race is clearly less of a factor for good or ill than it ever has been. To argue, however, that certain systemic issues don't disproportionately affect black Americans is to wish away the drug war, criminal justice questions, dumb labor and licensing laws, and other continuing problems related to race.

But it turns out that what conservatives dig most about Dolezal is that she is a punchline regarding not racial misrepresentation but gender identity. Hence, conservative folks are using Dolezal's unmasking to yet again mock Caitlyn Jenner, the 1976 Olympic decathlon champion and reality TV star formerly known as Bruce.

"If Rachel Dolezal isn't Black, How Is Caitlyn Jenner a Woman?" asks The Federalist's Sean Davis in a representative example of the genre. Breitbart's Ben Shapiro has posted a series of tweets on the following theme:

To say that Jenner's very public coming out disturbed social conservatives is an understatement. Between the ritual unwillingness to use female pronouns in relation to Jenner to exhortations that she is clearly deranged, it's fairer to say that cons lost their shit. "A surgically damaged man appeared on the cover of Vanity Fair, and the applause is mandatory," opined National Review's David French. "If we're not going to defend as a party basic principles of male and female, that life is sacred because it comes from God, then you're going to lose the vast majority of people who've joined that party," howled Iowa talk-radio host Steve Deace. 

It probably didn't help that Jenner called herself a Republican in a widely viewed interview with Diane Sawyer and that low-wattage GOP presidential candidates Lindsay Graham and Rick Santorum have shown unexpected kindness toward the one-time world-record holder. In a great roundup of conservative responses to Jenner (from which the French and Deace quotes above are cribbed) and a keen analysis of why the antagonistic response is "ultmately a loser" for conservatives, The Economist's Will Wilkinson writes, "Caitlyn Jenner of Malibu is a leading indicator not of the secularisation of America, but of the ongoing Americanisation of Christianity."

At Outside the Beltway, Doug Mataconis argues that when conservatives equate Dolezal and Jenner, they aren't making "serious arguments, of course."

[It's just] another attempt by social conservatives to demean transgender people, a phenomenon that has been quite prevalent on that side of the political spectrum over the past two weeks. Even taking the arguments at face value, though, they don’t add up....

Rachel Dolezal didn’t "choose her race," she committed fraud by lying about her background. She can choose to adopt whatever culture she wishes, but that’s not what happened here. She lied about her background, not just to the public but apparently also on job applications. That’s fraud. The people who are trying to use this case to draw analogies to, or mostly just to make stupid, snarly comments about, the issues raised last week by the Caitlyn Jenner story, are just being obnoxious jerks.

Obnoxious jerks can have a lot of fun, but winning over large numbers of people to join their cause is typically a casualty of such mean-spirited hoo-larity.

Note: fixed some erroneous links.

Update (5.15 p.m.): So this post has generated a number of versions of the following:


I thought the difference between being a fraud and being trans was pretty self-evident, but I guess it isn't. Allow me to explain at least part of the difference. When Rachel Dolezal is asked whether she is African American or not, or whether she was born to white parents, she walks out of interviews.

Indeed, she does this below in this interview with a local TV station (around the 8.25 minute mark):

Why do you think she hits the bricks right then? It's because she has been found out and she knows it. She has been misrepresenting herself as black when in fact she was born white. Her life is built upon a lie that she knows is a lie. That also explains reactions like those of Marc Lamont Hill above. Even if she is good at her job (which she appears to be, at least according to the NAACP), Hill argues she owes it to her constituents to be clear that she wasn't born black. Perhaps more succinctly: Dolezal's crime isn't that she wants to identify as black, it's that she's denying the plain reality of her past (and doing so because to come clean would cause major problems for her).

Go back and watch the interview with Bruce Jenner (filmed before he has transitioned to Caitlyn). Social conservatives might be repulsed by the idea of a man becoming a woman (or acting as one). But Jenner isn't pretending that she was always biologically a woman, was literally born a woman, or anything like that. And unlike, say, folks such as Iron Eyes Cody—the famous "crying Indian" who was born Espera DeCorti to Italian-immigrant parents but insisted after a certain point that no, really he was a native American—there's no reason to believe Jenner will ever pretend that she was born with female genitalia.

If that example doesn't clarify the difference I'm trying to delineate, I'm not sure what will.

Still, I highly recommend social conservatives read Reason Contributing Editor Deirdre McCloskey's 1999 memoir, Crossing. The book chronicles how the University of Chicago-trained economist Donald became Deirdre (Reason published an excerpt here). Deirdre doesn't deny she was born a man (even if she felt trapped in that body); in fact, the whole goddamned book is about how she went (to crib the Reason excerpt's title) "from Donald to Deirdre." Compassionate conservativism is in bad odor given the George W. Bush appropriation of the term, but a little compassion or at least empathy might be in order. Conservatives would do well to actually try to understand the experience of people they immediately find laughable or disgusting. Especially ones like Jenner—a small-government Republican!—and McCloskey—whose widely respected books on "bourgeois virtues" articulate a powerful moral case for capitalism and self-governance.

It's easier, though, to push the line that being trans is a form of perversion, mental illness, or a crime against "nature" (good luck getting a conviction on that count). Yes, yes, I get it, you feel a need to, in Steve Deace's formulation, "defend...basic principles of male and female" because...why, exactly? Forget about the definitions of fraud and trans and focus instead on that question. What is it about trans identity that flips out conservatives? So much so that it becomes the sort of white whale that they're going to rope into other conversations that have nothing to do with the topic.

I'm not being coy here and trying to imply, a la Freud, that transphobic types are secretly attracted to that which they denounce. I really don't understand the rush to classify individuals such as Caitlyn Jenner as mentally ill or psychologically unbalanced simply because they transgress established gender norms. Just a few years ago, obviously, conservatives mostly felt the same way about gays and lesbians.

Contrary to David French in National Review, nobody is insisting everybody must "applaud" or even affirm Jenner's life choices. But if you claim that she is nuts, or a freak, or contemptible because she was born a man and would rather be a woman, well, don't expect everybody to agree with you.

And to bring it back to the closing notes of my original post, certainly don't expect people in a country who are simply less hung up about gender, sexuality, and alternative lifestyles to want to link arms with you. Knock yourselves out in making fun of trans folks, and gays, and immigrants, too. Just don't expect to swell in numbers based on your bold, courageous stances toward indivduals who might agree with you about the size and scope of government and the centrality of individual freedom and autonomy to human flourishing.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • X[redacted]s||

    Obnoxious jerks can have a lot of fun

    Hey! Is that a dig against the commentariat?

  • WTF||

    Of course.

  • ||

    How is "lying about your race on an application for loans/employment/etc wherein race is a factor in the decision process" not a legal issue"?

  • Sevo||

    Ask Fauxcohantus.

  • Chip Woodson||

    After watching all the prog racial fakes shoot to the top cashing in on their fake racial creds just imagine how far I could go as a real life Mestizo. That's right, I'm like 2% Amerindian. And 2% is like a billion zillion times more than 0%. Should be more than enough to qualify me as supreme emperor of the entire Progiverse.

  • Duelles||

    Heck I can prove that I am 2.7% neanderthal. But then I have been seen to be a knuckle dragging guy for years.

  • Suicidy||

    Check your neanderthal privilege!

  • Riven||

    No questions!

  • Crusty Juggler||

    It is easy when you do not recognize skin color.

  • Zeb||

    Is there a legal definition of race? Unless "black" has a specific, consistent legal meaning, I don't see how you could prove in court that someone isn't black. There are plenty of people who undoubtedly have African ancestry who look pretty white and may come from families that have passed as white for generations.

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    The one drop theory?

    You have some coffee in your milk.

  • X[redacted]s||

    You know who else believed in the one drop theory?

  • DEATFBIRSECIA||

    Skrillex?

  • DoubleC||

    +100

  • Jimbo||

    Professor Weirdo?

  • bacon-magic||

    Timothy Leary?

  • Jimbo||

    Is that a drop "in" or a "drop out?"

  • John Galt||

    Rupert?

  • Paul.||

    It must have. Otherwise there isn't a government program in the world that targets people of specific ethnic backgrounds that would hold up to scrutiny.

  • All-Seeing Woodchipper||

    Well played, sir.

  • Zeb||

    It seems like some people must have lied about their race on, say, a college application and got in without anyone catching on. So what happens when those people show up looking all white? There has to be some example out there.

  • lafe.long||

    Well, there was Vijay Chokal-Ingam (Mindy Kaling's brother)...

  • Vapourwear||

    Dude, you just made me snarf, yo.

  • John Thacker||

    Depends. If it's Native American or Hispanic, it's pretty easy to get away with.

  • Careless||

    Had a Chinese friend who put "Hispanic" on her college applications because she had lived in Peru. Never heard anything about it.

  • SoCal Soccar Mom||

    I really, really wish I had done this. Both my parents are whiter than white, but I was born in Spain. I really should have put Hispanic on all my college apps. Fuck! Regretting being honest. Considering I got into a pretty good school, I probably could have gone ivy 25 years ago... and had it paid for.

  • rocks||

    I was born in Venezuela, never checked the H box on any application in my life. Am also mostly Sicilian and we are much darker than most Hispanics. Got into top 10 schools, but not the very top.

    My youngest child will start kindergarten in a couple of years. I'm already telling my wife we should check the H box. Their dad is Venezuelan by birth and darker than most Mexicans. Its becoming a game at this point and those that don't play it are at a disadvantage.

    Makes me sick to suggest this, but no one wants their kids to start off at an unfair disadvantage.

  • R C Woodchipper||

    Do it, rocks. Its all a fraud anyway, so why not?

    To this day, I wonder if I shouldn't have presented as Hispanic (1/4 by blood, parents from Albuquerque, grandmother from Anton Chico) when applying for law professorships. If I had, I'm pretty sure I'd be a law professor today.

  • Issue Ninja||

    I think there are droves of people who have been denied membership in Native American tribes because they were faking or didn't have enough of the blood.

    There is a lot of motivation for it. One of my best friends gets several hundreds of dollars a month for being part Potowatami or some Eastern tribe that hasn't really existed since the 18th Century. She looks whiter than me and I look pretty white.

  • R C Woodchipper||

    So what happens when those people show up looking all white? There has to be some example out there.

    Well, you couldn't possibly look any whiter than Elizabeth Warren, and she got tenure as Harvard Law's sole American Indian professor.

  • retiredfire||

    Some things are NEVER subjected to scrutiny.
    Because...civil rights (political-speak for "we don't want any more race riots").

  • Arthur45||

    Don't be such a jerk

  • Michael Price||

    Well self-identified race/ethnicity correlated better than 99% with certain genetic clusters.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm.....MC1196372/
    So if it isn't legally defined it could be.

  • ant1sthenes||

    She wasn't lying. Race is a social construct, like gender, so as long as she sincerely identifies as black, she's black. The fact that it's a social construct attached to a physical reality can be handwaved away.

    Nick is just whining, because this woman made the SJW victim-of-the-month book club crusade (trans-women, this month, now that Christian bakeries are boring) look as stupid as it is.

  • ||

    She lied about having black children. If I read it correctly she received tuition assistance for minorities and is currently teaching African Studies at Eastern Washington U.

    "She also serves as chairwoman of the city’s Office of Police Ombudsman Commission, where she identified herself as white, black and American Indian in her application for the volunteer appointment..Meanwhile, an inquiry is being opened at Spokane City Hall, where Dolezal identified herself in her application to the Office of Police Ombudsman Commission as having several ethnic origins, including white, black and American Indian.

    “We are gathering facts to determine if any city policies related to volunteer boards and commissions have been violated,” Mayor David Condon and Council President Ben Stuckart said in a joint statement. “That information will be reviewed by the City Council, which has oversight of city boards and commissions.”


    Stuckart said the council will meet soon to discuss the developments and that he didn’t want to speak for the group until then. “But if this is true I’ll be very disappointed,” he said Thursday morning."

    Credibility of local NAACP leader Rachel Dolezal questioned

    I think this is ALREADY a legal issue.

  • All-Seeing Woodchipper||

    Did she? The marriage photo I saw of her and her black husband had several black children in it who I assumed were her step-children. Did she specifically say that she GAVE BIRTH to black children?

  • ||

    She used pictures of her adopted siblings on FB and passed them off as her CHILDREN.

    Chick is messed up.

  • blcartwright||

    I'm not disputing that she may be messed up.

    However, if a guy wants to call himself a woman and says he's sincere about it, we're called bigots if we deny him access to the women's restroom or locker room or showers.

    This woman sincerely thinks she's black and wants to be a contributing member of the NAACP, and the SJW's call her a fraud.

    It seems like their clubs need to stay exclusive.

  • blcartwright||

    I think if they hired her BECAUSE of what she put down for her race that should be against some law.

  • Darr247||

    Except it was for a VOLUNTEER 'committee' to address citizen complaints (I've never heard of anyone being "hired" for a volunteer position).

    In reference to tweets I've seen accusing her of taking up positions that "are designed for BW" - anyone who thinks NAACP officer positions should be designated as only for black people should re-examine their definition of racist.

  • Migrant Log Chipper||

    The postion at EWU is not a volunteer position and there is at least some possibility that she got a position in an African Studies department by misrepresenting the fact that she is not, in fact, African American.

  • Suicidy||

    Reminds of the old C. Thomas Howell 80's film 'Soul Man'.

  • VirginiaPlain||

    Agreed.

  • JRS1001||

    Actually, its not. It is a physical construct. What you are saying is that because my dogs grew up entirely around humans that they are human as well. This is of course, absolutely absurd.
    Moron liberals are always trying to blur the lines on everything because they want to control the definition to their advantage. This is evidenced by their belief in a living Constitution which means that the Constitution means what they want it to mean at any given moment regardless of the actual wording

    Jenner is a transvestite NOT a woman.
    Dolezal is a fraud and a liar and NOT BLACK.
    get it - we are what we are and not who we want to be

  • retiredfire||

    Jenner went to the extreme of attempting to alter what nature created, through plastic surgery and hormonal treatments.
    That makes him as mentally ill as the "transabled" who cut off their limbs.
    He needs treatment, not pandering.
    Dolezal didn't do anything to alter herself to become black and she seems to avoid the direct question of if she is.
    I've seen many people "suddenly discover" an ancestry that would advance their careers, she is no different. If it doesn't require proof, who's to say its wrong?
    I recall taking a civil service - police - test where it had been announced that there would be a goal of hiring some homosexuals. Though there was no box to check, it was announced that nine of the successful applicants were homosexuals.
    My question was: how do they know and would there be some kind of test to prove the designation? What if someone went in acting effeminate but was as straight as an arrow?

  • Carolynp||

    If race is merely an individual decision, white privilege is bullshit, right? You can't have it both ways. Either the external is important, and this woman is clearly white, or the external is unimportant and this woman has taken unfair advantage of her white privilege.

  • Bluwater||

    This is true! Race and gender apparently have nothing to do with genetics anymore and is now about feelings.

    The funny part is that progs were aghast at this for about the first 4-5 hours, until talking points came out. Now they are defending this. However, had this lady been a conservative, they would have been wetting themselves to be in line to pronounce how this is so typical of conservatives who have to resort to fraud and will climb to success on the backs of blacks, even taking their rightful place in spots reserved for them. No doubt Loretta Lunch would have dispatched a team to look into this by now to see if there was a hate crime involved.

    But you can't convict one of your own tribe, even for social crimes that would call for a public lynching of someone else.

  • Almanian - Woodchipper||

    "Caitlyn Jenner of Malibu is a leading indicator not of the secularisation of America, but of the ongoing Americanisation of Christianity."

    WHAT??!! No, seriously - what. the. fuck. does that even....mean?

    Ima just enjoy the derp. Can't some of us just enjoy the derp, without all the other baggage? Thanks.

    PS I got two words for this faker - wood chipper

  • SIV||

    The easiest way for Nick to phone in epic cosmo-derp is quoting Will Wilkinson.

  • Harvard||

    "Dolezal can't even be seen as the latest in a long line of wiggers ranging from ..."

    You see what he did there?

    Next he'll comment about consigning worthy candidates to cellulose dicers.

  • The Elite Elite||

    Yeah, I did a double-take at that quote too. Sounds like some stupid garbage that should be put through a woodchipper, feet first.

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    So, making false accusations of hate crimes is being a good officer in the NAACP?

  • Princess Trigger||

    That's pretty much a requirement.

  • Florida Man||

    How could I confuse them? Ones black and ones white. Duh, nick.

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    Is that the only thing that stands out at you?

  • Florida Man||

    Everything else is the same, including the fact that I'd do both of them.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Samesies.

  • dinkster||

    I like the cut off your jib.

  • dinkster||

    OF too

  • Lord at War||

    Apparently, even Bruce hasn't cut off his jib yet....

  • Restor-woodchipper-as||

    Which one has the better rack?

  • SimonJester||

    Well, they could both probably beat the snot outta FM.

  • Florida Man||

    Caitlyn, definitely. Rachael, even money.

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    You have to assume that she has crazy on her side.

  • Florida Man||

    Fine, 2:1. Leave me some dignity man.

  • ||

    A Florida man with dignity ?

    Doesn't that go against the stereotype ?

  • Florida Man||

    Its our pride that's gets us into so many shenanigans.

    Redneck: "You can't pull that gator out that pond."
    FM: "The hell I can't. Watch this!"

  • Entropy Drehmaschine Void||

    Ya forgot: "Hold my beer!"

  • Michael Price||

    Pride and dignity are two different things.

  • ||

    This argument got more and more retarded as I kept seeing it today but they think they are being so so clever.

  • ||

    How could Nick miss the chance to name-drop Dee Dee Ramone?

  • John Thacker||

    She can choose to adopt whatever culture she wishes, but that’s not what happened here. She lied about her background, not just to the public but apparently also on job applications. That’s fraud.

    So if someone is a transgender person who lies about his or her background, that's a massive problem and fraud? Hmm, I'm surprised that people would endorse that.

  • John Thacker||

    I guess it would be in the case of, say, participating in female sports maybe, particularly for pre-op transgender? I could see that still being a big problem and a fraud, even though Fallon Fox is accepted in MMA today more or less.

  • Lady Bertrum||

    I'd say it's similar to gays who use beards to deceive without the knowledge and consent of the beard.

    They're just liars. The fraud part is when you misidentify your gender/race to gain access to advantages - like scholarships and jobs.

    Of course the solutions would be to not hand out advantages based upon gender/race.

  • John Thacker||

    Although I do find it relatively easy to sympathize with people when they live in a community or time where it's difficult to be honest.

    Speaking of fraud, I do know a white girl who was white as can be who got a Hispanic scholarship because her mother had been born in Cuba to missionaries.

  • Zeb||

    A (very white) girl I went to college with changed her name to something Spanish (I think it was actually a name from somewhere in her family) to improve her admissions prospects.

  • ||

    I knew a rich white girl, friend of a friend, who claimed to be Native American because she found out that they don't check, as a lot of legitimate Native Americans can't produce paperwork to prove it.

    She knew full well she had not a drop of Native American blood, and her family could have afforded any university she cared to go to. She spent much time bragging to us about how clever this was that she saved so much money on tuition and encouraged us to take advantage of the same program, since, to use her phrase, "they can't prove you're not!"

    I think she may be in Congress now.

  • blcartwright||

    so was she gaming the system or did she sincerely believe she was Native American. If that's what she really believed, who are we to question?

  • Carolynp||

    We are the people who have been told that affirmative action quotas are important because they make up for disadvantages inherent because of skin color. They cost us money as tax payers and assure the most competent will not end up with the best advantages. So, yes, we have every right to question color based quotas going to people with no inherent disadvantage.

  • John Thacker||

    There are definitely transgender advocates who get really mad at people who no longer want to date someone because she lied about being trans.

    I certainly understand the anger there, but I'm not sure that all the people calling our racial passer a "fraud" would agree that the term applies there.

    Partially it's because racial passing is easier than being transgender, so there's less commitment involved. However, I suspect that a lot of it is a sort of "I can judge sincerity" thing that's very similar to, oh, how the RFRA works for considering "sincere religious practice."

    Therefore, if we're judging sincerity, then Reason ought to take back all the nice things about various fake churches trying to get around zoning rules.

  • All-Seeing Woodchipper||

    However, I suspect that a lot of it is a sort of "I can judge sincerity" thing that's very similar to, oh, how the RFRA works for considering "sincere religious practice."

    Spot on, I think.

  • Fluffy||

    I certainly understand the anger there

    Huh whah?

    Hold your horses there.

    Let's get something straight:

    These are not women.

