A Civil Rights Leader Has Disguised Herself As Black For Years, Her Parents Say

[downzy]

'The other big distinction between those in the transgendered and transexual communities and Dolezal is that those in the transgendered communities don't pretend to speak for their transitioned-to genders. A male who is genuine with their identification with the female gender doesn't pretend to speak for women.'

Actually they really do, well some anyway. The UK media has increasingly been giving high profile column space to transactivists who are doing just this. It's one of the biggest issues for feminists, the erasure of female voice.

See

Paris Lees - more women should enjoy cat calling and harassment because I love it (The Guardian)

Janet Mock - Prostitution is a liberating thing, especially for children. (A mainstream paper, maybe Guardian)

Susan Talusan - Women should be prioritising transwomen applications for women's colleges and centering studies around us because we have a lot we can teach them. (Recent Mainstream newspaper)

A mainstream press article about women achieving new heights in IT ( these were all former men).

If people are claiming they have always been women then by default their position is that they are speaking for women.

This is just off the top of my head and I can come back and add links later as I need to go on the school run.

I also dispute that there is a raft of evidence supporting gendered brain differences, if that's what you mean by medical evidence.

Again, you're using three anecdotal examples to paint an entire group. The first two (I've never heard of the Talusan), Lees and Mock, are quite active in the transgendered community in terms of promoting transgendered issues. It is wrong to suggest that they only speak out on women issues, as if they are ignoring or obfuscating the biological and physical realities when they were born. They may disagree with their sex at birth, but they do acknowledge that they made efforts to transition, and as such, are very much part of the trans community. Sure, I suppose at times they write and speak about their experiences as women, but it's never done in the context of ignorance with respect to who they once were. Rachel Dolezal, until she was outed, has led many to believe she was the product of an interracial marriage.

When I spoke of medical evidence, I'm referencing studies that purport similarities between female-to-male transsexuals with their male counterparts. See here: http://www.journalofpsychiatricresearch.com/article/S0022-3956(10)00158-5/abstract

I'm also referring to the credence given by the American Psychological Association for transgendered individuals. Beyond biology, the psychological community seems to have largely found consensus on this issue.

I have to ask, whether you believe the psychological and medical communities have it wrong, that most, if not all, within the transgendered community are simply fooling themselves just as Rachel Dolezal is attempting to fool everyone else.

This is the problem I have with associating the transgendered community with what Rachel Dolezal is arguing. If you want to disagree or take issue with the concept of transgender, then fine. But to do so within the context of a noted fraud likens all transgendered individuals as frauds as well. It's that kind of logic that I vehemently disagree with. If the test group for "transracial" included more than one disturbed individual who has a history of fabrication, then I'm be more inclined to give credence to the concept.

[downzy]

Moreover, there are medical procedures in which one can transition from one sex to another.

One of the points here is that, no, despite what some would have us believe, you cannot simply have a medical procedure and rightfully declare yourself the opposite sex.

As Samantha Allen over at the Daily Beast writes, most transgendered individuals transition out of medical necessity.

wat

It's true y'know! I read that Bruce Jenner's balls were actually going to explode if he didn't put on a dress and cover himself in slap on the cover of Vanity Fair.

The lesson from all of this is that it's super progressive and awesome to pretend words mean things that they don't really mean, until a group I don't like does it, then it's detrimental.

Actually, in many countries you can, at least from a legal perspective. In fact, here in Canada and in many European nations, it is no longer required to even undergo sexual reassignment surgery in order to have one's sex designation changed on one's birth certificate.

We're not talking about a "group" of people when it comes to Rachel Dolezal claiming to be black are we? We're talking about one individual person who has a history of misrepresentation and outright lying for personal gain and profit.

I'm not talking from a legal perspective. I mean the debate we've been having. Legality is irrelevant.

It's more than Dolezal now, though, right? People are coming out in support of this. You and I might think it's nuts, but it's not just her.

