Excellent Question: If Bruce Jenner Can Be A "Woman," Why Can't Rachel Dolezal Be "Black"?

by JASmius



Yes, I saw the kerfuffle this week about the head of the Spokane, Washington, chapter of the NAACP and the "African Education" professor at Eastern Washington University and holder of a Master's Degree from all-black Howard University and claims multiple instances of being the victim of racism and just happens to have two lily-white parents, come from a capital-E European capital-C Caucasian family, barely even qualifies as "white chocolate" and kinks and dies her hair to pass herself off as the ethnicity she "identifies with".  I haven't written about it because (1) it's been a busy week here at PP, (2) I'm so "raced" out that anything short of racial uprisings I just pass on, and (3) I just plain didn't wanna, unless the world goes to Bajoran time, which would provide two extra hours in the day for this crapola.

But Jazz Shaw made an outstanding point today: How is this any different than Bruce Jenner's "Call me Caitlyn"-ism?:

As soon as I read about Dolezal it crossed my mind that there was another, underlying story waiting to be told. Even if she knowing lied and deceived everyone, what if she did it out of desperation to fit in where she felt she truly belonged? What if – in a modification of the speech of the LGBT community – Rachel Dolezal was born in the wrong skin and she truly, honestly, deep down in her brain and her heart self-identifies as a black woman? Unfortunately, before that question could even make it out of the gate it was being decried by many people, warning us not to try to conflate the story of Dolezal with that of Bruce / Caitlyn Jenner.

It's that last part that I find fascinating, and very revealing about how the Left uses anything and everything to advance their odious, despicable agenda by any means necessary.  Logically, there is no substantive difference between Bruce Jenner pretending he's a "woman trapped in a man's body" and Rachel Dolezal claiming to be a "black person trapped in a white person's body".  Both are delusional, both are scientifically and genetically inaccurate, and in both cases, the perpetrator insists that everybody else honor and participate in their delusion upon penalty of being vilified and demonized with the usual bleepstorm of epithets.

But here's the difference: Miss Dolezal's fraud is less egregious than Mr. Jenner's, because as the NAACP felt compelled to reassure the public, being black is not a requirement to work for the NAACP (I don't know what the actual demographic breakdown of the NAACP employee roster is, but I suppose it's possible that they might have a few whities serving as janitors or coffee-getters or waste basket-emptiers and the like), so she didn't have to minstralize herself to get on their payroll.  But she did it anyway, for whatever psychologically warped reasons, and yet the public reaction to her masquerade was sulfuric.  Whereas Bruce Jenner pulls the exact same stunt, on the equivalent grounds (gender instead of ethnicity), and his "transformation" is not only wildly celebrated but everybody is being forced to embrace and celebrate it as well, upon pain of being...well, vilified and demonized with the usual bleepstorm of epithets.

Now I will admit that what Miss Dolezal did doesn't offend me anywhere near as much as Mr. Jenner's afront.  But substantively, the only logical difference between the two is that one offended lefty sensibilities and "mores" while the other is a top lefty cultural agenda item.  Another manifestation of "right tribe/wrong tribe".

And please don't misunderstand me, this is no implicit defense of Rachel Dolezal.  But how is what she did - a white woman posing as a black woman - so bad while what Bruce Jenner did to himself is "heroic" and "courageous" and merits a Vanity Fair swimsuit issue?  Either both are right or both are wrong.

And it's emblematic of our dementedly sick culture that that question isn't as rhetorical as it so obviously should be.