    They are profoundly mentally damaged people who are receiving a mental health treatment designed to try to ameliorate the suffering associated with their disorder. They have repeatedly argued as much in order to force insurance companies and prison health care systems to pay for gender reassignment surgery. We are entitled to take them at their word. In addition, it's motherfucking obvious.

    We are supposed to play along and treat them like they are women as a polite accomodation for their disorder, the way we would step out of the way of a blind person or not take a handicapped parking space away from a person with wheelchair plates. Using their preferred pronoun is about politely indulging their illness, and not about reality.

    Before the surgery and after the surgery, they are not women.

    This means that if you're in the market to date women, it is perfectly square to tell trans women to go pound sand.

  • Tony||

    Yeah maybe you holdouts will win this one. There's always a first time.

  • Fluffy||

    Since the standard you fucking prog scum have adopted is that it's not over until every last person uses whatever fucking pronoun you made up this week, you will never win. Because I will never change my behavior on this score, and as soon as the Google life extension people get their shit in order I'm going to live forever, so...

    These are not women until they can be genetically changed from the molecular level up. A guy who gets his dick blown off in a minefield isn't suddenly a woman. You can't turn a cat into a dog with fur grafts and a tail transplant.

    No matter how many of you repeat over and over "Caitlyn Jenner is a legitimate woman, in exactly the same sense as any other woman," you can't make it so. Your wishes in this matter are irrelevant. You can take over the language with enough effort, but that will just make us a civilization with a language that falsely expresses certain concepts.

  • Fluffy||

    By the way, the Standards of Care for the Health of Transsexual, Transgender, and Gender-Nonconforming People, Version 7, put out by the International Journal of Transgenderism, defines the issue thusly:

    Gender dysphoria refers to discomfort or distress that is caused by a discrepancy between a person’s gender identity and that person’s sex assigned at birth (and the associated gender role and/or primary and secondary sex characteristics) (Fisk, 1974; Knudson, De Cuypere, & Bockting, 2010b). Only some gender-nonconforming people experience gender dysphoria at some point in their lives. Treatment is available to assist people with such distress to explore their gender identity and find a gender role that is comfortable for them.

    Although they go through the political motions of bending over backwards to deny that this is a pathology, it is abundantly clear that what is being done here is supportive treatment to help people negatively impacted by a dysphoria. That makes it unambiguously a mental health treatment. Sorry.

    You can't simultaneously demand supportive treatment and then deny that you're demanding supportive treatment. So fuck you.

  • Fluffy||

    BTW, good luck with that whole "In our glorious progressive future, no one will consider it worthy of any thought if they discover that the person they are dating wasn't born a woman."

    Yup, that's right on the horizon.

    If Kurzweillian level transhumanism comes about...maybe then. But I think we'll have all sorts of other issues in the mix once we have that kind of transformative power at our disposal.

  • Tony||

    The disorder is dysphoria, i.e., the negative effects on transgender people as a result of their not being able to actualize their felt gender. They may attempt to correct the disorder by adopting physical traits associated with their preferred gender.

  • John Thacker||

    Tony:

    Yes, dysphoria. Though there's absolutely nothing to say that racial dysphoria could not be recognized at some point in the future. Mental health issues go through waves of popularity and recognition both among the broader public and among mental health professionals.

    A transwoman lying about origin to a partner is one thing. Lying to an employer or co-workers, as with Rachel Dolezal? I'm not sure I'd be willing to condemn that as fraud.

  • Paul.||

    BTW, good luck with that whole "In our glorious progressive future, no one will consider it worthy of any thought if they discover that the person they are dating wasn't born a woman."

    We know that'll never happen because to be continuously aware of identity is to be progressive. You're saying it really well, we can't call things a 'social construct' and then angrily demand everyone conform to the social construct by indignantly demanding we say "her" when referring to Mx. Jenner.

    In the end, I really don't care, but as I commented elsewhere in this thread, this may be the beginning of progressives undoing their own Identity Politics Industry.

    Because who knows, I might start a business and identify it as "woman owned". After all, "being a women business owner actually has many advantages. Most public corporations as well as local, state, and federal government purchasing agencies have programs for allotting a certain percentage of business to women-owned companies."

  • Eric||

    Well put Fluffy. Until they can find a way to genetically modify an XY chromosome into a functional XX (or vice versa) , these people are still the sex they started out as.

  • ||

    Fluffy Eric,

    Personally I'm fine with calling Jenner a "woman" out of politeness. What's unreasonable is the idea that biological women and trans-women should be treated identically to potential mates, and that anything less is some sort of horrible bigotry.

    I mean, just to start with, transwomen are infertile. So right off the bat, you have tihs massive thing that ought to be disclosed at the start of any relationship. "By the way, I can't have babies, because I used to be a man. "

    Telling one's sex partners what you are is basic politeness. Just like calling transwomen "women".

  • SoCal Soccar Mom||

    "start with, transwomen are infertile"

    You gotta know someone, somewhere is working on transplanting ovaries and uterus into a transgender female. It's going to be a fun day on the interwebs when that hits the blogospere.

  • DarrenM||

    ". . . that person’s sex assigned at birth . . ."

    WTF? Since when is sex "assigned" at birth? Most every mother today (at least in developed countries) has been able to know what sex their baby was long before it was born.

  • Careless||

    I don't know what the exact success rate of that is, but it's not that high

  • retiredfire||

    "Since when is sex "assigned" at birth?"
    On VERY RARE occasions, the external sexual characteristics are not clear and there needs to be a decision made on the birth certificate.
    But, as I said, it is VERY RARE, and hardly something to base an entire pathology around.

  • blcartwright||

    "a person's sex assigned at birth"

    isn't that gender assigned at conception, based on dna & chromosones?

  • Jay Dubya||

    I like how you failed to comprehend your own quote, fluffy:

    "Only some gender-nonconforming people experience gender dysphoria at some point in their lives."

    btw fluffy is a weird choice of handle to use for your online gay bashing. just sayin.

  • Migrant Log Chipper||

    Nobody is gay bashing , Jay, just saying that Feelz doesn't trump biology. Personally, I don't care what anybody does, but waving your hands and pretending biology doesn't matter is delusional.

  • The Chipper Was One of Danger||

    Who is gay, here, exactly?

  • PM||

    Haven't gay and transgender activists gone to great pains for the last 30 years to stress that being gay and being transgender is not the same thing?

    It is, unquestionably, very difficult to keep straight (ha!) the latest SJW talking points, but if you're going to play the game you should probably at least brush up on the latest developments.

  • Rt. Hon. Judge Woodrow Chipper||

    You can't turn a cat into a dog with fur grafts and a tail transplant.

    Terriers make lovely fish. I mean I could do that for you straight away. Legs off, fins on, stick a little pipe through the back of its neck so it can breathe, bit of gold paint, make good ...

  • ||

    Seriously Tony, a man or woman is entitled to know if the person they are dating is trans or not, for lots of basic reasons. And a trans person should be totally fine with some people not being comfortable with dating them. No decent relationship can be based on lies or coercion or guilt.

  • John Thacker||

    Hazel:

    Right, which is why the fairer comparison to Rachel Dolezal is, say, a transwoman who got married to a heterosexual guy without revealing her birth sex to her husband (which happens). Or perhaps cases involving women's sports-- Fallon Fox is post-op but definitely comes under a lot of scrutiny. If she hid that, I think many people would be upset if it came out.

  • John Thacker||

    Actually, I'm not sure that Rachel is as bad as a transwoman lying to a partner. Maybe she's more similar to a transwoman lying to an employer, or as a politician a transwoman lying to voters?

    I just don't completely get this huge jumping up and down to call it fraud.

  • ||

    It's only fraud if her employer didn't know about it and was specifically seeking an African American.

    I think it's more like a trans-woman attempting to join a sorority and lying about being trans. You can argue a sorority ought to accept a trans-woman, but it's the sort of thing that would make enough other members uncomfortable that you ought to be upfront about it.

  • Migrant Log Chipper||

    Exactly, Hazel. If she got her instructor position in an African Studies department of a university by passing herself off as African American, I'd guess her odds of obtaining that position would be far lower if she had not lied. That certainly is fraudulent by any measure.

  • Carolynp||

    And, how in the world can she write a book about a black woman's life? That's an unauthorized autobiography....

  • Tony||

    I absolutely agree that people shouldn't lie about whether they are trans in the dating scene.

  • John Galt||

    Yeah, maybe the orderlies at your asylum will take away your computer privileges if you keep bothering the nice sane people.

  • Citytrekker||

    Because racism is non existent. And thug just means thug and not nigger. And because we will never draw Mohammed. Yes *everyone* will watch the new exciting adventurous of the transgendered in a new TV show next year...and love it. Another win for the progressives!

  • Marshall Gill||

    who are receiving a mental health treatment designed to try to ameliorate the suffering associated with their disorder.

    You personally don't believe this load, do you? Isn't it more like plastic surgeons treating the mentally ill? The way to deal with alcoholism is to provide someone with a personal bar and chauffeur to "ameliorate the suffering"? Pizza's delivered on the half hour as treatment for those who are morbidly obese? You have a disorder so the way to treat you is to medically alter your body so that you can never give it up or get over it?

    "Doc, I have this problem. I feel like I should have been born with only one leg, and I really believe this to be true."
    "The best thing to do to deal with your problem is to amputate one of your legs to "ameliorate your suffering"? The fuck?

  • Suellington||

  • Marshall Gill||

    That is a thing, you know.

    I was aware. The "doctor" who does this sort of thing is evil. As I say above, if you think that you have an appendage that you shouldn't, you need to see a psychiatrist, not a plastic surgeon.

    The irony of this grotesquery is that someone who sees themselves as an amputee can actually achieve the goal of their neurosis where someone who sees themselves as the opposite sex can not.

  • SoCal Soccar Mom||

    The leg thing happens, although, not always a leg. People who want to cut off a body part generally aren't offered amputations, they are treated for their mental illness.

  • DoubleC||

    I have absolutely nothing against transgender people. Do whatever you want to do with your life. But to say a man is an asshole for not wanting to have sex with one is absurd. It's not a real vagina, it's a penis turned inside out that can't get wet. I think very few men would be interested in having sex with a transgender. And lots continue to have relationships with women anyway.

  • Remnant Psyche||

    There are definitely transgender advocates who get really mad at people who no longer want to date someone because she lied about being trans.

    I certainly understand the anger there,

    Wait a second. Why is that anger understandable?

    Relationships are about trust. If you enter one being completely dishonest about who you fundamentally are, that's pretty egregious.

    That's aside from the fact that trans women are not physically the same as biological women. They may feel they are, but they aren't.

    If we could just tell everyone to "man up" and date trans-people when they feel disgust at the idea, we could tell homosexuals to try really hard to want to be straight. Who and what you personally find attractive is not up for a popularity vote.

    I can understand the concept of being trans and being frustrated that others don't value you only for who you are internally, but that's a childish, unrealistic mindset. Everybody cares about the physical. Trans people, like everyone else, have to come to terms with the reality of who and what they are. And they have to understand they have no control over how others feel about that, and they have no right for others to feel a certain way about them. This is just a part of being an adult.

  • Mike M.||

    If anything, sex is far MORE biological and less cultural than race is.

    Rachel Dolezal isn't like Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner; she's far more like Obama, who can pretend that he's a 100% black victim of an evil society instead of a half-black/half-white citizen of a great country who grew up privileged and got far luckier than he ever deserved to be.

  • ||

    Sex =/= gender. And you can even think that gender is mostly biological while still accepting transgenders because your 23rd chromosome pair isn't the only thing that makes up your biology.

  • John Thacker||

    You can also think that gender roles are mostly a social construct while not particularly accepting transgender people because you think that they reinforce gender binaries and gender roles, as with certain categories of feminists (but less influential these days.)

  • Woodchipper Society||

    You can also think that gender roles are mostly a social construct while not particularly accepting transgender people because you think that they reinforce gender binaries and gender roles, as with certain categories of feminists (but less influential these days.)

    How long did they keep the doors locked after you accidentally stumbled into a Women's Studies class? And how can we fix the damage?

  • ||

    This. I think a lot of "transgender" people would be happier if they just decided to "be themselves" and discard traditional gender stereotypes entirely.
    A lot of transgenders tend to be rather absurdly hyper-stereotypical in the way they act dress in the manner that people of the opposite sex are "expected" to behave. This definitely conveys the impression that they are suffering from a mental disorder and not some sort of natural transgenderedness.

  • SimonJester||

    A (not-so) wise man once said "If you see a turtle on a fence post, you can be pretty sure it didn't get there alone."

  • BuSab Agent||

    Actually I know this is false. And my vet--a herpetologist who does house calls! I wish vets could treat humans-- has actually witnessed it too! Turns out Southwestern box turtle are fantabulous climbers--long claws and immensely powerful legs. My daughter's turtle used to climb the side of her cage (an old iguana cage about 8'X4'X6') and fall off near the top--we eventually had to get a different cage because we were worried she'd break her shell on the bottom from one of her falls. The vet was over to trim her beak and when he went to get her out of the cage, there she was clinging to the cage at about eye level. He said, "Damn, you have an arboreal box turtle!".

  • X[redacted]s||

  • SimonJester||

    Your ruin a perfectly good story. :-P

  • BuSab Agent||

    Dude, I'm an Agent of the Bureau of SABOTAGE. It's my job. ;)

  • Azathoth!!||

    I.L.R.T.

  • Marshall Gill||

    Is your nick in relation to the fantastic books by Herbert or is it a reference to your sex?

  • BuSab Agent||

    Herbert books. I used to have a link to the Wikipage on the books. But the link kept confusing the server squirrels so I dropped it. I think as long as we have a government we ardently need a Bureau of Sabotage.

  • BuSab Agent||

    In Herbert's fiction, government becomes terrifyingly efficient. Red tape no longer exists: laws are conceived of, passed, funded, and executed within hours, rather than months. The bureaucratic machinery becomes a juggernaut, rolling over human concerns and welfare with terrible speed, threatening to destroy everything in a fit of spastic reactions.

    First a corps, then a bureau, BuSab gained legally recognized powers to interfere in the workings of any world, of any species, of any government or corporation, answerable only to themselves. Their motto is, "In Lieu of Red Tape."
    Forbidden from committing acts of sabotage against private citizens, BuSab acts as a monitor of, and a conscience for, the collective sentiency, watching for signs of anti-sentient behavior by corporate or government entities and preserving the dignity of individuals. Some essential functions of government are immune from BuSab by statute.

    BuSab monitors even itself and employs sabotage to prevent the agency from slipping into hidebound stasis. Agents are promoted to the head of the organization by successfully sabotaging the Secretary. By the same token, there is no term limit imposed on the Secretary of the Bureau of Sabotage. As long as he is alert enough to avoid being sabotaged, he remains qualified to lead BuSab.

  • Marshall Gill||

    You didn't even take the bait on the sex part.

    I think that the only real tweaking to the original Constitution is the creation of an actual fourth branch, which would be something similar to BuSab. A branch who's only goal was to repeal laws. If they did not repeal numerous laws they "wouldn't be doing anything". If they actually repealed a good or necessary law (yeah I know) then the government could just pass it again. Imagine Obamacare passing Congress twice.

    The part about the Gowachin Lawyers dying if they "won" a case, basically a death sentence for creating precedent, was also teh awesome.

    I made my 13 year old son read those books. I then told him that I was the predator that would make him strong. He still doesn't get that part and just thinks I am a dick, which is also true.

  • Homple||

    " My daughter's turtle used to climb the side of her cage..."

    Your daughter's cage or the turtle's?

  • BuSab Agent||

    Yes. The cage was actually big enough to house her if she (girl) wanted. And my daughter owned the cage, so it was both.

  • BuSab Agent||

    Also the turtle is a female. Turtle sex is REALLY funky. Hmm off to the you tubes to find a link.

  • BuSab Agent||

    Link It's a different species of box turtle than my daughter's but the mechanics are the same. The poor male has to basically do a safe-cracking job to get his dick in there.

  • John Thacker||

    Yeah, Timothy the Turtle being one example. Royal Navy couldn't figure out that she was female until they had her for 60 or 70 years. (Perhaps says something about the Royal Navy?)

  • BuSab Agent||

    Well everything is inside the box until the "magic moment", so you need an expert to look at the shell joints on the bottom shell to figure out the gender.

  • SimonJester||

    A (not-so) wise man once said "If you see a turtle on a fence post, you can be pretty sure it didn't get there alone."

  • Woodchipper Society||

    Human beings in general, regardless of ethnicity are divided into two sexes. That a person may be born with some sort of disorder where the mind and body are not in sync about sex, is almost certainly more biological than cultural or psychological. Important for this analogy, is that we can't imagine a world without two sexes unless humans aren't humans.

    If transracial is just as valid as transgender (or whatever the nomenclature is now), then in a world where Dolezal had never seen a black person would it make sense for her to have the same sort desire to become a black person? If she were blind and no one ever told her what they looked like, would she still feel a deep yearning for a spray tan and an awful perm?

    Dolezal is just a progressive in black face. She knows that being a supposedly oppressed minority is a highly valuable currency in leftist circles.

  • ant1sthenes||

    I'm not disputing that transgender can be genetic or epigenetic in origin whereas transracial is purely environmental (and social environmental at that). But so what? Does a mental disorder has to be purely neurological in origin to be legitimate?

    I mean, no one is born knowing about geography or political systems, so if some nutbag truly believes he's the king of Spain, you're saying he's just being a dick to people for reasons unknown? Not okay. He's transclass, and the appropriate thing to do is to address him by the title associated with the identity he has adopted -- either "Your grace" or "Your majesty" should be acceptable. "My Lord" should really only be used if you identify as a subject of the Spanish crown.

  • Ballz in chipper||

    ^ hahahahahahahahaha - great!

  • BuSab Agent||

    Hey, it worked for Emperor Norton.

  • ||

    "I'm not disputing that transgender can be genetic or epigenetic in origin whereas transracial is purely environmental (and social environmental at that). But so what? Does a mental disorder has to be purely neurological in origin to be legitimate?"

    I really don't understand this. Can you please explain how you came to determine a characteristic with a biologic cause could be defined as a mental disorder? Are you equating transgenderism to Down's Syndrome for instance?

  • Remnant Psyche||

    And she's likely suffering from one or more mental illnesses.

  • Zeb||

    If anything, sex is far MORE biological and less cultural than race is.

    I don't think there is any doubt this is true.

    As for Obama, he's a white guy who happens to have had a black father.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    I am putting my Bo hat on here (a light grey trilby) and saying that SoCons are awful.

    Also, you are all SoCons.

  • ||

    Has Bo been around? I thought Tulpa abandoned that character.

  • Restor-woodchipper-as||

    Have any of those socks been around at all recently?

  • Crusty Juggler||

    My theory: one of his/their socks left some of the comments the DOJ found interesting.

  • ||

    It's possible. Tulpa certainly hates us and he's threatened to rat us out before. And don't forget how proud he was of his bullshit story about calling the state AG on the jihadimart for selling Jew Coke.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    He/they/them have disappeared, though. I do find that interesting. Or, maybe he/they/them masturbated themselves into a coma after 701 happened.

  • Lady Bertrum||

    Is Buttplug Tulpa? Because I saw a BP post maybe yesterday or the day before. Only one, though.

  • Zeb||

    Who knows. There are many competing theories. I tend to think buttplug is an actual crazy person.

  • ||

    I think Buttplug is a lone voice. Tony, too, despite widespread theories to the contrary.

    They have all been mysteriously quiet, though. . .

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Hence a wank coma.

  • X[redacted]s||

    Tony appeared yesterday and typed some incoherent things into this here Internet-machine site. It may have been someone spoofing him, though. The real Tony is in earnest, i think.

    Buttplug/shriek is a legit crazy person who's been farting up H&R for close to a decade now.

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    It was very out of character. But the handle was correct.

  • ||

    Tony's dumped a couple of half-assed comments just this afternoon, actually, but they're pretty low-grade stuff (even for him). He must be busy elsewhere.

  • ||

    Buttplug/shriek is a legit crazy person who's been farting up H&R for close to a decade now.

    Tulpa is a legit crazy person who's been farting up H&R for close to a decade now. Under a ton of acknowledged handles and at least one socks that he accidentally outed himself as. I'm not saying, I'm just saying.

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    What are you saying?

  • ||

  • SoCal Soccar Mom||

    Isn't Bo in law school? Finals and then studying for the bar?

  • R C Woodchipper||

    Bo has told many lies. So, even though he has claimed to be a recently graduated law student, I see no reason to believe him.

  • Florida Man||

    Damn, outed again.

  • SusanM||

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    In a story that gives a concise overview of Dolezal contentious relationship with her (white) parents,

    So basically, her trans-racialism boils down to the standard progressive trope--"FUCK YOU, DAD!"

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    What's so pathetic about this little media shitstorm is that a mere 7 years ago, Robert Downey, Jr. played this same sort of character and it was shown as a joke--a grotesque eccentricity that most people accepted for the absurd satire that it was (that his character became the butt of several jokes by the closeted black man likely helped in this regard). Now we're actually traversing into territory that reflects nothing more than narcissistic nihilism, if it means that there's even the slightest chance that there's social status to be gained, either in the media or in the selected peer group (such as the wife of my old professor buddy who thought she "might be a lesbian," before ultimately deciding, "Hey, I guess I really do like dicks after all, so this marriage doesn't have to end!").

  • Crusty Juggler||

    "Took a whole lotta tryin' just to get up that hill. Now we're up in the big leagues, gettin' our turn at bat. As long as we live, it's you and me, baby."

  • DoubleC||

    A lot of SJWs are children of conservative parents rebelling against The Man because it pisses of daddy.

  • John Thacker||

    Messed up the link to Doug Mataconis at OTB, as you linked to the Economist a second time.

  • GILMORE, Clownish Brat||

    "it's fairer to say that cons lost their shit. =

    "A surgically damaged man appeared on the cover of Vanity Fair, and the applause is mandatory,"

    I'm not the slightest bit 'socially conservative', and i see no problem in what the 'cons' are saying.

    Tolerance does not require 'approval'.

  • SIV||

    ^Yokeltarian^

  • GILMORE, Clownish Brat||

    Is that what it means? The definition seems to keep changing.

  • Zeb||

    I have a bit of a problem with it because they are being assholes. They are doing more than just tolerating but not approving of Jenner's transition. They are calling him a liar.

    Tolerance is a fine goal and no one is obliged to do anything more. But I think courtesy and acceptance are good too. I don't think anyone needs to celebrate or approve of it, but to deny that transgenderism is a real thing that is more than just playing dress-up is kind of silly at this point.

  • GILMORE, Clownish Brat||

    " to deny that transgenderism is a real thing that is more than just playing dress-up is kind of silly at this point."

    I was referring to the specific quote, re: "Applause is Mandatory"

    The sentiment expressed there was not, IMO, anyone "losing their shit".

    It may be that subsequent examples of SoCon exasperation were worse... but I don't think whether or not they "approve" or not is particularly interesting.

    I don't agree with the crazy shit the Black Israelites in Times Square say either. And I similarly don't feel any need to 'condemn' their opinions to make sure everyone knows I'm one of the 'good guys'.

    My lack of condemnation isn't passive-agreement.

    SoCons gonna SoCon. So what?

    Are we going to see a similar piece about how Salon says idiotic hysterical stuff too? because that could be a daily column.

    I just think this "OMG someone has a NOT OKAY ATTITUDE?!"-kind of story is a non-story.

  • Zeb||

    Missed the specific quote there, sorry.

    I'm not going to go try to change the minds of SoCons, but it takes very little time out of my day to point out when they are being assholes.

  • All-Seeing Woodchipper||

    Uh, I have no problem at all with Bruce-now-Caitlyn Jenner, but I'm still having a very hard time following the argument here. Near as I can tell, the argument is "Jenner and Dolezal are different because.... conservatives are mean?" I guess?

    I'm sure some of those barbs are aimed at Jenner, but I suspect a LOT MORE of them are just aimed at progressives not having any logical consistency to their worldview. I didn't see anything in the post which clarified that apparent inconsistency.

    The claim that Dolezal "lied about her background" as the important difference seems like very weak sauce.

    I guess that claim that Dolezal did it to achieve to achieve certain advantageous outcomes whereas Jenner probably didn't is at least a distinction, but what does that mean exactly, that the "validity" of your self-proclaimed identity hinges on your MOTIVE for the claim? Is that supposed to be the rule? Doesn't that say a lot more about the ridiculousness of tying advantages to those very tenuous identity claims than it does about the underlying truth of those claims?

  • mr burns||

    jenner is making big bugs from his scam, and he is never going to mutilate himself .

  • Florida Man||

    Like camel spiders?

  • All-Seeing Woodchipper||

    That is a big bug.

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    A camel toe spider, eh?

  • Florida Man||

    I missed my opportunity! No!

  • John Thacker||

    I've heard some people argue it on the basis that gender dysphoria is "a real syndrome" whereas racial passing is not, but the definition of psychological syndromes is pretty political and socially defined anyway.

    Are we supposed to assume that Jenner is telling the truth, but acknowledge that somewhere out there there could be a hypocritical lying not-really-transgender person (who probably posts too much on Tumblr) who would be okay to mock, so long as the mocking didn't come from the Wrong Sort of People?

  • All-Seeing Woodchipper||

    Are we supposed to assume that Jenner is telling the truth, but acknowledge that somewhere out there...

    That's as close as I can get to trying to make a logical position out of this, but that ultimately comes down to just the sincerity of the person's belief in whatever they're professing as their identity. The claim then would be that Jenner's belief is sincere, but Dolezal's belief is not sincere. I think that would be a rational argument to make, but I don't see anyone making it, and certainly don't see anyone offering any evidence of it.

  • John Thacker||

    The only other argument seems to be the "it's a form of fraud if transgender people misrepresent that they were born the other sex, but as long as they're upfront with it it's fine."

    Which, okay, I understand in the course of relationships, even though plenty of transgender activists actually disagree and want full acceptance. In the case of say, women's sports, would these same people really raise a huge stink about someone born male not revealing that fact? It would be the same fraud as here.

  • Remnant Psyche||

    Which, okay, I understand in the course of relationships, even though plenty of transgender activists actually disagree and want full acceptance.

    Tough shit. A majority of people are never going to become so "tolerant" that they stop having innate, uncontrollable sexual attractions and repulsions simply because those things upset someone else. We could just as well demand trans people knock it off and start "acting right."

    The trans activists in question want everyone to be forced to play along with a feel-good lie. But the rights of normal people (and if you object to that accurate term, go cry about it, I'm not using your politically correct terms because FYTW) are just as important as the rights of trans people. These activists are childish, and they are almost certainly mentally ill for believing that to be a realistic and reasonable demand. They shouldn't be taken seriously by anybody.

  • John Thacker||

    Another consistent position is just the "don't be an asshole about it," but it certainly seems to me that a lot of people are being assholes to this woman. I don't really care about her passing.

  • paranoid android||

    I'll admit I'm not a biologist and not up on the current scientific reasearch into these issues, but is it not true that in the earliest stages of in vivo development, human beings are formed female, and the Y chromosome is what triggers the release of hormones that induce male sex characteristics? On that alone one could see how it is biologically plausible that this process could create a mismatch between development of the brain and development of the rest of the body (again, disclaimer, I'm not up on the research, and journalists covering the Jenner story could definitely do a much better job on laying out what the state of that research is). It's at least not so ridiculous as to be dismissed out of hand. I don't see any way one could construct an even facially plausible biological explanation for "transracialism".

  • Careless||

    Given how many of these gender dysphoria cases are sexually attracted to women, that seems pretty unlikely.

  • SoCal Soccar Mom||

    You are correct about on in vivo development for males. However, it does not explain female to male transgender.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Before Bruce became Caitlyn, he was just another white dude, nothing special except for a gold medal won decades ago and marrying into a drama-magnet family. Now with a few hormone treatments, a boob job, facial reconstruction surgery, and a wardrobe change (with the requisite organ reconstruction to no doubt follow), she's touted as the exemplar of social courage AND YOU BETTER CONGRATULATE AND CELEBRATE HER...OR ELSE!

    Before Rachel Dolezal became black, she was just another white chick, nothing special at all and a shitty relationship with her parents to boot. Now with some pigmentation/tanning treatments, a perm, and adoption of radical left-wing academic boilerplate, she's the president of the local NAACP chapter, searching out and destroying racial stereotypes and injustice everywhere (even if she has to make it up herself by hate-hoaxing racist letters in her faculty mailbox)!

    Combine this with the confluence of social media, mass media exposure, and increasing pervasiveness of campus progressive tropes such as privilege, microaggressions, and other pseudo-intellectual nonsense, plus an increasingly paranoid citizenry and police state, and it's becoming obvious that we're basically John Calhoun's rat experiments come to life.

  • paranoid android||

    she's touted as the exemplar of social courage AND YOU BETTER CONGRATULATE AND CELEBRATE HER...OR ELSE!

    Or else what? I mean literally--what will happen to you if you don't congratulate and celebrate her?

  • Crusty Juggler||

    it rhymes with lub-weena.

  • Fluffy||

    An old man with dyed hair wearing a leather jacket will write an article saying you're mean.

  • Trshmnstr, Eau de Toilet||

    Or else what? I mean literally--what will happen to you if you don't congratulate and celebrate her?

    Or else your "right minded" friends will shun you. Or else your boss may get anonymous phone calls disparaging your character.
    Or else you may make some social activist hitlist that is published.
    Or else you may have your business lied about and boycotted by "right thinkers"

  • Remnant Psyche||

    All of this and worse. It's already been happening over other social no-nos.

  • R C Woodchipper||

    Or else what? I mean literally--what will happen to you if you don't congratulate and celebrate her?

    You might lose your job, or have your business destroyed.

    The progs are hateful, spiteful, vicious people. They aren't satisfied with merely saying that they think you are wrong. No, they go after your economic and social life, with the apparent goal of turning you into a homeless social outcast.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

  • AlmightyJB||

    "she committed fraud"

    So your saying she is more like the chick from The Crying Game.

  • lafe.long||

    lol at Nick droppin' the "w"-word.

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    I think everyone should just go watch the South Park episode 'Mr Garrison's Fancy New Vagina' and come to their own conclusions.

    That is all.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    "Go ahead and find someone who doesn't have a vagina, you fag."

  • mr burns||

    one claims to be a woman trapped in a mans body, the other is a black person trapped in a white body and the third is a billionaire trapped in a the body of a person with no money at all . Dont they all deserve our worship and affirmation as well as public moneys so they can be happy ?

  • Chip Woodson||

    Sign me up on the a billionaire trapped in a the body of a person with no money at all list. About how long before my bank account is pumped up from it's present $1.63 to more $$$ than I can possibly spend?

  • Fluffy||

    Are you fucking serious, Gillespie?

    I am so Cosmo that I make you like a fucking Ron Paul newsletter, even with your twee jacket. But it is obvious even to me who it is that is "ritualistic" about pronouns, and it ain't conservatives.

    The people who go berserk who someone calls a human being with a penis "him" are the ones obsessed with ritual, you fossil.

  • GILMORE, Clownish Brat||

    "I am so Cosmo...."

    (insert best example)

    - I drink premixed cocktails. All. Fucking. Day.

  • A special place in JW's Hell||

    "I am so Cosmo...."

    (insert best example)

    That I'm the ASSMAN.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    I'm so Cosmo, I always wait for woman to make the first move.

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    I am so Cosmo that I each brunch for dinner.

  • SIV||

    Fluffy is a Trayvon-truther. That is some solid cosmo-cred.

  • Fluffy||

    To be fair, I have defended Zimmerman in his later episodes. In those cases, it sounds like the guy is being persecuted.

    You'll never convince me he didn't engage in unlawful restraint the night Martin died, though. Nothing else makes sense.

  • Lord at War||

    You'll never convince me he didn't engage in unlawful restraint the night Martin died, though. Nothing else makes sense.

    Didn't you hear Jeanteal's testimony that Trayvon was on his own front porch, then chose to go back and confront Zimmerman?

    Darwin's a bitch...

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    I am so Cosmo ...

    I can't even laugh at all the 'You go, girl's towards a geriatric reality TV character saying he always felt like a lesbian in a man's body.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    I'm so Cosmo, the only thing I fear more than the sight of a gun is not getting invited to the next cocktail party.

  • lap83||

    dammit I didn't even see yours before I posted mine

  • GILMORE, Clownish Brat||

    "I am so Cosmo...."

    - If you don't work for a Think-Tank, you can talk to the hand

  • All-Seeing Woodchipper||

    "I am so Cosmo...."

    (insert best example)

    - I link to Dave Weigel non-ironically.

  • ||

    "I am so Cosmo...."

    (insert best example)

    - I have a gun rack in my Prius

  • Fluffy||

    I am so Cosmo...

    ...I don't even OWN a woodchipper.

  • ||

    I am so cosmo.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    I'm so Cosmo I voted for Obama."

  • Zeb||

    Both the intense activists and the cons who insist on using some particular pronoun are obsessed with it, I'd say.

  • lap83||

    I'm so cosmo I've never even made my own cosmo

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    Weren't you a bartender?

  • lap83||

    Technically, it's still true because I've never made a cosmopolitan for myself. I don't like even like them, but now everyone knows I'm not a cosmo...thanks! /fraud

  • lap83||

    *-like

  • lap83||

    clear liquors are for sissies (now everyone really knows)

  • Zeb||

    Even gin? I thought gin was for bitter, aging alcoholics.

  • lap83||

    and rappers

    Gin is better than vodka, I'll give you that

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    Honestly, I don't even know what's in one, or what kind of glass it is served in.

    I'm really more of a "drink mexican beer barefoot in the sand" kind of guy.

  • lap83||

    Yeah if you're near a body of water it has to be beer. It's practically a law.

  • Zeb||

    I find gin and tonics to work quite well by the lake.

  • Lady Bertrum||

    +1 Beefeater & lime

  • Entropy Drehmaschine Void||

    New Amsterdam Rickey.

  • lap83||

    If you're drinking wine or liquor by the lake you're either on a patio or contemplating suicide, so it doesn't count

  • lap83||

    (and I don't want to offend anyone, I just think drink stereotypes are amusing)

  • X[redacted]s||

    "I am so Cosmo...."

    ...that i am against Obamacare primarily because it doesn't cover ironic-tattoo removal.

  • GILMORE, Clownish Brat||

    Winner so far =

    "I eat Brunch for Dinner"

    with a runner up award for

    "I have a gun rank in my Prius"

  • Rt. Hon. Judge Woodrow Chipper||

    You're gonna make Nick whine on twitter about how pissy the commenters are for calling bullshit on social signaling.

  • ||

  • AlmightyJB||

    I can't tell you how disappointed I am that that wasn't a wood chipper.

  • ||

    Who's the ugliest rock band - Toto, REO Speedwagon, or Foreigner?

  • ||

    Toto has the stained pits in the Africa video, gotta give him props for that.

    Also that video is insanity sauce.

  • All-Seeing Woodchipper||

    This question is far too important to be buried in this thread.

  • A special place in JW's Hell||

    Sorry, the Stones took that award decades ago.

  • ||

    The Stones had OK hair, though.

  • A special place in JW's Hell||

    I wish I could move like Mick, now.

  • Zeb||

    Motorhead. Come on.

  • ||

    There is a poetry to Moterhead's ugliness that makes them beautiful. I want Lemmy on the cover of Vanity Fair in a bustier.

  • Zeb||

    Lemmy is my hero. Anyone who can drink and do speed every day for as long as he has and still function as well as he does at 70 is doing something right.

  • ||

    What about Kiss?? Those guys were so ugly they had to wear makeup.

  • lap83||

    true

  • ||

    Paul Stanley wasn't too bad back in his salad days.

  • A special place in JW's Hell||

    AC/DC is up there.

    Pretty much any band composed of aging UK men.

  • SoCal Soccar Mom||

    AC/DC... Australia?

  • Ballz in chipper||

  • Crusty Juggler||

    I prefer this version of that song.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    This is a better link (I know that one of you SoConz will click it).

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Additionally, no white man can beatbox like that, so I assume he has to be black.

  • ||

    I love how they keep Toto's Americanized pronunciation of "Kilimanjaro"

  • Florida Man||

    Did you see "in the shadow of Kilimanjaro"? I wish I could find it on DVD.

    IMDB: http://m.imdb.com/title/tt0091264/

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    4.9 stars out of 10?

    *spits on ground*

  • Florida Man||

    No. It's bad movie good. Killer baboons, based on real events, plus John Rys Davies. Awesome.

    Disclaimer: I saw it as a kid and may have an altered opinion due to nostalgia.

  • ||

    You could buy a VHS and convert it, I suppose.

  • Florida Man||

    I found it on YouTube. Super shitty quality. I don't even know where you find VHS players anymore.

  • ||

    Amazon (I checked)

  • ||

    (they're shockingly expensive, though)

  • Florida Man||

    Welp, guess I'll have to play it in my mind.
    *stares off into space leaving Kristen awarding standing there*

  • ||

    *stares off into space leaving Kristen awarding standing there*

    Would not be the first time!

  • Zeb||

    Yard sale. That's where I got the one I have. You ahve to find an older one because the last few years they were made they were extra shitty.

  • Careless||

    My wife would love to sell you ours!

  • Crusty Juggler||

    I love everything about that performance. I am cosmo enough to admit it.

  • Marshall Gill||

    This is a better link (I know that one of you SoConz will click it).

    Is it a threat if I say that I will kill you for posting that link and tricking me into clicking on it? (This is a question and in no sense meant to imply a threat of actual violence.)

    I nearly fucking killed myself after only 20 seconds! Where in all the seven Hells did you ever find such.... horror? Is it a threat to suggest that I hate your guts and think that you would fuck a dog? (This is in no way a threat to force the Juggler into having beastial sex with a dog, nor to imply that my hatred of his guts will or should produce any actual violence)

  • ||

    If by "prefer" you mean "wish I could nuke the entire stage from orbit" then yes, I prefer that version.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    I guess I just prefer my 80s rock interpreted by a Slovenian acapella group. Maybe that is just me!

  • ||

    How could anyone hate on Perpetuum???

  • ||

    I would start pretending I was black if I was forced to watch them any further.

  • gaoxiaen||

    Reginald Denney wishes he could have done that.

  • Fluffy||

    Turn in your Cosmo card.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Then call me a cosmotarian because boy can those people entertain.

  • The Bad Captain Madly||

    There's a pretty bright line between being fraud and being trans.

    If there is, you've yet to illustrate it.

  • All-Seeing Woodchipper||

    It just IS, Captain! This truth is self-evident!

  • ant1sthenes||

    Well, it's self-evident to me. The Empress has a magical womanhood, which is invisible to stupid mouthbreathing troglodytes, and I'm no fool or hater. It's... there. Right there. Very womanly. I feel sad for all those nasty small-minded chumps who are tricked into only seeing a dude with an identity disorder.

  • Zeb||

    In my experience, most trans people don't claim to be something they are not.

    If Jenner were younger and tried to compete in women's sports without revealing his biological sex, that would be fraud. Publicly saying that he is going to be she from now on is not.

  • Rt. Hon. Judge Woodrow Chipper||

    Sounds like fraud to me. Trannies can't simply go with "tranny", no they have to go with perfectly good words that already have agreed-upon gender connotations because they want to commit fraud and blame someone else for making a fake mistake.

    Jenner could use the pronoun she-he (no offense to the Irish) or woman-man. You know, an accurate description. This is no different that a central bank claiming that its job is to support free-market capitalism. It's fraud.

  • Zeb||

    No, it really isn't. Where has he/she ever misrepresented anything about him and/or herself? Fraud is deliberate deception to gain something illegitimately. That isn't happening, at least in Jenner's case.

  • Lord at War||

    Fallon Fox fought in 5 MMA fights before he revealed his trans staus.

  • ||

    I gotta know how she got that curly hair. If that is a perm, it has got to be the most expensive perm known to man. You never get curls that small or tight from a perm!

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    Crimping iron? From an '80s thrift store?

  • ||

    I think crimping looks a bit different. You don't get spirals from crimping, just pleats.

  • Paul.||

    A crimping iron? No. A pimpin' iron? Possibly.

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    Raaa....

  • John Thacker||

    Yeah, her hair is impressive.

  • All-Seeing Woodchipper||

    You gotta believe.

  • ||

    Actually, as someone who has had several perms, it is much EASIER to get super tight curls than to get loose ones. You can really only acheive loose curls with curlers, and tghey only last a day.

    Example: search 'tight spiral perm' on Google.

  • SoCal Soccar Mom||

    Depends on the size of the rollers. Her's looks like a spiral perm using rollers with a very small diameter.

  • AlmightyJB||

    I don't see either black/white/male/female. I just see two assholes.

  • bagoh20||

    I don't find the conservative argument off the mark at all.
    1) In both cases, the person is claiming something that is factually not true (being Black or being female).
    2) In both cases the person gets some personal gain (power, notoriety, acceptance, money, attention, love, sex)

    The real difference is that in one case the culture calls it a fraud and in the other we see it as "honest", "courageous", "liberating", etc.

    Both are frauds. It's just that one is a lie that a lot of people want to be part of, because again, we get something out of it. It makes us imagine ourselves to be smart, open-minded, modern, hip, and tolerant. Plenty of people want to be something they are not, and they can get very caught up in the fantasy. Yea, I'm talking to you.

  • Zeb||

    I don't see Jenner claiming anything that is not true. How is there any fraud there? No one is being deceived.

  • Paul.||

    Maybe someone had sex with Caitlin and is now all, "woah"

  • bagoh20||

    Only because he has no choice - we already know the truth. Jenner is not a woman, and yet tries to look like one, act like one, and claims to actually be one in some internal way. I repeat, he is not what he is pretending to be. He expects everyone to eventually go along with his fraud, because he wants to do it so bad, and he has no other option. Do you think that if he meets someone who does not know him, he will out himself as a man? If he was not famous, do you think anyone except his closest friends and family would ever find out?

    If I don the outfit, and insist I am Ironman, am I perpetrating a fraud? Am I lying? If a tree lies in the forest with nobody around, is it lying? If I'm drunk already, and nobody knows.....oops.

  • SIV||

    Honestly held delusion is not lying or fraud.

  • Rt. Hon. Judge Woodrow Chipper||

    So monetarism is solid economic logic and not crackpot theory because the believers believe it it really hard?

  • Zeb||

    Crackpot theory isn't (necessarily) lying or fraud either. One can be wrong without being dishonest.

  • Joe5Pack||

    Why is refusing to agree with some pro forma attempt to unilaterally dictate how to refer to a male who demands to be treated as a woman "ritualistic?"

    If treating reality as external to the subject is ritual, ok. Otherwise, you're question begging, Gillespie.

  • Rt. Hon. Judge Woodrow Chipper||

    I wouldn't call it question begging as much as Kulturkampf social signaling.

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    I don't see what one has to do with the other. All of this team bullshit is tiresome.

  • A special place in JW's Hell||

    You're Team Slithering, right?

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    *Looks down front of pants*

    Yeah, I guess so.

  • A special place in JW's Hell||

    A parsletongue, eh? I always suspected.

  • ||

    ^This.

  • GILMORE, Clownish Brat||

    "Obnoxious jerks can have a lot of fun, but winning over large numbers of people to join their cause is typically a casualty of such mean-spirited hoo-larity."

    Obnoxious jerks.... hmm, is that anything like.....stupid blowhards? Because those are the worst.

  • Lady Bertrum||

    In the hierarch of awfulness stupid blowhards are a step or two below clownish brats.

  • wareagle||

    nothing is worse than stupid blowhards. Not even asshats.

  • A special place in JW's Hell||

    Has anyone tried to get her tanning salon records yet?

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    Obamacare did increase the record keeping burden on those places, but I suspect that in this case, a bottle of iodine in involved.

  • Paul.||

    This whole scandal confuses me. Is the NAACP suggesting that it has a right to associate with people of their choosing?

  • John Thacker||

    No, the NAACP is standing behind her. The NAACP has long had white officers, and doesn't even particularly find her racial passing a problem.

    There are people who are particularly upset about this, though.

  • wareagle||

    NAACP not upset; Reason staff clutching pearls. I'm going to watch what direction the sun sets in this evening because something is amiss.

  • lap83||

    "The NAACP has long had white officers, and doesn't even particularly find her racial passing a problem."

    and evidently the craziness is not a problem either.

  • Migrant Log Chipper||

    No problem there....how many white people pretending to be black have they had in their officers
    prior to this and I don't care about what the NAACP chooses to do. The problem is when they defend a liar the are losing what little credibility they have left. And it's not much in the last 30 ..years.

    They are now like those old Friars Club Roasts from 40 years ago, (Sammy Davis, Jr. was still around then). A bunch of has been old civil righties that are out of touch with the modern world.

    C'mon, if convicted felon Al Sharpton is all you've got, you don't really have much.

  • GILMORE, Clownish Brat||

    Wow, that's an angle that Nick could have actually run with.... rather than this overdone, "Not Okay"-exercise

  • Paul.||

    It's the ONLY angle I see, because I so SO don't care about Jenner stories. Leave that shit for the Twittersphere.

  • fish||

    Yes.....and that's the worst thing in the whole world!

  • lap83||

    They have a right to associate with people on a level that can be easily faked and they evidently also have a right for people to not take advantage of that.

    It's a business model based on the honor system.

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    Trust, but don't verify. You learn that when you get your six sigma black belt.

  • Paul.||

    Who you impugned there, I sore it.

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    I could have said brown belt.

  • buybuydandavis||

    " So it turns out that Rachel Dolezal, president of the Spokane NAACP chapter, was born white and has been passing herself off as black. "

    If Fauxcahontas can play this game, why not Rachel?

    Or she could go even trendier:
    #transblack #wrongskin

  • wareagle||

    Dolezal is an embarrassment and confirmation of conservatives' rational people's sense that most left-wing, liberal, or progressive race-based discourse is a form of special pleading

    that's what you meant to say, right?

  • ant1sthenes||

    It's not entirely special pleading, at least when it comes to criminal justice. True, cops fuck everyone who isn't cop or a big enough fish to fuck over a cop, but since they don't always know who falls into the latter category, they're a little bolder about bullying people they think are underclass, which means black people do get it worse.

  • Enough About Woodchippers||

    You can debate the morality of Rachel Dolezal's actions, but one thing can't be denied, woman got good skin and hair.

  • Dan Bongard||

    Caitlyn Jenner suffers from mental illness. The reason for Rachel Dolezal's behavior is unknown.

  • Lady Bertrum||

    True fact: 30 years ago homosexuality was classified a mental illness.

  • Dan Bongard||

    True fact: 30 years ago, believing you are Napoleon was classified as a mental illness.

  • Metall Holzhackmashine||

    Damn beat me by a minute.

  • Dan Bongard||

    That was a little too snarky. Let me clarify:

    Homosexuality was classified as a mental illness because psychiatrists held the opinion that it was wrong for people who want to have sex with people of the same sex. Psychiatrists shouldn't make those sorts of judgments.

    Belief that you are Napoloeon was, and is, classified as mental illness because you are, as a matter of objective fact, not Napoleon. If you believe you are, you are out of touch with reality.

    Caitlyn Jenner is a man. This is an objective, scientifically verifiable fact. He believes he is a woman. That's the mental illness.

    If he believed he was a man but would *rather* be a woman, that's fine. We all wish that things that are true, weren't true. It is when you cross the line into "convincing yourself that things that aren't true, are true" that you qualify as delusional.

  • ||

    Warty|6.12.15 @ 4:20PM|#|–|filternamelinkcustom

    True fact: "mental illness" doesn't have a clear definition and is usually used to stigmatize behaviors deemed unacceptable. FACTPWND

    reply to this

  • Metall Holzhackmashine||

    Would it be fair to say that if I woke up tomorrow and thought I was a woodchipper I would be at the very least delusional? I suppose whether or not you wish to define delusion as a mental illness is up to.

  • Fluffy||

    They are self-declaring that they have a mental illness.

    When you seek treatment for depression, you are conceding that you have a mental illness.

    When you take pills that are supposed to make you not be sad any more, you are conceding that you have a mental illness.

    So guess what? That means that when you say, "Give me hormones and surgery and everyone start calling me a different name, so maybe I won't be sad any more and will feel 'right'!" you are conceding you have a mental illness.

  • Dan Bongard||

    I already replied to you, below. Like I said there, if you prefer the term "out of touch with reality" to "mentally ill", feel free to use that.

    Suffice it to say that Caitlyn Jenner's claim that he is a woman is exactly as sane as a claim that Caitlyn Jenner is a vampire.

  • Tony||

    She does not believe she lacks male DNA or organs. She feels a strong need to identify, socially, as a woman. It's a thing. Conservative types who can't handle change will cope by being angry and stupid, and liberal types who are OK with change will accept it. Eventually all of society will. Someone has to be the laggard.

  • ||

    "Conservative types who can't handle change will cope by being angry and stupid"

    What about the feminists who are angry? Are they a less convenient target?

  • Fluffy||

    She feels a strong need to identify, socially, as a woman.

    Hey, fantastic.

    Wear whatever clothes you like. Be a nudist for all I care.

    Wear makeup if you want. You think I don't like the Cure or something?

    Get surgery if you like. Knock yourself out.

    If you never demand that I call you a woman, I might even call you one. Out of courtesy. But as soon as you demand it, it's no longer a matter of courtesy. I might pretend a falsehood is true to be polite - like when you pretend your friend is really losing weight, or that their toupee doesn't look stupid. But we are no longer dealing with courtesy, but browbeating.

  • Lady Bertrum||

    I must have missed something. Who demanded we call her by her?

  • Tony||

    You demand to be called a man, do you not?

  • Careless||

    Can't say I've ever had to go and ask anyone to do that.

  • Dan Bongard||

    This isn't a conservative-vs-liberal thing. It is a "people who believe in objective reality" vs "people who think reality is whatever we say it is" thing.

    Jenner's a man. He is perfectly within his rights to call himself a woman, to wish he was a woman, or to feel that he'd be happier if he was a woman, just like I'm free to wish I was a billionaire with the body of Channing Tatum.

    But I'm not, and he isn't. :)

  • Lady Bertrum||

    Geez, you are a dipshit.

    My point was: times changes and our understanding of sexuality and gender became more sophisticated. What was once considered an illness is now just a variation. This seems like the likely outcome for the transgendered as well. And, really what do you care whether a dude wants to dress up like a lady? Jenner's not defrauding a soul.

  • John Thacker||

    But a transgendered person who does lie and claim that they were born the sex of which gender role they've adopted, that can be fraud and would be worth mocking, that's what people are saying?

  • ant1sthenes||

    Well, it is legally relevant because our society does allow sex discrimination (and it isn't really clear whether it's sex or gender based, and in the case of transpeople, they're at odds). Not just bathrooms, but college sports -- if colleges replace a lot of women with transwomen on women's sports teams (because, let's face it, as biological males, they have an advantage), are they supporting a gender more inclusively, or facilitating the exclusion of a sex?

    There's also the fact that people don't feel like they should be obligated or pressured into legitimizing what they see as a delusion by using this or that pronoun. That's a culture fight, not a legal one.

    And there's the human-marrying-dog paranoid frontier that eventually people will be demonized for having sexual (rather than gender) orientation, ie, not wanting to bang the transgendered.

  • Careless||

  • Dan Bongard||

    "My point was: times changes and our understanding of sexuality and gender became more sophisticated."

    This is about biology, not sexuality. The word for the belief that Jenner isn't a man isn't "sophisticated" -- it is "wrong". :)

  • ||

    True fact: "mental illness" doesn't have a clear definition and is usually used to stigmatize behaviors deemed unacceptable. FACTPWND

  • A special place in JW's Hell||

    Wait, *we're* the crazy ones?

  • wareagle||

    only TopMen™ are able to define things property. Where would we be without the APA and its diagnoses?

  • Dan Bongard||

    If you don't like the term "mentally ill", you can substitute the phrase "out of touch with reality" instead.

  • ||

    What's wrong with "weirdo"? It's OK to be weird. You don't have to control people. Don't cut your hair when you finally get yourself together, Danny. Let your freak flag fly.

  • Dan Bongard||

    I hope you didn't throw your back out projecting all of that onto me.

    There's nothing wrong with being weird. This is a libertarian forum -- we're all weird here.

    There is, however, something wrong with trying to shame people for being in touch with reality -- criticizing and condemning them for calling a male human being "a man". It is Orwellian, and you should be ashamed of yourself for doing it.

  • Lady Bertrum||

    The DSMD5 tells psychiatrists what is and is not a "mental disorder". Prior manuals included homosexuality as a diagnosis. Warty is correct in that it is a bullshit guide full of bullshit guidelines, though.

  • Metall Holzhackmashine||

    Je suis Napoleon!!

  • Fluffy||

    To be a homosexual, all you need is some dick and for the anti-sodomy state to get out of your way.

    It takes a team of doctors to make Caitlyn Jenner a reality.

    If it's not an illness, what are the doctors for? If it's not an illness, these treatments would be cosmetic, vanity treatments.

    Are you trivializing her condition by denying that her dysphoria is real?

    (See? I used "her", so I must be telling the truth.)

  • Lady Bertrum||

    I have to ask, why do you give a shit whether it's defined as a mental illness or not? You aren't required to approve of her or her choices. You're only required to tolerate her.

  • Fluffy||

    Because I'm dealing with people who go before the court in Massachusetts and argue that prisoners in the correction system are entitled to gender reassignment surgery, because they suffer from a mental illness so profound that denying them that surgery is cruel and unusual punishment...

    ...and then fucking five minutes later they turn around and say, "Nuh-uh, these are really women, if you don't want to date them you're a bigot."

    I remember what people say. From one day to the next. It's my particular curse.

    And intellectually dishonest motherfuckers drive me up a wall with this shit.

  • Paul.||

    I for one am glad to see that eventually, everyone can be triggered by something.

  • Tony||

    Conservatives would do themselves a favor by not blaming all their bigotries on God. They'd do themselves one better by not subordinating all the real problems in the world to their lizard-brain disgust reflex.

  • Win Bear||

    The only "lizard brain disgust reflex" I feel is at progressives and socialists, and that reflex is entirely rational.

  • Fluffy||

    Who's blaming this one on God? There is no God.

    I am standing up for objective reality.

    I was perfectly fine with supporting trans rights. I wanted the police to leave them alone. I wanted them to get to use whatever bathroom they wanted. I wanted them protected in prisons.

    But then they started in with the "We demand that you ritually recite a catechism declaring that we are really women!" Fuck, upthread you're getting all indignant because I don't want to DATE someone trans.

    And they are not women. Period. They might wish they were women. It might be nicer for them if everyone would help them pretend that they are women. But they are not.

    And since just being left alone isn't good enough for you - since you have to demand this Orwellian nonsense as well - then fuck you. That's where I jump off the train.

  • Dan Bongard||

    Yeah, I agree with 100% of what Fluffy wrote here, from the atheism to the anti-Orwellian sentiment.

  • Tony||

    The "I was going to hold the correct position on this issue until they started pissing me off" thing is very strange. That one dipshit on here uses the exact same excuse for being against gay marriage. Apparently entire groups of people don't deserve social acceptance and legal equality if some of them are obnoxious about it?

    You're balking at simple manners. People are entitled to be called whatever they want to be called. If you refuse out of some inexplicable indignation or offense to your sense of the natural order, well, there's never an excuse for rudeness, sorry.

    Surely you can wrap your brain around the difference between biological sex and gender identity. I had to do it over the past few years. It's not like it hurt me any.

  • wareagle||

    People are entitled to be called whatever they want to be called.

    no, they're not. If you have a dick, you're a man. Period. If you have no Indian blood, and I'm looking at you Lizzie, I'm not calling you Indian. I don't have to be rude about it, either, but there are alternatives between that and bowing at the altar of perceived correctness.

  • Tony||

    If you have a dick, you're a man. Period.

    You're just going to have to get used to the idea that this is not always true. I wasn't always comfortable with it, but I'm not a silly old coot who sees all social change as a threat to his manhood.

  • wareagle||

    yes, it's true. Biology is funny that way. And stop doing the Obama thing of attacking points no one is making; it's bullshit and weak. I've not said a word about any threats to my manhood or anything else.

  • Tony||

    People who claim biology dictates truths don't know much about biology or truth.

    The English word "man" is a sound our mouths make that we have traditionally decided signifies "homo sapien with a penis." Biology has nothing to do with how we assign that word. Now "man" means "homo sapien who identifies as male."

  • ||

    Actually, prior to about the 15 century, the word "man" was ungendered. It simply meant "someone." The gender-specified terms were *wer* and *wyf*, *wyf* not carrying any implication of marital status.

    I've always felt that moving back toward an ungendered pronoun "man" would be preferable to this re-inscription of absolute dualism in gender that we're being asked to accept when we're being asked to praise Jenner's "courage" for appearing on the magazine cover.

    As several feminists have pointed out, if a 65 year old woman appeared in that outfit, posed that way, photo-shopped that heavily, the magazine would be at the center of a shit-storm of outrage.

    Just because it is a man re-asserting womanhood as sexual objectification, that doesn't make it beautiful and socially just - one might argue that it makes it that much more sinister.

  • ant1sthenes||

    And what exactly have you proved with this statement?

    It's like arguing that an equation is bullshit because you could have just as easily called 'x' 'y'.

    Not surprising though, since progs love to mislead people by taking a term with one commonly held meaning, assigning it another special meaning, then using it in a way that it could mean one thing or the other at their convenience.

  • Harvard||

    " I wasn't always comfortable with it,..."

    Liberated when Astroglide came along, eh?

  • Careless||

    Tony's accidentally revealing that he just goes along with whatever the cool progressives are doing. If they started being anti-gay marriage next year, well, that's where Tony would wind up two years down the road.

  • Dan Bongard||

    Eh, I've spent my whole life listening to people tell me that I "just have to get used to the idea" that the government is better than the market, that drugs have to be banned to protect society, and that government employees are more trustworthy than private citizens.

    There are all sorts of lies I've been told I "have to" accept. Get in line.

  • Fluffy||

    Surely you can wrap your brain around the difference between biological sex and gender identity.

    Yes, I can.

    It's the left that can't.

    Because it's not just a matter of people pissing me off.

    It's about the left simultaneously asserting that there's no such thing as gender and it's all a social construct (and that's a bedrock cardinal assumption of feminism, without which the entire feminist project makes no sense) and that it's gender identity is so motherfucking all-powerful that it's possible to be born a woman in a man's body, and vice versa.

    Those two ideas are absolutely irreconcilable. Only one of them can be true.

    The really hard core feminists know this. It's the source of the lingering tension because academic feminism and the trans movement.

    And you motherfuckers refuse to PICK ONE. (And ultimately the tension described above will disappear, when everyone figures out that you can contradict yourselves all you want and no one will hold you to account but me.)

    So I've being bombarded with multiple levels of ontological offense, here.

    In the morning you demand that I participate in self-analysis before the collective and affirm that A is not A. And then in the evening you violate non-contradiction.

    The moral shit means nothing to me, because I see no moral issue with being trans. Who cares? The intellectual dishonesty is what really fills me with rage. You've been in the atheist threads; you should know that's what really pisses me off.

  • Tony||

    Let's emphasize that you are not in any way harmed or defrauded by this social change. It seems like you're just pissed off and you expect other people who are more open-minded to conform to your provincialism. That's hypocrisy.

    You kind of have a point though, understandable if you're not familiar with the complexities of feminism, but also because these things are quite in flux and sometimes in tension.

    It can simultaneously be true that gender is a social construct and that gender matters. Money is also a social construct. It's still real. So we use inevitably clumsy terms to describe a fluid concept of gender. I'm a male with a soupcon of feminine characteristics. A lesbian can be masculine. A trans woman may want to alter her appearance to imitate a traditionally feminine woman. Does that have anything to do with sex chromosomes? It's just a way of describing behavior and expression, and it matters to people, including heterosexual males.

  • Fluffy||

    It can simultaneously be true that gender is a social construct and that gender matters. Money is also a social construct. It's still real.

    Nice try.

    The feminists assert that gender is a social construct and then people occupy gender roles due to social conditioning.

    If that was true, it would be impossible for a legitimate trans person to exist. They would be socially conditioned out of existence.

    The feminists also assert that we can easily discard our social conditioning with regard to gender with relatively little effort.

    If that was true, then trans people would just have to discard whatever elements of their social conditioning were troubling them.

    No matter how much you want it to be true or what word salad you drop, the essentialist trans philsophy can't fit into feminism's Rousseauian hole

  • Tony||

    I don't know which feminists you're talking about, but the ones I pay attention to all insist that it's feminist to allow women to act feminine or not; it's up to the individual woman. Even if they all are socially conditioned, you can't be free of mannerisms! I've never heard the claim that it's "easy" to discard social conditioning. Even if it were, you'd have to just pick another kind.

  • ||

    Here's a good example from just the other day in the NYT:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06......html?_r=1

  • ||

    Tony, it's not that feminists think that its "okay" to behave in a feminine way, its that they think that stereotypical "female" behavior and mannerisms are socially conditioned rather than biologically determined. Which makes it odd that trans-women claim that those behaviors are innate for them.

    That's the contradition. Either stereotypical "feminine" behaviors are inborn or they are socially conditioned. You can't have it both ways.

  • John Thacker||

    You can have it both ways, you just can't argue in one scenario that it's 100% inborn and in another that it's 100% socially conditioned.

    It's perfectly okay to always argue that it's, say, 50% of each. The problem is that there are certain feminists who argue that gender roles are 100% socially constructed, which gets into trouble with certain transgender people who argue that the behavior is innate.

    Same goes for race, of course.

  • John Thacker||

    The argument of "I like all these stereotypically feminine things, therefore I must have surgery and make myself a woman, and I suffer if I don't" is a contradiction with a lot of feminist theory. A lot of the contradiction goes away if it's reframed as a free choice to change sex or gender, but a lot of trans people heavily favor the biological determinism, or at least that it's not a choice. (To some degree this exists with the gay and lesbian community, but there are a variety of stereotypical gay and lesbian gender roles that do not necessarily match up to traditional gender roles. By contrast, transgender people often seem to strongly express the traditional gender roles for their new gender.)

  • Tony||

    I'm not gonna say there aren't tensions happening right now (as the NYT article points out), but I will say feminists and trans activists aren't going to be looking for direction from a bunch of white dudes.

    As always, I side with freedom. Women being feminine is not accepting an inferior social role if femininity is not treated by society as inferior. It's no better or worse a choice, or an innate behavior, than masculinity. And many people fall in the middle of that spectrum. It doesn't matter if it's biological or social; there is no default way of being. Conservatives want people to stay in their neat little boxes, and I hasten to point out that Caitlyn Jenner is a conservative. Perhaps she wants to be a stereotypical female, and perhaps that irks some feminists (because she didn't really live the experience of being female), but if you side with freedom then you shouldn't give a damn.

  • ||

    "I will say feminists and trans activists aren't going to be looking for direction from a bunch of white dudes."

    Why does it *always* come down to race with you, *especially* when your argument starts falling apart?

    "if you side with freedom then you shouldn't give a damn."

    Which is what almost everyone here is saying. You so desperately want libertarians to be hypocrites you just aren't listening.

  • Dan Bongard||

    "I will say feminists and trans activists aren't going to be looking for direction from a bunch of white dudes."

    "You should care what they think, even though they won't return the favor" is a less than compelling argument.

  • Tony||

    You should care what they think because you haven't lived their experiences, and they have no choice but to return the favor because what white guys think is culturally dominant.

  • Dan Bongard||

    Nobody has lived anybody else's experiences. "You have to listen to me because you haven't lived my experiences" is just a wordier way of saying "You have to listen to me because I say so".

    Sorry -- pass. If you want me to listen, say something intelligent.

  • ||

    Women being feminine is not accepting an inferior social role if femininity is not treated by society as inferior. It's no better or worse a choice, or an innate behavior, than masculinity. And many people fall in the middle of that spectrum. It doesn't matter if it's biological or social; there is no default way of being.

    So why the fuck do trans people need surgery to transform themselves into something resembling a biological woman? If it doesn't matter, then just act like a woman and be feminine in a male body. What do you need boobs for?

  • Remnant Psyche||

    Because the feminist "theory" (based in wishful thinking and not a bit in hard evidence) that gender is socially conducted is false. Gender is not a social construct. Full stop.

    Gender ROLES can be (thought certainly are not always) social constructs. But not gender. And much gender-specific behavior is certainly biologically determined.

    The feminists who believe these nonsensical "theories" (which were dismissed by actual biologists over 50 years ago) are simply religious fanatics. And that's why they react the way they do when faced with debate. They unwittingly adopt the common social attitude most of us apply towards religion: "they can believe what they want, and pushing it further is futile, meaningless, and rude."

  • Remnant Psyche||

    The feminists assert that gender is a social construct and then people occupy gender roles due to social conditioning.

    Which is demonstrably false. Theirs is a religious belief. It's why they get so insane about being called out on it. They can't debate the subject without slander and "social justice" mob silencing of their opponents because they have no arguments, just positions.

  • ||

    The point is that the feminist theory is largely in conflict with the arguments of the transgendered. Personally I think there are some biological driven things but they aren't the things that trans-women are emulating. Trans-women spend their time doing their hair and makeup and wearing dresses and high heels. None of those things are biologically innate. They aren't even cultural universals. They are characteristics of female gender stereotypes in this particular culture, at this particular time. By contrast, the things that seems to be biologically innate in biological females have to do with modes of social interaction among peer groups. Internal personality aspects, rather than external clothing and hair and appearance. There are lots of women who wear "boring" clothing that isn't very "feminine", but strangely, all the transwomen want to wear high heels and corsets.

  • ||

    "Surely you can wrap your brain around the difference between biological sex and gender identity. I had to do it over the past few years. It's not like it hurt me any."

    Tony - this may come as a shock to you, but you're not the first person in the world to take a gender studies class.

  • Dan Bongard||

    "Apparently entire groups of people don't deserve social acceptance and legal equality if some of them are obnoxious about it?"

    Caitlyn Jenner has the same rights as any other man. There is no legal equality issue at stake here.

    If you're referring to some spurious "right" to be recognized as something you objectively are not, well, yes -- I'm against that "right". I'm against the "right" of white people to apply for NAACP scholarships because they're "black on the inside". I'm against people claiming that Social Security is solvent because the government promised to pay itself back for the money it borrowed from itself. I'm against, generally speaking, people denying obvious truths.

  • Migrant Log Chipper||

    You ignorant slut, Tony, no one cares about how you or anyone "identifies". It just boils down to the fact that I don't want the rest of us to pay for your or anyone else's Feelz.

    It's that simple. I'll always protect your right to do what you want to do, just don't expect me to pay for it.

  • wareagle||

    who do liberals blame their bigotries on? They seem the ones hyperventilating over the NAACP story.

  • Remnant Psyche||

    The white devil. Always the white devil, even if it makes no sense.

  • ant1sthenes||

    Is that even a thing here? The Bible doesn't say shit about the transgendered, unlike homosexuality.

  • ||

    I'm sure your concern for them is heartfelt.

  • Chigurh's Cattle Gun||

    Identity politics is supposed to be pretty repugnant to a libertarian.

  • Tony||

    You're 95% white, of course it is.

  • Lady Bertrum||

    Right, because the Enlightenment was the whites man's plan to . . . to do something, something, something awful to women and black and brown people.

  • X[redacted]s||

    The solution to past racism is future racism, eh, Tony?

  • Metall Holzhackmashine||

    Well according to Marxism the evil 1% should be forced to work the fields for a time as some sort of justice. These modern Marxists are just taking that horrible idea and applying it to race.

  • Sigivald||

    Is that actually in Marx?

  • Metall Holzhackmashine||

    According to my old Philosophy professor in college yes, and she seemed very approving of the idea.

  • ||

    The solution to past racism is future racism, eh, Tony?

    Tony's not the only one who thinks racial revenge is the best way for everyone to live in peace & harmony together.

  • lap83||

    "You're 95% white, of course it is."

    How can such a racist person be so unaware of it? Is it a split-brain thing?

  • ||

    Projection.

  • Tony||

    How can anyone be a part of a political affiliation that's 95% white and not wonder if it might have a race problem?

  • Sigivald||

    Is the idea that any theory of economics and state power that is not a match for national demographics must be bigoted?

    (Answer to your question: "Easily, by not being obsessed with race and racial distribution".)

  • Win Bear||

    I grew up in a place that was 99.9% white; did it have a "race problem" too? Does the NAACP have a "race problem" because its members are disproportionately one race?

    Tony, you are a racist, plain and simple.

    Skin color is irrelevant; whether you're "African American" or not is mostly an identity you choose.

  • wareagle||

    how can someone accuse others of having a race problem yet actively support an ideology whose policies have destructive outcomes for a specific race?

  • lap83||

    Because we don't confuse equality of outcome with equality of opportunity

  • ||

    Question:

    Do you evaluate ideas based on whether you think they are right, or by the color of the skin of the people who hold them?

    Which would you consider to be racist?

  • Tony||

    I evaluate your ideas on their incredible lack of merit, of course.

    I do believe, additionally, that if you never associate with a type of person, if your politics are anathema to them for some reason, and if generally you have not experienced living life as that type of person, then you will inevitably have a blind spot with respect to any specific interests and needs they have, and thus your politics will be woefully incomplete. In politics, call the teams by whatever name you want, I would tend to find the group with the most diversity and join that one, because the others are going to have such blind spots and will tend to favor policies that benefit only them.

  • ||

    "I evaluate your ideas on their incredible lack of merit, of course."

    Any in particular of my ideas? Careful to be specific, now - I would hate to think you're simply tilting at racist stereotypes in your imagination.

    "I would tend to find the group with the most diversity and join that one, because the others are going to have such blind spots and will tend to favor policies that benefit only them"

    IOW you *don't* evaluate ideas on their own merits. You get into a group, look around at skin color, and decide that way, as if to say to yourself "it'll finally *prove* I'm not racist if I maximize the number of non-white people I agree with!"

  • Tony||

    I'm saying you could do worse as far as blindly deciding which team to join. Happily for me, my politics align with the most diverse one.

  • ||

    "you could do worse as far as blindly deciding which team to join"

    No. You cannot do worse than blindly deciding which team to join.

  • John C. Randolph||

    my politics align with the most diverse one.

    That would be the team that insists on racial discrimination remaining a sacrosanct public policy, right?

    Awfully clever of JFK to make up that bullshit "affirmative action" euphemism.

    -jcr

  • Fluffy||

    Tony, the entire Enlightenment project of equal rights before the law and liberty and autonomy is utterly and completely dependent on two assumptions (among others, but these are the two relevant to this discussion):

    1. There are fundamentally no differences between men of any moral import, other than differences in talent or character;

    2. It is possible for any human experience to ultimately be communicated using words, if enough effort is brought to bear.

    If it is in fact true that us white libertarians just can't understand black folk because they're soooooooo different from us, and that difference can't be communicated to us in words or text because it has to be lived...then the entire Enlightenment project was a delusion, and there's absolutely no reason, at all, to believe in equal rights, or in freedom for anybody.

    If you ever won this argument and convinced me you were right, you would be convincing me that I should do everything I could to slaughter all those different from me and/or make them my slaves. You know, the way human interactions were before the Enlightenment. I can never understand or communicate with the Other, and they are fundamentally different from me, so a coexistence based on our shared humanity and a justice built on accurate communication would be impossible. And if those things are impossible, they're impossible.

  • Tony||

    Those two assumptions are ideals. And the Enlightenment did not come with transcendent racial or sexual harmony. It was a bunch of white men who did that. Bringing up the Enlightenment makes my point for me in a big way: even the most enlightened philosophers of history were so unconcerned with the experiences of black humans that some of them owned them as slaves.

    I'm not saying there are barriers between races and sexes and sexual orientations so impenetrable that empathy is impossible; on the contrary, all I'm saying is you have to want to give it a try, and assuming you know what's best for everyone, even those whose shoes you have never even begun to walk in, is the opposite of that. The Enlightenment is ongoing, and lately it's uncovered the bounty of new truths and ideas that come from people other than white men, born of the experience of being something else.

  • ||

    "assuming you know what's best for everyone, even those whose shoes you have never even begun to walk in, is the opposite of that"

    That's why some of us oppose those, like yourself, who assume that they know what's best for everyone.

    "all I'm saying is you have to want to give it a try"

    I sorry - I'm normally a very tolerant person, but your sanctimonious self-righteousness is just grating.

    Has it ever occurred to you that when you don't understand what other people are saying it's not necessarily because *they're* closed-minded?

  • ||

    : even the most enlightened philosophers of history were so unconcerned with the experiences of black humans that some of them owned them as slaves.

    There were lots and lots of enlightenment intellectuals who were adamantly opposed to slavery. There best you can say is that *some* enlightened philosophers had a blind spot about slavery. Not all of them did. Slavery was controversial from day one, even before the Revolution. Many of the founders wanted to abolish it in the US constitution. Early drafts of the Declaration of Indepedance cited it as a sin that was inflicted upon the colonies by British rule. The problem was that they couldn't get the Southern states to unite against the British unless they took that stuff out. The US constitution was actually carefulyl crafted to maintain a balance of power between the North and the South, precisely because the South wouldn't agree to anything else, because they knew that if the North dominated then slavery would be gone.

  • Migrant Log Chipper||

    You wouldn't know truth if it jumped up and bit you in the ass, Tonester. Like I said, you ignorant slut.

  • ||

    Tony the majority of your teams diversity is at the bottom of your party and exists there because your policies keep them there.

    The Republicans have two Hispanics and one black running in the primaries.

    What do the Dems have ? An old white man and an old white woman.

  • Win Bear||

    I do believe, additionally, that if you never associate with a type of person, if your politics are anathema to them for some reason, and if generally you have not experienced living life as that type of person, then you will inevitably have a blind spot with respect to any specific interests and needs they have

    Well, Tony, as a gay immigrant who has had boyfriends of all US major "races", I suspect my politics are a lot more informed than yours.

    will tend to favor policies that benefit only them

    Which is, of course, exactly what bigots, racists, and socialists like you do.

  • Tony||

    I've dated guys of all of the major races too. I remember an adorable black man who adamantly refused to date anyone except white guys. I thought it was funny that he was more racist than I. It is no boast to say that you've walked in the shoes of people who are different from you and learned nothing.

  • Win Bear||

    I'm sorry, Tony, but you misinterpreted that. I'm not saying that I walked in the shoes of black Americans. I'm saying that from my shoes as an immigrant, anybody born in America, whether black or white, has enormous privileges compared to people in the rest of the world. Unlike you, I don't begrudge anybody those privileges; I think it's wonderful that the US manages to prosper like that, it's why I came here. That's why I don't want people like you destroying that.

    And I certainly object when arrogant, self-righteous pricks like you tell me that I should feel some kind of obligation towards some group of Americans because my skin happens to be a lighter shade. You're a racist, plain and simple.

  • ||

    look like a pair of attention whores to me.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    "Rachel Dolezal grew up in what her parents called a diverse family, with friends from various ethnicities and four adopted siblings who were black. She was "always interested in ethnicity and diversity" growing up, her mother Ruthanne said."

    http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/12/.....-identity/

    Yet its fraud for her to identify as black, while it would have been perfectly normal and indeed heroic if she'd called herself Bob and sued anyone who didn't let her in the gents'?

  • Cytotoxic||

    Sardonic and whiny certainly seem to be strong features of the Conservative Persecution Complex.

  • wareagle||

    whose claiming persecution. While I find it curious that this woman passed herself as black, I don't she joined the NAACP in order to subvert black interests.

  • Sigivald||

    I wish to slow clap your choice of commenting name.

    Well played, sir.

  • ||

    It's not fraud for her to identify as black. it's dishonest to not tell people that her background is white.

  • Sudden||

    So men are presenting themselves as women and whites are presenting themselves as black. Tell me again how white male privilege is so strong that everyone wishes they were a white man?

  • Remnant Psyche||

    Shhh.... you'll spook The Narrative.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    Let's be clear that progressives are being totally consistent.

    They want to undermine traditional, normal society.

    Bruce Jenner calling himself a woman, and demanding that other people accept his delusion, undermines normal society and provides a weapon to beat up on whoever stands up for sanity and against progressivism. It increases the power of the progs.

    People passing for other races doesn't offer the same kind of opportunity for transgression. On the contrary, it threatens prog power by blocking their project of fitting everyone into racial boxes, with black people as a victim class and white people as the oppressor class (except progs, who are the *right* kind of white people).

    In short, if you want to screw with traditionalists, stir up trouble and increase your own power, what better way than to force a radical redefinition of sex?

    But racial passing has been going on for years, and it doesn't threaten the traditionalists.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Conservatives are consistently inconsistent and worthless as ever. No, we don't care about your traditions or sense of disgust. Shut up.

  • BuSab Agent||

    Doesn't this negate the whole proggy concept of white privilege though? I mean if it's so damn useful, why would you give it up?

  • Remnant Psyche||

    "People do things all the time that don't make any sense! That's why capitalism is a fraud: people don't behave in their own best interests 100% of the time. Anything less than perfection is unacceptable.

    The State needs to make the best decisions for people who may not know any better."

    ^ plucked from Tony's mind

  • John C. Randolph||

    I reject your premise that Tony has a mind.

    -jcr

  • ||

    The crucially important issue is about honesty and disclosure.
    Caitlyn/Bruce Jenner was completely public about being trans.

    Rachel Dolezal was not. She kept it a secret.
    I have zero problem with a white woman passing as black, and becoming an NAACP spokesperson. The problem is she wasn't honest about being born white.

    Society should really be quite willing to accept someone who was born white and not identifies as black and vice versa. Racial boundaries are totally socially constructed and if anything more people who are transracial is a good thing. Maybe someday the white/black distinction will become completely irrelevant.

  • Cytotoxic||

    This

  • John Thacker||

    I have zero problem with a white woman passing as black, and becoming an NAACP spokesperson. The problem is she wasn't honest about being born white.

    So you have a huge problem with people who pass racially and aren't honest? And also with trans people who hide their background from employers, or lie to people because they aren't comfortable discussing it? Seems a bit much.

    I don't have a problem with Rachel Dolezal. I think you're asking far, far too much to criticize everyone who passes.

  • ||

    So you have a huge problem with people who pass racially and aren't honest?

    Only if they use it to gain some sort of racially-dependent position. I'm not saying that Rachel should immediately annouce to every stranger she meets that she's white. Just saying if your going to hold an NAACP office and teach African studies, you should mention that, by the way, you were born white.

    I also don't think transwomen need to immediately disclose to everyone that they are trans. But if they are getting into a relationship where that relationship may in some way be dependent on gender or race, it's dishonest not to disclose that you weren't born with that particular gender or race.

  • ant1sthenes||

    "Only if they use it to gain some sort of racially-dependent position."

    I get you. So if someone passed as white to be able to drink from the nicer water fountains, that would be fraudulent, therefore wrong.

  • ||

    Passing as white to escape an injustice is not the same as passing as black to get social acceptance from blacks. In a perfect world, of course everyone would be treated equally regardless of race, and as a result passing would be irrelevant.
    But in the real world, there's a lot more white racism against blacks than black racism against whites. Blacks are commonly treated unjustly because of their skin color and have pretty good reasons for "passing". But white people should be confident enough to tell black people their white background and not just pass as black. Yes, it's a double standard, because the circumstances are different. White people aren't an oppressed minority with a distinct community.

  • Migrant Log Chipper||

    That's idiotic, she most likely got a teaching position in "African studies" because she lied about being white as being white in progworld would disqualify you from holding a position in an "African studies" department.

  • John Thacker||

    For things like minority scholarships or diversity things, perhaps-- though the same would apply to transwomen (as well as for sports.)

    But note that the NAACP is not convinced that it matters for an NAACP office. They have always had white members and officers (particularly in somewhere as white as Spokane), and certainly have been familiar with passing in both directions.

  • ||

    Fair enough, if her employers knew and didn't care, then it isn't "fraudulent". I still think it is dishonest if she represented herself as a black woman to black friends and acquaintances routinely instead of being upfront about her background.

  • John Thacker||

    I certainly understand that-- but I also think that there certainly are transwomen who represent themselves as being born female to female friends and acquaintances, despite not really having the shared experiences of being a woman for most of their lives. And I don't think I'm prepared to call them a fraud unless they upfront mention that to acquaintances. (A relationship is different.)

  • Remnant Psyche||

    I agree.

    I mean, I'm going to laugh at the "transracial" nonsense non-stop. But the nutty beliefs are generally harmless.

    Tolerance, not acceptance.

  • Lord at War||

    Bruce Jenner was completely public about being trans.

    Except, you know, he kept his "female mind" a sercet for the first 60 some years of his life... He was born male, and perpetuated that identity to the public until last year- when he suddenly declared that he was a female.

    You don't sell as many boxes of Wheaties if you had said you were a tranny in 1974.

  • The Bad Captain Madly||

  • Sigivald||

    I'm not a social conservative, so I got no skin in their game, and don't care about their point-scoring.

    But I do wonder ... what is the difference, Nick?

    Why is "I identify as black" fraud, but "I just am a woman, on the figurative inside" not, assuming both people are sincere - which I see no evidence against?

    Is there some coherent theory that explains how identity and self-perception work that lets us draw that line that way, and is not entirely arbitrary?

    Or is this just an excuse for cheap rah-rah-the-base shots at SoCons?

    (Is Dozeal a fraud? The interviews linked [via the Reason link chain above] say her parents say she was "always" into Black Culture, and went to school with a lot of black people and married, then divorced a black man.

    She changed her "identification" after the divorce ... but is that fraud, or is that coming to terms with what had always been there? How can we know?

    If a transsexual comes out after a divorce, we don't accuse them of fraud because they weren't transsexual first - especially if they always had a non-sexual fascination with the gender they're now asserting.

    What is fundamentally different here, other than that somehow her claim is determined to lack sympathy?

    When a transsexual changes their looks to "look female" it's not fraud; is she a fraud for changing her hair and skin tone?

    There seems to be no fundamental difference in kind between the two cases.)

  • Sigivald||

    Or, TL;DR version: "Just because so-cons say it doesn't mean it's wrong. Tell us how it's different."

  • Cytotoxic||

    One lied and deceived the other did not.

  • wareagle||

    yes, I'm sure the former Mrs Jenner does not feel deceived at all. Or his kids.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Her feelings are irrelevant. Caitlyn didn't like his body at the time. Now she's working to change it.

  • wareagle||

    and along the way, he deceived a lot of people by playing a role he apparently did not like.

  • ||

    To be fair, if Jenner knew that he was trans when he married his former wife and had kids with her without telling, then yes, he was a dishonest shit.

    At least he/she is being honest about it now, though.

  • Harvard||

    But then one must axe, did his former wife come clean that she and her entire family are bat-shit crazy? I'd call this one a tragic, cosmic draw.

  • Migrant Log Chipper||

    ^^^That whole bunch is batshit crazy and the best thing is we are not supporting their craziness. They've become very wealthy as a result of the dysfunctional nature of the whole bunch.

    Where are the prog cries of we need to tax their fabulous wealth? In progworld their wealth is ok as opposed to someone who started a business, hired a bunch of people who make a living working there . Pretty ironic.

  • Procrastinatus||

    The thing is, Dozeal lied because it wasn't socially acceptable to imagine away your ethnicity like it is your gender. She had to, and if she didn't no one, especially the one single group of people she wants to associate with and be accepted by the most, would have accepted her. The cis-ethnic privilege people are showing here to not realize this is astounding. She was forced to lie because of oppression. Duh.

    Do you think trans-gendered people were so open before it was acceptable, mainstream? Are they big frauds and liar heads?

    There is no difference. If anything Dozeal should be hailed as a visionary civil rights forebear for trans-ethnic people.

  • Win Bear||

    Why is "I identify as black" fraud, but "I just am a woman, on the figurative inside" not,

    "I identify as black" was a falsehood proclaimed for personal gain. That is, the statement gave the person a job and other benefits but didn't correspond to reality.

    "I am a woman inside" was a revelation of a pre-existing feeling that wasn't done for personal gain. In fact, the guy concealed it for a long time.

  • Dan Bongard||

    You're claiming that the truth of the statement is dependent on the motives of the person making it. In case you're curious, what you just did there is known as the ad hominem cicumstantial fallacy.

  • Win Bear||

    You're claiming that the truth of the statement is dependent on the motives of the person making it.

    No, I'm claiming that whether something is fraud is dependent on the motives of the person engaging in it. Look up the dictionary definition of "fraud": it involves intent as an essential element:

    fraud: wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.

    (Note that, in addition to the intended outcome, deception itself involves a second element of "intent".)

    In case you're curious, what you just did there is known as the ad hominem cicumstantial fallacy.


    In case you're curious, what you just did is demonstrate a basic lack of familiarity with the meaning of common words.
  • Dan Bongard||

    But you have exactly zero evidence that the woman in question considers herself white. It isn't fraud to earn profits by saying something you honestly believe.

    If you want to define fraud as earning something by means of claims that are not true, both she and Jenner are fraudsters. She's white, he's male.

    Actually, she at least could claim to be African-American. Everyone's from Africa if you go back far enough. Jenner, on the other hand, is 100% male.

  • Win Bear||

    But you have exactly zero evidence that the woman in question considers herself white. It isn't fraud to earn profits by saying something you honestly believe.

    There are many cases in which race is ambiguous; in her case, it is not. And while the woman may be a habitual liar, she is clearly not delusional: she knows that the term "African American" doesn't apply to her, as is clear from her behavior and attempts at concealment.

    If you want to define fraud as earning something by means of claims that are not true,

    In what way is Jenner deceiving or defrauding anybody? You know he has XY chromosomes and was born with a penis. He has never claimed anything else and isn't claiming anything else today either. He is now claiming to be a transsexual, which is evidently true. And, besides, what is he "earning" by claiming to be a transsexual?

    Actually, she at least could claim to be African-American.

    The term "African-American" has a specific meaning to the NAACP, critical race theorists, and progressives. What you are suggesting is equivocation, which is just as deceptive as any other lie.

  • Lord at War||

    The term "African-American" has a specific meaning to the NAACP, critical race theorists, and progressives.

    And the term "male" has a specific meaning to the other 99% of us...

  • Real American||

    they're both pretending to be something they're not. If you can't see that that is the similarity people are crowing about, then maybe you're just an obnoxious jerk.

  • Cytotoxic||

    One lied and the other wants to change herself. Christ what is it with you people? Thick skulls make for good dinosaurs and SoCons, but I repeat myself.

  • wareagle||

    the other wants to change herself.

    one wants to change himself. Beyond that, I could give a shit about it. I'm putting it down to all those years with the Kardashian girls.

  • Cytotoxic||

    No, the white lady just lied.

  • wareagle||

    so did Bruce. He managed to marry two women as a man, act as father to various kids as a man, and now, not so much interested in being a man. Deception is deception.

  • Sudden||

    And the white man demands that the world be complicit in his lie to himself

  • ant1sthenes||

    I see, so you're calling bullshit on all transwomen who aren't willing to go through with hormone therapy or surgeries.

  • Paul.||

    You know what I want to see? I want to see every man who became a woman go for every government set-aside there exists for women.

    Then I want to see who screams the loudest, and why.

  • JustJosh42||

    I do believe she defrauded Howard University by misrepresenting herself and in turn got a full ride for it. That must be a felony right??

  • ant1sthenes||

    Race is a social construct. If she identifies as black, who are you to question her?

  • Migrant Log Chipper||

    No, it's not. Race is race you moron. Identifying as something, something, is fucking perverse and progspeak. She's not black, idiot, no matter how much she wants it to be.

    Fucktard progs like you have this fantasy.

    I'm a mutt with German, Irish, Norwegian, French Canadian (with a large dollop of 5nations in Quebec many generations ago). I have the photos that I'm pretty sure that my great, great grandmother was a full blooded Iroquois. So what...we called ourselves Chippewegians (cross between Chippewa and Norwegian.

    My sister married a guy from Sierra Leone 15 years ago and I came up with the moniker Afrowegian for my niece and nephew, in jest.

    It's funny that my niece has more African characteristics and my nephew is a dead ringer for an older cousin with a norwegian nose and high cheekbones (perhaps that Iroquois gene in the mix).

    Point being the races are mixing and will continue to do so and fucking prog asshole like you will try to make a political point about it. It is and will continue to happen and neither you or socons will stop it.

    Righteous so cons suck, righteous progs like you are twice as despicable because you give a pass to a fraud like her. Go Team, fuck off.

  • John Thacker||

    Actually, I think she told Howard that she was white, and Howard University of all places doesn't offer extra scholarships for black people. (NC, at least twenty years ago, used to have its public HBCUs offer minority scholarships to whites, to balance out the minority scholarships for blacks at other universities. Not sure what Pembroke, the historically Lumbee Indian school did.)

  • ||

    Still, even if both Howard and the NAACP knew she was born white, that doesn't mean that other black people that she interacted with in her duties knew. She was in a leadership position, where black people are making certain assumptions about her background and experiences. It still seems deceptive if she was (say) speaking to a black audience about the African American experience and not disclosing that she hadn't personally experienced that history. If I was a black person, I would be a little miffed.

  • Win Bear||

    It still seems deceptive if she was (say) speaking to a black audience about the African American experience and not disclosing that she hadn't personally experienced that history.

    Given that she had several black siblings and in an interracial marriage, presumably she had a pretty good idea. I'm not defending her identity politics, but I don't think she was objectively unqualified.

    If I was a black person, I would be a little miffed.

    People who play identity politics frequently are miffed at lots of things, so b.f.d.

  • DoubleC||

    It doesn't matter if you've had a black dick inside your white pussy, you still don't know what it's like to be a black person. There's a reason the Ferguson protests put rules on white protesters speaking to the media.

  • Win Bear||

    It doesn't matter if you've had a black dick inside your white pussy, you still don't know what it's like to be a black person.

    That presumes that "black persons" have a specific and unique experience that other human beings aren't privy to. If you're a racist, you would believe that, of course.

    There's a reason the Ferguson protests put rules on white protesters speaking to the media.

    There's also a reason White Supremacists only let white folks speak to the media on their behalf. What's your point?

  • DoubleC||

    You can't fully understand the cost of racism unless you've gone through it. You know what's happening, but you aren't qualified to "teach the black woman's struggle" as her professor's site puts it. So yes, I would say being discriminated against gives them a "specific and unique experience" that white people do not have since they aren't victims of racism. They aren't pulled over for "driving while black", they aren't getting the "stop and frisks", they aren't 13% of drug users but 74% of drug users sentenced to prison, they aren't having cops called on them for "suspicious behavior" just for walking in their neighborhood. White people can say "Hey, we need to work to change this", but to be a spokesperson for it as she was, absolutely absurd.

  • Win Bear||

    So yes, I would say being discriminated against gives them a "specific and unique experience" that white people do not have since they aren't victims of racism.

    I'm an immigrant, and all I could look forward to before I came to the US was a life as a hairdresser, because society had decided that people like me were shit, so don't tell me about "discrimination". And as a legal immigrant in the US, I had to work and make it on my own because back then, if you used any kind of government services, you'd get sent home.

    Most Americans of any skin color are not "fully qualified" to understand what a blessed life they lead because they have never experienced anything else. If I had had to become black in order to get US citizenship immediately, I wouldn't have hesitated for a moment.

    Some people always hate your guts, whether your straight, gay, black, white, male, female, or whatever. Attributing the problems in your life to whatever minority you believe yourself to be a member of is a recipe for failure; the earlier you figure that out, the better. I figured it out in my mid teens and never looked back. The NAACP and progressives are teaching people how to fail in life.

  • DoubleC||

    Yes, I agree all minorities have problems in American society. But clearly black people, certainly historically and even to a still large extent today, have it the worst as compared to Hispanics, Asians, middle easterners, ect. I agree the NAACP and progressives do more harm than good in the black community and that Democrats want them stuck in a certain place so they keep getting their votes. But they are still more adversely affected by racism than anybody else.

  • Win Bear||

    Yes, I agree all minorities have problems in American society. But clearly black people, certainly historically and even to a still large extent today, have it the worst

    The "black people" I went to college with were mostly the sons and daughters of wealthy professionals living in the suburbs, people who had been much more privileged than I. As Dolezal (and numerous 7/8 white "black people") show, people can delude themselves into being the victim of racism even when they clearly don't look black and even aren't black.

    Your historical argument also doesn't work. Plenty of people of any skin color have suffered as bad or worse as blacks in the US, and a few generations later managed to do just fine. Most "white" Americans have no relationship or connection with US slave owners.

    And, no, I'm not a "minority". This whole identity politics pushed by people like you is just racist bullshit. Knock it off.

  • John Thacker||

    You can't fully understand the cost of racism unless you've gone through it. You know what's happening, but you aren't qualified to "teach the black woman's struggle" as her professor's site puts it...
    They aren't pulled over for "driving while black", they aren't getting the "stop and frisks", they aren't 13% of drug users but 74% of drug users sentenced to prison, they aren't having cops called on them for "suspicious behavior" just for walking in their neighborhood.

    So you're arguing also that light skinned black people or multiracial that oftentimes pass for white on casual inspection, and thus don't get pulled over for driving while black or get stopped and frisked also shouldn't be spokespeople?

    The NAACP has long had multiracial, passing, and white leadership.

    Second, that certainly applies to a lot of transwomen, especially the later in life that they decide to switch. They don't have the lived experience of women. If someone-- unlike Jenner-- doesn't upfront tell friends and acquaintances that they lived as a man for X number of years, that's an enormous problem and makes them a fraud?

  • DoubleC||

    I didn't say that at all. Light skinned black people and biracial people share the same problems.

  • Win Bear||

    I didn't say that at all. Light skinned black people and biracial people share the same problems.

    You mean a propensity for misattributing slights and personal failures to "racism"? Yes, they probably do if they self-identify as "light skinned black people and biracial people". However, that's not a failure of others, it's a failure of the people making that choice.

  • ||

    She would probably understand a lot of it, but other black people ought to know that. She should just be open about how she grew up with adopted black siblings and that's why she relates so much. She doesn't need to pretend to be black.

  • Win Bear||

    You are missing the point entirely. The progressive racial agenda and critical race theory are predicated on the idea that people irrationally perceive African Americans as inferior and treat them differently. That requires for African Americans to be actually identifiable as such. If a Czech-German blond woman can be perceived by others as "African American" and claim to suffer the same kind of discrimination, the entire premise of policies to remedy and address racial discrimination falls apart.

    That's what gets SJWs so riled up about the Dolezal case: it exposes the irrationality and hypocrisy of their positions.

  • ||

    Well she wasn't perceived as "black" when she was a pale bond girl with straight hair, was she?

    The fact is that "African" people have an identifiable look. And it's a lot harder for a black woman to straighten and bleach her skin and hair than for a white girl to get a dye job a perm and some bronzer.

  • Win Bear||

    But the NAACP doesn't represent people who have an "African look"; that would include many non-African-Americans, and it would exclude many African Americans, and it would invalidate all those arguments about the supposed "legacy of slavery" and discrimination. In fact, none of the NAACP arguments about racism or a legacy of slavery make sense as an explanation of the correlation between "being black" and low socioeconomic status.

    Sowell's explanation, on the other hand, is quite cogent: the problem started simply as a problem of Southern culture, which afflicted both blacks and whites, and it was perpetuated by race-based government policies. It's the only explanation that actually makes any logical sense.

  • John Thacker||

    The fact is that "African" people have an identifiable look.

    Come on, that identifiable look is *at least* as much a non-binary spectrum as gender. Don't pretend that passing hasn't been a thing for years, and that multiracial people don't exist. There are obviously always going to be people on the boundary of being recognized as having that distinctive look.

  • ||

    John, my statement was in response to this argument from WinBear:

    The progressive racial agenda and critical race theory are predicated on the idea that people irrationally perceive African Americans as inferior and treat them differently. That requires for African Americans to be actually identifiable as such.

    I mean, YES, people can actually identify most African Americans as such, because they fucking really do look different. Duh.

    Yes there are some people on the margins who can pass but it's completely idiotic to claim that because mixed-race people can "pass" that therefore nobody can tell who is black and who isn't and therefore racism doesn't exist.

  • Win Bear||

    Yes there are some people on the margins who can pass but it's completely idiotic to claim that because mixed-race people can "pass" that therefore nobody can tell who is black and who isn't and therefore racism doesn't exist.

    Yes, that would be "completely idiotic". You should therefore have figured out that your interpretation of what I was saying was wrong and that I must have meant something different.

    And in fact, my statement was crystal clear: I didn't say "racism doesn't exist", I said the entire premise of policies to remedy and address racial discrimination falls apart. That statement actually acknowledges that racial discrimination exists, it questions how progressives address and think about it.

    The problem isn't any idiocy on my part, it is an inability to read and understand clear, simple English sentences on your part. Or to put it more bluntly in your own language, HazelMeade: you have shown yourself to be an argumentative idiot.

  • Migrant Log Chipper||

    Her black siblings were adopted, not may black people in Troy, Montana.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    "There's a pretty bright line between being fraud and being trans."

    IS there now? And can you explain the difference without resorting to jargon? Does it amount to somebody who claims a "racial" background they do not have is lying but somebody who claims a gender they were not born with is mad? Because I'm not sure I agree. I think that both may be frauds and both may be mad.

    Mind you, I'm not running down insanity. I have my own, and wouldn't trade it for ahoy other kind. But until it is actually possible to shift from one gender to another, Caitlyn Jenner is, at best, delusional.

    And maybe Rechel Dolezal is also delusional. She may seriously believe that she is Black. OK, race is a social construct. So is being Napoleon, in a sense. Agree that race is a social construct, and that she is Black because she believes she is Black, and see where that takes you; the Left believes in that particular social construct so much that they go mad over it.

    Or, possibly, the Liberal Intellectual Radical Progressives are so self-centered that every story has to be about THEM. They must be the bride at every wedding, the corpse at every wake. If more attention is to be paid to Black, then they will be Black.

  • ||

    I just hope for her sake she doesn't believe she is black so strongly that she comes down with sickle cell anemia.

    Race is not JUST a social construct. There are genetic differences between the races.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    No. "Race" is a social construct, built on some trivial genetic variations. We're all mutts. There is less difference between me (WASP) and a Zulu than there is between a spaniel and a retreiver, much less a terrier and a great dane.

    What people fail to appreciate or consider is that Social Costructs have a stubborn power. It's like saying that an illness is all in your head. It may be true, but that doesn't mean for one fat instant that it isn't real. Or that it isn't going to be a stone bitch to cure.

    Merriage is a social construct. As social apes, the natural thing for us to do is probably for all the females to belong to a small caste of alpha males, with a certain amount of behind-the-old-man's-back adultery (which would be good genetic variation). And periodic fights where the old alpha gets torn to bits by the teeth of the challangers. Marriage is an improvement. And still a Social Construct.

    You ignore or dismiss Social Constructs at your peril.

  • Win Bear||

    Race is not JUST a social construct. There are genetic differences between the races.

    Almost everybody who is of Germanic descent speaks German, but that doesn't mean that Germanic descent has any genetic influence on what language people speak.

    The only "genetic differences" between the races are those that you actually use to define "race" in the first place (e.g., dark skin); all the other genetic markers and phenotypes are just accidentally along for the ride.

  • Careless||

    I suppose that's true, if you make it a tautology. Otherwise it's stupid and false.

  • Win Bear||

    Yes, that's the point: the notion that there are "genetic differences between the races" is a tautology. "Race" has no biological meaning beyond whatever arbitrary criteria you choose to group people together.

  • Careless||

    I agree, down with subspecies!

  • Careless||

    The concept, I mean, not the individuals.

  • Win Bear||

    All modern humans are members of the same subspecies: Homo sapiens sapiens.

    Races, as the term is used in politics and social sciences, are not human subspecies, they have no biological reality at all.

  • Careless||

    Here's your homework: look up a definition of "subspecies" that works (a definition that produces subspecies that are generally agreed upon) and apply it to humans. Then get back to me.

  • Win Bear||

    Look, biologists are clear about this: all humans independent of race, are members of the same species and subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens. That's just a fact.

    The term "subspecies" is generally used for geographically isolated populations that (1) differ consistently in their phenotype, and (2) don't interbreed. That clearly isn't happening with humans either. The reason the concept of "subspecies" is useful is because it's a precursor to speciation, but human races clearly are in no way a precursor to speciation. Human races are more the equivalent of "breeds" in animals.

    FYI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subspecies

  • Careless||

    The term "subspecies" is generally used for geographically isolated populations that (1) differ consistently in their phenotype

    Check

    and (2) don't interbreed.

    Check (yes, that's how it happened. It's reversing now, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't true when the subspecies were created. We couldn't have the races we have with substantial gene flow)

    You could have added slight levels of difficulty interbreeding, which is also a check.

  • Win Bear||

    Check

    Really? And what are those subspecies and where are they found? Name some of those places and the populations that make up those subspecies.

  • Careless||

    Because every single one of them will give you a number of human subspecies.

  • Win Bear||

    As I was pointing out, biologists are unequivocal: there is only "H. sapiens sapiens".

    If there actually were other subspecies of human, they would be unrelated to what the US legal system and US culture defines as a "race". Africans and Europeans have interbred for millennia and people who identify as "African Americans" are on average 3/4 "African" and 1/4 "European", so "African Americans" or "Africans" would clearly not be subspecies.

    (Incidentally, several million "white" Christian Europeans were captured and held as slaves in Africa; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_slave_trade)

  • Careless||

    As I was pointing out, biologists are unequivocal: there is only "H. sapiens sapiens".

    Yes, but that's politics, not biology. Pointing out the reality of human subspecies is not good for anyone's career.

  • Win Bear||

    Yes, but that's politics, not biology. Pointing out the reality of human subspecies is not good for anyone's career.

    Look, I pointed you at the definition of "subspecies", and no matter what your politics may be, there is no population of humans that meets that. That's just a fact, no matter how much you may be in denial about it. And even if human subspecies existed, they would have nothing to do with our concept of "race". "Africans" are not a subspecies.

    There are genetic markers that track historical human migration and settlements, and they correlate with some phenotypes, but that's all.

  • ||

    Exactly. There are actually hundreds of genes coding for skin color. You can't even be sure that all "black" people have the same ones.

  • DoubleC||

    "Or, possibly, the Liberal Intellectual Radical Progressives are so self-centered that every story has to be about THEM. They must be the bride at every wedding, the corpse at every wake. If more attention is to be paid to Black, then they will be Black."

    That's what I was thinking. A white person is only going to get so far in the hierarchy of the NAACP obviously, or any other civil rights organization. So instead of knowing your place as a white person and just doing whatever they ask you to do to help, her ego wouldn't allow her to be just the white girl who hangs out at NAACP volunteer situations.

    Also, her husband is black, so I'm interested to know why he went along. Their wedding picture in WaPo had her as a blond woman, so it's not like she fooled him too.

  • Win Bear||

    Also, her husband is black,

    Her husband was black. He had the good sense to leave this crazy woman. She became black herself after he left her.

  • DoubleC||

    Oh, I just saw the wedding picture and didn't see that they were divorced. I was wondering how a black man could possibly tolerate the scam. But he didn't.

  • Suellington||

    Gillespie does nothing in this article to show the difference. If she became black before the job interview then she why is that any different between a man who now identifies as a woman checking the "female" box and not revealing that she was once a man?

  • Paul.||

    We don't deal in the past, we only deal in the now, baby!

    *snaps fingers repeatedly*

  • ||

    The job in question was NAACP spokeman (and apparently African studies professor).

    Would you have no problem with a trans-woman signing up to be a member of a women's basketball team and not disclosing they are trans?

  • Win Bear||

    As long as she isn't fat. Trans fats are bad for you. The FDA says so.

  • Careless||

    (and apparently African studies professor).

    This story just keeps getting better. I'm delighted.

  • Rt. Hon. Judge Woodrow Chipper||

    Not one Michael Jackson or Rita Hayworth mention?

  • Harvard||

    How about a tip of the hat to the entire Soviet and East German decathlon teams of the '76 Olympics, who will now be secretly arrested and consigned to a filthy gulag for getting their lunch handed to them by an American split tail?

  • DoubleC||

    Wasn't Hayworth half-Spanish and half-White?

  • John Deere WC-12||

    Listen, gender is a fluid social construct completely detached from physical or genetic markers and based entirely on individual feelings because we said so. Race is an immutable physical property which cannot ever be changed, also because we said so.

    Why is this so hard to understand.

  • DoubleC||

    I wasn't surprised at all that this happened. When Identity Politics are all that matters to a certain portion of society, there was bound to be a white person who felt left out all the cool black people were giving them a limit to how down they can be to the cause and wanted to take it further.

  • Jens||

    Perhaps some ask without sincerity, but even if Ms. Dolezal has committed fraud of some sort or the querier asks in jest, the question remains one our society needs to answer. Why is it fraud for Ms. Dolezal? Because she wasn't public with her transition? Does Mr. Gillespie implicitly argue that a transgender individual must mark every business or personal relationship with "I was once a man/woman"? Or must one only do that with regard to race? It is a serious question, notwithstanding Mr. Gillespie's employing ad hominem to chill any discussion regarding it.

  • Migrant Log Chipper||

    Yo, stupid, Dolezal misrepresented the fact that she was black when applying for a position in an "African studies" department and if she had "admitted" she was white most likely would most likely not received the position.

    You are right that the "Jacket" is sort of fishing here.

    Here is the difference, Jenner is "transitioning" in public view with the help of major media outlets, has a ton of money and a lot of stupid people that give a shit about stupid signalling. Stupid as it is, it's not fraud.

    Dolezal is fraud because was born white, she'll always be white and if you are moronic enough to believe she can become "black" by tapping her heels together, there is no hope for idiots of your ilk.

    I thought peak derp was a thing and the Jens pissed in my Cheerios.

  • John Thacker||

    That's a fine argument for while Dolezal is different than Jenner. I certainly agree that Jenner is quite different because of being open. However, Jens's comment doesn't say anything about Jenner. I don't see how it's derp at all to ask if every 'transgender individual must mark every business or personal relationship with "I was once a man/woman"?'

    The Jenner obsession is stupid. However, I am completely certain that there are transgender men and women who hide their birth sex from many relationships and are not willing to be open about it. In the case of a personal relationship that seems unacceptable, but I'm not willing to force them to tell casual acquaintances about it, even women who may then be misled into thinking that this transwoman shared certain cultural experiences that they didn't.

  • Careless||

    You don't have to be a SoCon to point out that the crazy man in a dress is a crazy man in a dress, you know.

    It helps, for some reason. You might want to ask yourself why you're up there saying that the emperor is wearing clothes, and they're not.

  • Smettbo||

    Did you really use the word "wigger?" Yes you did. Are you really that dense? Look it up. Using a W in lieu of an N doesn't make it o.k. Why don't you spell out the phrase you really meant?

  • DoubleC||

    Wigga please.

  • John C. Randolph||

    Sorry to break it to you, but nobody requires your approval to use whatever jargon they please.

    "Wigger" is a succinct and descriptive term to indicate a white person affecting stereotypically black behaviors to elicit an emotional response that they can't obtain otherwise. Vanilla Ice is a wigger. Justin Beiber is a wigger, too. Rachel Dolezal is, at the moment, the most notorious wigger in the country.

    If my use of the word "wigger" upsets you, then feel free to go and pound sand up your ass, you useless, guilt-peddling twat.

    -jcr

  • Head Stomp||

    So Nick, if you confront a transwoman on the street with a camera and ask if she is really a man and she stumbles her words and runs away, that means that she is a fraud and open to ridicule? In your desperate flailing attempts to deal with your cosmo contradictions, that is what you come up with?

    Are you fucking kidding me?

  • blcartwright||

    I don't care if Bruce Jenner wants to cut off his junk. I do object to the mandatory applause.

  • Tony||

    Nobody is literally grasping your arms and flapping them together, so what exactly do you mean by this hyperbole?

  • blcartwright||

    That I'm some kind of bad person if I don't say "Bravo!"

    Tolerance is letting something exist even though I may not support it. But when the Left says tolerance they actually want active endorsement. Everyone must love what they do or suffer the consequences.

  • Tony||

    What consequences? Who is forcing you to do what? You're still exaggerating. If you're whining because you're expected to practice basic manners, then what sympathy do you deserve? Basic manners are expected of everyone.

  • Jens||

    Tip for Nick Gillespie from GLAAD:
    http://www.glaad.org/transgender/allies
    __
    When a transgender person has transitioned and is living as their authentic gender - that is their truth. The world now sees them as their true selves. Unfortunately, it can often feel disempowering for a transgender person to disclose to others that he or she is transgender. Sometimes when others learn a person is trans they no longer see the person as a "real" man or woman. Some people may choose to publicly discuss their lives in an effort to raise awareness and make cultural change, but please don't assume that it's necessary for a transgender person to always disclose that they are transgender in order to feel happy and whole.
    __
    Shouldn't the same apply to race, Mr. Gillespie?

  • Migrant Log Chipper||

    Look, moron, when you use rhetoric like "disempowering" you will be mocked here and I'm glad that is the case because morons need to be mocked.

  • PM||

    Pretty sure the point was that Gillespie is trying to speak SJW language and using SJW framework to address this issue, and in so doing is creating a distinction that doesn't actually exist if that language and framework is applied consistently.

  • Jens||

    Exactly.

  • Jens||

    Not my words, but GLAAD's. The "__" characters indicate a quote offset. Sorry you missed it.

    Gillespie wrote this piece implying he was a trans-ally in his comparison between Dolezal and Jenner. He affected disdain and affront at the equation of something he thought was brave with what he considered imposture. I thought he might want to see his we-must-out-trans-people position was at odds with what many transitioning or transitioned folk want.

    The irony that MLC employs the logical fallacy of argumentum ad hominem in support of Gillespie's argumentum ad hominem in comments to a story in a magazine called "Reason" is not lost on me.

  • TommyInIdaho||

    I think working from tweets shortchanged the arguments for there being similarities in these claims. National Review has Dolezal quotes about people not understanding her concepts of race that show the similarities.

    And, trans people have a mental condition. It's a shame that stigma still attach to same but denying them their diagnosis is harmful. Like an autistic person they need help to cope with how their brains work. I happen to think that mutilating the body to match the mind is as counterproductive as mutilating the mind to match the body.

  • Migrant Log Chipper||

    If you use tweets as some measure of intelligent discourse you are on my moron list.

  • TheRealist||

    It seems the NAACP support's the scholarship she got to go to a all black University by falsely claiming herself being a black person along with supporting a white women who has abused to the extreme her white privilege to make it through life !

  • Napolean Bonoparte||

    Well no, I wasn't born Napolean, but I identify as Napolean! Therefore, I am Napolean! I demand to be validated!

  • Bittertruth||

    Yes. As some seem to argue, that is "your truth," as though you had a right to some private "truth" that will not withstand public scrutiny because it has no correspondence to corroborating fact. If Dolezal can be black, then you can certainly be Napoleon.

  • John C. Randolph||

    Ok, you're Napoleon. Off to Elba with you!

    -jcr

  • SIV||

    Fonzie's AIDS has done gone to his brain.

  • Strelnikov||

    You obviously do not know the legal definition of "fraud" if you think this isn't one.

    The key to fraud is actually realizing gain through your deception. So, tell me, would this fraud have gotten her position teaching "africana" history (no idea) if she hadn't claimed, falsely to be black? The compensation she has gotten from that position and, I suspect, various other tax funded "black" appointments, completes the criminal fraud. Same as E. Warren's academic positions confirms hers.

    Don't right this off as inside baseball. It is a prosecutable crime.

  • Migrant Log Chipper||

    It would be hard to prove. Though I have no doubt that a white girl from Troy, Montana would have zero chance of getting a position in an"African studies" at any purported institute of "higher education" if she was honest about where she came from. Is she ok at what she does, don't know.

    It's a heads up about the idiocy in the higher ed debate.

  • Tarck||

    You have no idea what her motivation was. There are easier ways to make a fortune than pretending to be black to teach Africana history -- and I'd be willing to bet she didn't make a fortune doing it.

  • tgiordan||

    I don't have a problem with trans identity, meaning that some people are profoundly unhappy with their gender as defined by their chromosomes and genitals. If Bruce Jenner wishes to become Caitlyn, so be it. I don't need to be inundated with the Kardashian publicity machine because of it. I also oppose the politically correct assertion that gender is fluid for most people and that children should not be "forced" into a gender. This assertion is as unscientific as anything promoted by creationists.

  • Pulseguy||

    Science is only real when it supports prog policies. Science that doesn't, is ignored.

  • Lady Bertrum||

    Holy hell, the derp is strong tonight.

  • Careless||

    But what does Nick get out of making himself look so ridiculous?

  • Napolean Bonoparte||

    Invitations to the best cocktail parties?

  • Careless||

    Is that an option for Reason editors? I'd imagine that's disqualifying.

  • Mrowley||

    it's really a pretty simple point, Nick. Dolzal lied about always being African-American because, unlike gender, race is still considered a physical reality with legal ramifications. If race is still a legal reality contingent on biology, why isn't gender?

    Davis's question seems perfectly legitimate to me, and not at all "snarky".

  • John Deere WC-12||

    Exactly. If you had asked a transexual person on camera twenty years ago whether they were a man or a woman, the person would likely have dodged the questions and walked away from the interview as well, feeling that they had been living as a fraud all these years themselves.

  • SDN||

    "Contrary to David French in National Review, nobody is insisting everybody must "applaud" or even affirm Jenner's life choices. "

    This is simply either ignorant or dishonest or both.

    "Yesterday, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette published an editorial on Caitlyn Jenner whose headline proclaimed: "Jenner is still a mister."

    Authored by columnist and associate editor Jennifer Graham, the piece argues in part that Jenner "would have headlined the tragic freak shows in carnivals of old." The piece predictably generated a shitstorm on social media and has been criticized for needlessly dehumanizing trans people.

    Today, Human Rights Campaign foundation director Jay Brown penned a letter to P-G executive editor David Shribman calling the editorial "hate speech" and asking for Graham to be fired. Graham "not only failed to offer any information of value to your readership," the letter states, "she openly spewed lies and misinformation about transgender people—a community that disproportionately experiences harassment, unemployment, discrimination and violence." "

    http://www.pghcitypaper.com/Bl.....-editorial

    Sure sounds like a demand for applause and affirmation to me. See also the reaction to Bob Costas. Five minutes with Google too much to expect from a "journalist"?

  • Special Place in Hell||

    I just google image searched Rachel Dolezal, and perhpas its because I make a living as a sculptor/artist, but there is zero chance i would ever have mistaken this woman for being of African decent in any way whatsoever. WTF!

  • Win Bear||

    Well, but that causes the entire premise of racial politics to fall apart, doesn't it? If a lily white blond German-Czech woman can successfully fool both "African Americans" and whites into believing that she has first hand knowledge of the African American experience because of her apparent race, then the whole concept of "racial discrimination" doesn't make sense.

  • Careless||

    Oh, come on, there are people who say they are black who are 7/8 white, and they're "allowed' to do so. Sure, no one is going to believe that her ancestry is mostly African, but would your first thought really be that none of it was, if she told you she was biracial?

  • Citizen Nothing||

    Mens rea. If Caitlyn really thinks she's a girl, good for her. If Rachel really thinks she's black, good for her. Next question?

  • John C. Randolph||

    If I really think I'm Warren Buffet, am I entitled to access his bank account?

    -jcr

  • Winston||

    nobody is insisting everybody must "applaud" or even affirm Jenner's life choices. But if you claim that she is nuts, or a freak, or contemptible because she was born a man and would rather be a woman, well, don't expect everybody to agree with you.

    So you can say whatever you want about the Jenner as long as you agree with what he did.

    Also I noticed Gillespie hasn't talked about the movement for trannies to alter their birth certificates.

    And he doesn't address the whole issue that sex is considered to be arbitrary but race isn't.

    who might agree with you about the size and scope of government and the centrality of individual freedom and autonomy to human flourishing.

    What, all five of them?

  • Napolean Bonoparte||

    who might agree with you about the size and scope of government and the centrality of individual freedom and autonomy to human flourishing.

    This is flourishing? If these are the kinds of things free people do, maybe letting them off their leashes isn't such a hot idea, after all. It's a better example of "human decadence". Turning the world into an open air asylum may not be the most convincing of all arguments for freedom.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    I mean, really. I love Nick. (No gay.) But what the hell was that?

  • Winston||

    Wilhelm Kulz?

  • Winston||

    What's the libertarian take on disability pensions to the transabled? Is there a difference between an able-bodied person who feels that their leg isn't part of their body and sits in a wheelchair all the time and someone who has had their leg amputated for that reason?

  • Vernon Depner||

    Are TransBlacks allowed to say the n-word?

  • Careless||

    I know just whom to ask!

  • Winston||

    I noticed that Gillespie didn't take an opportunity to talk about the Libertarian Moment in this post. Interesting.

    I know I wood not be so chipper right now either.

  • Paul.||

    "But Jenner isn't pretending that she was always biologically a woman, was literally born a woman, or anything like that"

    Speaking for myself, and trying to avoid the whole socon vs prog identity politics potato salad, I look at it from a different angle. Not one based on what Bruce Jenner himself/herself has done, but what the potential is for the identity politics industry.

    If gender identity is as fluid, flexible, malleable as some say it is, it puts the entire identity politics industry on the defensive. I don't care if "gender" is a social construct. The Byzantine and massive system of set-sides isn't. For instance, I ask ye, what's the socially acceptable minimum time between gender identity switch-offs? And how often can I switch if it benefits me with various government programs?

  • SIV||

    "...Reason.com, a leading libertarian website whose clever writing is comments are eclipsed only by the blowhard stupidity of its commenting peanut gallery Editor in Chief, Nick Gillespie"

  • Careless||

    heh

  • Issue Ninja||

    So according to Reason fake women deserve fake rights and fake blacks don't? It's like saying who would win if Rachel Dolezal and Caitlyn Jenner got in a pissing contest. Ok maybe bad example.

  • Nick H||

    You're right that it's the fraudulent nature that separates the two cases. But the larger point by the socos holds - can she not self-identify as a black just as innocently as Jenner with female? Maybe she had to lie about it due to the notoriety she would face (and is now facing).

  • GILMORE, Clownish Brat||

    That's a good point.

    He even says in his update that the "problem" (with jenner comparisons) is just that she didn't come clean about her "Self Identification" choice when asked...

    ...as though that would (or more importantly - should) have been accepted as "OK" if she had.

    But I don't see there being any actual examination here of the reality of actual contemporary people who openly "choose to self identify as a race they are not born as"

    He cites the Johnny Otis example - as though this historical oddity by itself is sufficient to prove "its a thing!". Ta-Nehsi Coates mentions here the example's exceptional rarity - while suggesting that defining race is possible about "shared lived experience"

    Nick misses a number of opportunities here to actually raise challenging issues, but instead sweeps past them, preferring to simply make an Argumentum ad Populum... suggesting unkind comparisons are not politically useful.. which i find sort of slimy. who cares if SoCons make unpopular comments? let them. Maybe they have a point even if its unpleasant. I don't see how it hurts libertarians.

    Also, I'm an Eskimo. Just so everyone knows.

  • Vincent Milburn||

    Rachel Dolezal may not be biologically black, but she still has the abstract mental state of a black person. She was crip walking just the other day.

  • Haskell_Hunter||

    Two books come to mind when I reflect on where society is headed: A Brave New World, and "The Sneetches".

  • christophersmith1964@msn.||

    What a huge disappointment this article is, especially coming from a magazine that calls itself "Reason." You skirt over the major issue, namely, are categories fungible and negatable at will, or, are some things fixed. Race is far less set in stone than is gender (see Brasil), so if Bruce Jenner, currently and forever in possession of two X chromosomes, can one day claim to be a female, why can't he claim to be a black female? Where is the "reason" in denying him that right?

  • howeines||

    just before I looked at the receipt of $9099 , I didnt believe that my sister woz like trully bringing in money part time online. . there neighbor has been doing this for under twenty two months and by now paid the dept on there home and purchased a gorgeous Chrysler . you can try here ........... WWW.WAGE-REPORT.COM

  • AD Powell||

    My views on racial identity are totally the opposite of Rachel Dolezal's. If you look white, then you should identify as such. When a white person calls himself "black," he is effectively validating the old racist idea that African genes are super-inferior and that the "white race" can only be preserved through "racial purity."

    http://melungeon.ning.com/foru.....a-d-powell

    http://www.amazon.com/Passing-.....939479222/

  • Bush League||

    I think you're missing a much larger point here. Yes, this specific case involved fraud, but it's not unimaginable that someone could claim they were suffering from racial dysphoria. In this case, the consistent thing to do, if you accept jenners transformation, is to also accept that others can identify as any race they please.

  • Vincent Milburn||

    Exactly!

  • Win Bear||

    Dolezal's issue isn't what she "identified" as, but that she concealed what she was born as in order to gain personal advantages. It's as if Jenner had competed as a woman in the Olympics, concealing that he was actually biologically male.

  • AlmightyJB||

    I'm loving this pretending to be black to gain advantages meme going on here. Quite amusing.

  • Win Bear||

    That's only because you don't understand that among certain segments of society, being a member of a minority group gains your credibility and privileges.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Oh, I do know that, I just find the acknowledgement of it delicious.

  • Ceci n'est pas un woodchipper||

    Well, the immediately obvious difference is that Rachel Dolezal hasn't killed anyone. Beside that, I think this is a good example of that whole "cosmotarian" thing I keep hearing about. Dolezal is a liar, and quite possibly mentally ill, but is her behavior fraudulent? I mean, by all accounts she's done the NAACP a real service and the university where she teaches has no complaints. She's ridiculous, yes, but in our new "post-racial" world aren't we *not* supposed to pay attention to race? Does whatever she's done for the NAACP or Black Hair Studies or whatever she teaches mean less because she's not black enough, or at all? To me, that smacks of irony and a healthy dose of racism.

    So Bruce Jenner feels like he's really a she and has surgery to look like a woman and changes his name to Caitlyn and now is a she. Terrific. How is that different from Dolezal deciding that she's a black woman trapped in a white woman's body and applying tanner and hair braiding to make herself look the part?

    Oh, and is it cool now to say that Eminem is a "wigger" because he "talks black" or whatever? Because I always figured that was more a socio-economic thing, but if poor white people in Detroit are biologically predisposed to sound like William F. Buckley Jr. I'd love to see it in action. But I guess it's not cool to call Caitlyn Jenner a tranny or anything, huh. Bit of a double standard, but whatever. Woodchippers and stuff.

  • Bittertruth||

    Arguing that being a trans and being a purposeful liar are one in the same is plain stupid. But there is a sense in which both contend that they're something they would like to be but really aren't. The real issue is about what truth is. Is truth the facts of the case, or is it what someone wishes and feels it to be? In the former world, reality can be cruel, harsh and unbending. In the latter, what one sees on a bad acid trip or when daydreaming about yellow unicorns suddenly takes on parity with hard fact. While feelings are facts, a reality re-shaped solely by them is a ghost world in which such standards law, science and social order cannot long exist. As someone once put it, "If wishes were horses, beggars would ride."

  • Issue Ninja||

    I just watched the interview w/ her parents - who are SUPER WHITE - and they live in TROY MONTANA! She was raised there. That is just up the interstate from me! Just turn right at Missoula!! Dat nigga is my homey!!!

  • Chorn||

    While I get your point about the difference between one not denying their past and the other doing so, the point I was hearing made by many pundits was a more basic one: If I can say I'm a woman and not a man (despite the fact that scientifically XX is a woman and XY is a man), what's to stop me from just saying I'm not black? If society is going to determine how we are identified with how we feel, how is the comparison not legitimate? I personally do not care how Jenner describes her/himself. I do think I'm just humoring someone though when scientifically male and female mean something that you cannot change with surgery and pronouns, much like your race. I am fine with doing that to spare ones feelings, but I also believe in objective facts and know the truth that words mean things and changing your perspective on something doesn't change reality.

  • Fredsky||

    I'd be curious to know how the author would respond (once done with offensive name calling) to requests to prove that Dolezal is not black. Or that Dolezal is white. How do you prove such thing?

    That she looks white? That she is genetically white? If she tattooed her skin black, would then she BE black?

  • Migrant Log Chipper||

    Dumbass, she is a white girl from Montana.

    Fredsky, GTFO, it's douche bag progs like you that perpetuate prog myths. Thanks for being stupid and proving the stupid.

    The Jacket wasn't name calling, just mentioning progtards like you.

    I have no reservations in calling out fucking retards like you (apologies to the DD community), they have far more common sense tha twits of your ilk.

  • ||

    I have made in hay in the past about Paul and Epi being on the left side of the state.

    But fair is fair. This has nothing to do with race or gender and everything to do with Eastern Washington also being fucking retarded.

  • ||

    OT, sort of:

    So i have done some research and by research I mean I perused some wikipedia articles. from what i can tell white people came from a small area between the Black and Caspian sea gaining blue eyes (and green) about 10,000 years ago then about 6000 years ago spread out into Europe and eastward into the middle east and Persia bringing with them horses, Indo-European languages as well as a Storm God which would later go by the names of Thor, Zeus and Teshub.

    What is interesting is that white people did not dominate Europe fully into about 500 BC and did not establish itself fully in Scandinavia and Germany until about 1500 BC.

    This brings me to Elves. The origins of their existence is hazy at best but from older myths they are described simply as another people. Fair skinned and tall. This makes me think that Elves are in fact an artefact of reverse cultural appropriation. Like how the myths of King Arthur were appropriated by Saxons when in fact Aurthur was a Celt who fought the Saxons the Elves are in fact the White People as seen from the original Darker skinned Europeans then as the white took over became in the eyes of the Elves (white people) as another separate people.

  • ||

    Note much of my theory is hinted at in this historical documentary:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7CdntAVRE4

  • d_d||

    N. Gillespie seems to enjoy being willfully obtuse when he scolds the squares.

    Most folks find this farcical, not offensive. Why Gillepsie and his ilk would want to clap along with this stupid charade is a mystery to most people; why make a mook of yourself?

    Jenner and Dolezal are the similar, and this whole fraud angle is a red herring. They're adults play acting like children and Gillespie for some reason finds it important.

  • Seven||

    Nick, long time first time.
    Rachel has committed crimes, serious fraud. Jail cell future.
    Caitlyn? Pursuit of happiness, you go girl. Fine.

    The beef is because you dodge the obvious facts of the matter.
    Caitlyn is not a woman, Rachel is not black.

    Then you proceed promptly from missing this glaringly obvious point
    and top it off with a cheap shot, click bait, hate spreading headline.

    **************
    Rachel is a risible character, merits a jail cell.
    Caityn merits sympathy. Free to do the shtick. Pursuit of happiness, etc.

    Of course, Jenner may be playing us for TV cash flow. Glue on boobs, heavy on the hollywood expert makeup and lighting, take some pretty pictures, say a few studied syllables,boom to the cash flow. Payback for living with the family from hell all of these years?
    I hope so, it would be a riot. Either way, she is free to go. Not actually a woman. But free to go. have at it girl.

    Risible Rachel weaseled her way in there on lies, stole a Howard roster spot from a deserving black kid, memorized the shtick, and played her way into the NAACP.
    Then used the position to spread lies and hate.
    So Rachel deserves a target on her back. And a jail cell.

    Just don't try to sell or automatically assume as fact that Caitlyn is really a woman,
    any more than Rachel is really black.

  • AlmightyJB||

    "stole a Howard roster spot from a deserving black kid"

    Irony? Ruling?

  • Napolean Bonoparte||

    Maybe it's time to change the banner from "Free minds and free markets" to "Celebrating everything that just plain sucks".

  • Horatio Lust||

    I am a "Native-American" having been born in the USA and am a member of the Litvak-Galitziana tribe.

    On another note, is a white South African who moves to the US and becomes a naturalized citizen considered an "African-American", or is that designation solely based upon the level of melanin in that person's DNA?

  • TreII28||

    so what do you do with all the transvestites? There's a pretty bright line between gender identity disorder and a bunch of sexual pervert freaks too.
    (and yes, I am aware there are CDs that aren't sexual freaks, but there are a whole lot more that are)

  • AlmightyJB||

    So Rachel pretended to be black so that she could obtain all of the PRIVILEGE and perks that comes with being a black woman in the U.S.? Intereresting point Nick.

  • bill reeves||

    I think the reason Bruce Jenner doesn't lie and say he was always a woman is because 1. His whole identity (and business plan) depends upon him being trans, not a woman. Or
    2. Being famous, he couldn't get away with it.

    I've met men passing themselves off as women and none of them were truthful. If "identity" is self defined then I have as much right to identify as black as woman. And to assert that I have "always" been so. Mr. Gillespie accepts the premise that we can be who we want UNLESS the lefties whose approval he needs to sustain his hipster libertarian identity in spite of his politics disapprove. Free minds? Not yours, Nick, not yours.

  • bill reeves||

    I think the reason Bruce Jenner doesn't lie and say he was always a woman is because 1. His whole identity (and business plan) depends upon him being trans, not a woman. Or
    2. Being famous, he couldn't get away with it.

    I've met men passing themselves off as women and none of them were truthful. If "identity" is self defined then I have as much right to identify as black as woman. And to assert that I have "always" been so. Mr. Gillespie accepts the premise that we can be who we want UNLESS the lefties whose approval he needs to sustain his hipster libertarian identity in spite of his politics disapprove. Free minds? Not yours, Nick, not yours.

  • bill reeves||

    I think the reason Bruce Jenner doesn't lie and say he was always a woman is because 1. His whole identity (and business plan) depends upon him being trans, not a woman. Or
    2. Being famous, he couldn't get away with it.

    I've met men passing themselves off as women and none of them were truthful. If "identity" is self defined then I have as much right to identify as black as woman. And to assert that I have "always" been so. Mr. Gillespie accepts the premise that we can be who we want UNLESS the lefties whose approval he needs to sustain his hipster libertarian identity in spite of his politics disapprove. Free minds? Not yours, Nick, not yours.

  • Win Bear||

    There are many reasons people don't lie: some people are honest because it's in their nature, others because they aren't very good at it, and yet others because they idiotically believe that they will burn in hell for it.

    The fact remains that Jenner has been truthful, while Dolezal has not been.

    Stating that fact doesn't mean "approval"; I "approve" of what Jenner is doing no more than I "approve" of Catholicism. But as a libertarian, I certainly believe you have a right to live as a transsexual or a Catholic if you so choose, and other people should not hassle you over your choices unless you make a nuisance of yourself.

  • Will Jones - Atlanta||

    Hannibal's troops made an enormous genetic contribution to Switzerland's and Europe's makeup.

    Here in America, Isaiah's foretold "Zion," "into which all nations of the world flow," we "nation of priests" are to see God in one another, and Blacks are, by and large, "closer" to God.

  • Issue Ninja||

    The Carthaginians were Mediterranean Semitic people, not black sub-Sharan Africans.

  • ||

    And Mediterranean Semitic people may have come from the same proto-european stock that white Europeans came from. There are a lot of Semitec people with green and blue eyes and it looks like they got that eye color from the same place Germans Celts Scandinavians and other Europeans got it from. Namely the area around the Caspian and Black seas about 10000 years ago.

  • Sanjuro Tsubaki||

    Let that be a lesson to ye! Nick is such a disciplinarian libertarian. If only he would air out that leather jacket.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Arbitrary taboo

  • AlmightyJB||

    Lying on her job application? Seriously?

  • Tarck||

    There is a serious lack of logic here. How do we know that this woman doesn't truly FEEL that she is black, that she was born the wrong race? From everything I have read, she has been a great advocate of racial justice -- so why is she being made out to be evil and a con artist? Who has she harmed? How do you know her motivation?

    Just because she evades the question about whether she is black, you assume she is a fraud? If you asked Bruce Jenner before his transition if he was a woman, he'd probably have had a hard time saying "yes" because he wasn't! He may have felt like a woman inside, but he certainly knew that he was biologically a man. And before sex-reassignment surgeries existed, if a man tried to pass as a women would they be called a con artist too?

    I don't like that this has become some political right vs left thing. I get the feeling that this woman has a genuine mental condition -- a racial dysphoria. But I don't know and am not qualified to judge her. AND NEITHER ARE YOU

  • Tarck||

    Just because something is very rare doesn't mean it isn't a "thing". There are lots of rare conditions.

  • R C Woodchipper||

    I really don't understand the rush to classify individuals such as Caitlyn Jenner as mentally ill or psychologically unbalanced . . . .

    Take it up with the transgendered folks and the medical profession who make exactly that argument to justify the various medical procedures and the insurance claims they file.

    They were actually more honest about back when any treatment was purely elective and cash only. But they sold out that honesty in order to get what they want. I wouldn't blame anyone for taking them at their word. Especially since we are supposed to take them at their word by treating them socially (and legally?) as women.

  • RockLibertyWarrior||

    This is all I have got to say on this issue, no matter how "Caitlyn" dresses himself (sorry Nick but I refuse to kowtow to Orwellian double speak) his genes say he's still a man, no matter what surgery, makeup etc. he gets his chromosomes and genes still say he is a man, same thing with white people who act black, talk, dress etc. like a black person but your still white, sorry. That being said if somebody wants to dress as woman and have cosmetic surgery on their bodies, have at it, just don't expect me to foot the bill for your surgery (some states actually fund this stuff) or suffer the consequences of your actions. I don't care what somebody does in their personal life just as long as you don't step on me.

  • ||

    Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do...... ✹✹✹✹✹✹ www.netcash5.com

  • R C Woodchipper||

    Obnoxious jerks can have a lot of fun, but winning over large numbers of people to join their cause is typically a casualty of such mean-spirited hoo-larity.

    Would this include the obnoxious jerks who attack those who don't celebrate the SJW flavor of the month, as well?

  • R C Woodchipper||

    Alright, one more, and I'll quit the corpse-fucking.

    Why is it that lying on a job application generally gets you fired, even if the employer is otherwise satisfied, but its hateful to say this woman should be fired for lying on her job application(s)?

  • AlmightyJB||

    Oh, I'm sure that if a black person lied about their race on a job application, the cool thing to do would be to attack them. Nick, no doubt would be leading the charge to burn them. /sarc

    And I don't confuse Jenner with Rachel.. Jenner went with his step-daughter on her Playboy shoot.

  • msimmons||

    The former, lying in the absence of a progressive identity association, is a straightforward matter of an employer exercising their freedom not to hire the morally or ethically challenged. The latter case, involving a tangle of cross-connected identity associations with a recognized victim group, raises potential civil rights issues, which despite having no legitimate basis in the law, imposes the risk of bad press and protracted legal expenses. It will be amusing to watch the ensuing circle fest consume its politically correct self. Imagine her suing the NAACP for wrongful termination on the basis of racial discrimination because she's white. Hoping this signals the beginning of the end of the new McCarthyism, one based on multi-culti political correctness, which is a cloak for progressive nihilism and not so different from the version practiced by an extreme Russian revolutionary party circa 1900, which found nothing to approve of in the established social order.

  • msimmons||

    Nick asks: "What is it about trans identity that flips out conservatives?"

    Maybe this: Delusional disorder, previously called paranoid disorder, is a type of serious mental illness called a "psychosis" in which a person cannot tell what is real from what is imagined. The main feature of this disorder is the presence of delusions, which are unshakable beliefs in something untrue.

    Or maybe it's because they believe that gender is based on physical reality and biological science instead of the theory of gender definitions along a spectrum pedaled by progressives. No surgical procedure or hormone therapy is going to repuditiate the scientifc basis of gender. Fake social science doesn't count.

    Does it ever occur to Nick that the real transphobics are the people who nurture and reinforce delusional disorder because they're afraid of being called out by LGBT activists and/or being charged with breaking some forced association anti-discrimination law?

  • Darnell||

    That reporter shut her down in a flash. He also knew something fishy with the hate mail.

  • TreII28||

    What about Vegans, especially the outspoken, political/social activist kinds? Dolezar and Vegans is a valid comparison in my opinion. Just because you want to pretend you are some tofu and sprout nibbling, herbivorous, socially conscious, hyper-pretentious anti-meat-nazi does not change the fact you were born omnivorous.

  • Bittertruth||

    Why is so-called "self-identification" the holy grail? If I self-identify as president, will Barack Oblahblah immediately clean his garbage out of the Oval Office? No? Why not? I "self-identified." Yes, you say, but the voters elected Barack the Liar? I agree, but I "self-identify" as president, so why can't I move into the White House? Because the Secret Service will arrest you, you say? But why? I "self-identify" as president. But, you sheepishly argue, you were not elected. So what, I say? I "self-identify." So when you stubbornly insist that a genetically white woman can legitimately call herself black because she "self-identifies" as such, and that someone who has a penis and has fathered children can change his name and looks and belatedly "self-identify" as a woman, then I challenge you to explain the difference between "self-identifying" and lying. Fantasy is not reality whether it's mine, yours, Rachel Dolezal's or Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner's. The latter can have an operation. But there is no surgery for race-switching. And only fairies believe in fairy tales.

  • Jr12||

    Mocking all who flaunt irrelevant physical characteristics as though they were personal accomplishments deserving of social admiration, is a public service.

  • Bittertruth||

    So is calling out those who fabricate "facts" out of whole cloth to serve selfish ends.

  • macsnafu||

    Sorry, I don't understand the hate for Nick on this article. His point seems pretty simple to me. Rachel clearly claimed to be what she is not, while Bruce/Caitlyn merely thought that he/she should be a woman, in spite of being born a man.

    But some of the commenters bring up some valid points. Are race and gender social constructs or physical realities? A little of both? Or are there really two separate ideas that are being blurred and mixed up?

  • SteveJohnson||

    Nick sounds like the busybodies who forcibly out closeted homosexuals against their will.

    "I'm not homophobic, I'm just angry that they're not being honest."

    Who the hell makes you the truth police? Nick's assuming Dolezal lied for craven self-interest. Nick's also assuming that she'll never come clean about her racial history. God help me, Keri Hilson's the only person making any sense on this issue.

    As a socially conservative Republican who is suspicious of libertarians, I'm the one defending Dolezal's privacy? What happened to libertarians? Nick's so deep in bed with the LGBT agenda that he immediately throws Dolezal under the bus. I get it. You like pissing off religious people. That's fine. But look what you've become.

  • ||

    Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do...... ✹✹✹✹✹✹ www.netcash5.com

  • bacchys||

    The distinction here seems to be one without a difference. Dolezal's actions are no different than a Trans who doesn't start out with "Hi! I used to have a different gender!"

    If she "presents" as a different race or gender, why does she owe anyone else a history lesson or explanation? Other than their thinking their prejudices are just common sense, of course?

    This is a punch line, though. It exposes the shallow nature of progressive identity politics.

  • phandaal||

    This happens from time to time. Reason's writers get caught up in how cool and intelligent they seem at cocktail parties in DC and forget that they need to include actual logic and not just cosmotarian street cred buzzwords.

  • Kochtopus||

    Nick, I usually agree with every story you write, but this one confuses me. First of all, choosing not to use preferred pronouns isn't hatred in my opinion. I doubt Jenner herself would believe that, being a "severely conservative" Republican and a fairly tolerant one at that. The transgender has exploded into the public view out of seemingly out of nowhere in the last few years and a lot of people are still waiting to be caught up, pundits included.

    I understand the science behind transgenderism, and I don't have any hatred for Caitlin Jenner. I don't see any major antagonism or backlash towards Jenner herself from the right. It shocked me when half of the Republican Party's major social conservative wing, representing them, came out immediately and said there's no reason to question Jenner. We tolerate her and that's the end of discussion. For a faction that was still fighting a losing battle on gay rights 4 years ago that was a surprise to me.

  • Kochtopus||

    What the conservative punditry are asking isn't a false equivalency between transgenderism and "transracialism", it is a challenge to define their boundaries and stake out their claims in clear terms. Because most of the liberal punditry doesn't understand the science behind transgenderism themselves, let alone are they willing to clearly explain it to their political enemies. They would rather post clickbait articles about "10 most shocking tweets comparing Jenner with Dolezal" to their readership who are even more ignorant than they are. Reason has been writing about the "SJWs" for a while now, and they are people who aren't interested in the science behind transgenderism or behind anything. They make anti-scientific claims about gender being a social construct and something you can choose. They come off as hyperpartisans who simply want undermine every pillar of society and won't explain to the rest of us their rationale for doing so. It's true that the conservative punditry has an interest in opposing progress, but these hyperleftists are just was scary in their own right.

  • Gene McL||

    There is no "science" behind transgenderism.

  • JVest||

    This entire article hinges on reducing Dolezal's motives to "fraud". If only that explanation made any sense. Clearly her deception was much more complex than that, and that she very much wished she was black and, in fact, identified and appropriated that culture since at least as far back as college.

    The only reason she ran from that interview is that she knew she would get no quarter. The transgendered can continue in their nearly-identical delusions because they know they have support. The difference, then, is only in society's reaction. In fact, I see Dolezal's actions as being less pathological than Jenner's. A black woman and a white woman have more in common than a man and a woman. You can paint a white Cruze red but you can't turn it into a Silverado while keeping the same frame and powertrain.

    As evidenced by her chosen studies, romantic life, and career, Dolezal's motives lean much more toward "self-identity" than fraud. Since Gillespie's piece relies on the opposite being true, the whole edifice crumbles.

  • TxJack 112||

    I think it is ironic that all of her defenders have not commented on the fact her lying about her race unfairly denied African Americans the opportunity to hold a position leading a black organization. A white woman stole the job and they are all okay with this fact. In any other situation, they would be demanding her head and all those who hired her and anyone who dare defend her. Al Sharpton has gone so far as to attack her parents for point out she is not black, but white by claiming "they are upset about the good work she is doing". Translation= they are racists.

  • ||

    TxJack 112:

    So those male journeymen electricians at the nuke plant were right when they told my electrical apprentice wife that she was taking a job from their sons?

  • Ben M||

    Nick, you say: "Contrary to David French in National Review, nobody is insisting everybody must "applaud" or even affirm Jenner's life choices."

    However, my experience has been the exact opposite of that which you describe. And I think that's why so many cons are upset. If you don't celebrate all this, if you don't think he/she is a hero, if you use the wrong pronoun, if you hesitate in casting your praise, you're automatically branded "transphobic." Even though that isn't a word or a thing. And if you even insinuate that he/she possesses traits similar to people with personality disorders who need to be medicated, prepare to be socially shunned.

  • Gene McL||

    You fail to see the circularity of your argument and fail to appreciate that if one chooses to "identify" as something that they obviously are not, there is something wrong with them. That is not opinion but mere logic, which you think a writer for a pub called "Reason" might be able to grasp. But you are so wedded to your libertarian ideology that you cannot see past it.

  • ||

    Dear Mr. Gillespie:

    Click here if you'd like to read your a$$ whuppin':

    http://www.commondreams.org/vi.....ialnetwork

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online