Well, it depends. Does one consider sex or gender to represent nothing else but their ability to produce children? Do you need to have a uterus to be considered female? On the other side of the spectrum, does it only take identification of the opposite gender or sex to be considered as so? What about individuals who are born with both sexual reproductive organs who have the decision made for them by their parents or doctor? I prefer to view sex and gender as fluid concepts, both living on a continuum that might not match within certain individuals.

As for your second point, that's why I'm engaging in the conversation here. If you accept Dolezal's story and explanation, you are either validating her deception or delegitimizing scientifically backed instances of self-identification that run counter to perceived and biological realities. Sure, we're just a couple of people on a GNR forum who likely won't change the conversation, but I think you know me well enough by this point that I'm not someone who remains quiet when I see opinions expressed that I feel do not add up. People are within their right to support Dolezal, and I'm within mine to counter that they're wrong and explain why. What bothers me, ultimately, is that the trans community has come very far in the past five years and now has this nut job to contend with. Societal acceptance is growing, and I personally think that' a good thing. What Dolezal is doing is providing fodder to those who wish to see the trans community de-legitimized. And I think that's wrong.

[magisme]

But it's possible to reject Dolezal herself and, at the same time, accept the possibility of a transracial experience. That's not my position, but I think it's perfectly possible to make that argument. You've done it yourself to an extent by pointing out adopted children. Certainly, if race is "fluid" enough to morph in those circumstances then it is only a matter of environment and we have effectively accepted the premise.

[arnold layne]

[downzy]

But it's possible to reject Dolezal herself and, at the same time, accept the possibility of a transracial experience. That's not my position, but I think it's perfectly possible to make that argument. You've done it yourself to an extent by pointing out adopted children. Certainly, if race is "fluid" enough to morph in those circumstances then it is only a matter of environment and we have effectively accepted the premise.

Yeah, I don't disagree with that. However, outside of the adoption situation, there exists very few, if any, individuals like Rachel to help support the notion of transracial. Moreover, the concept might be given more credence if it weren't promoted by an individual who falsified much of where she came from and the many claims of victimization. I read the other day the suggestion that she forged the instances of being a victim of hate crimes because she believed that to be black was to be a victim. But being black shouldn't require someone like Dolezal to create such a reality for herself. Black individuals are disadvantaged already for reasons that I've covered and that I'm sure you're well familiar with. The fabrication of victimization in an effort to gain credibility and acceptance within the black community is what's so troubling. Finally, if she were truly "transracial," she would have answered the question as such the first time it was asked of her. Instead she literally ran away from the reporter, abandoning her car keys and purse. That's not the actions of someone who is legitimately self-identifying as a black person, that strikes me as the response of someone who had just been outed as a fraud. As Larry Wilmore suggested on Monday, no black woman would ever leave their purse and car keys with a white stranger.

[magisme]

You know, the Nazis had pieces of flair that they made the Jews wear.

But it's possible to reject Dolezal herself and, at the same time, accept the possibility of a transracial experience. That's not my position, but I think it's perfectly possible to make that argument. You've done it yourself to an extent by pointing out adopted children. Certainly, if race is "fluid" enough to morph in those circumstances then it is only a matter of environment and we have effectively accepted the premise.

Yeah, I don't disagree with that. However, outside of the adoption situation, there exists very few, if any, individuals like Rachel to help support the notion of transracial. Moreover, the concept might be given more credence if it weren't promoted by an individual who falsified much of where she came from and the many claims of victimization. I read the other day the suggestion that she forged the instances of being a victim of hate crimes because she believed that to be black was to be a victim. But being black shouldn't require someone like Dolezal to create such a reality for herself. Black individuals are disadvantaged already for reasons that I've covered and that I'm sure you're well familiar with. The fabrication of victimization in an effort to gain credibility and acceptance within the black community is what's so troubling. Finally, if she were truly "transracial," she would have answered the question as such the first time it was asked of her. Instead she literally ran away from the reporter, abandoning her car keys and purse. That's not the actions of someone who is legitimately self-identifying as a black person, that strikes me as the response of someone who had just been outed as a fraud. As Larry Wilmore suggested on Monday, no black woman would ever leave their purse and car keys with a white stranger.

Yeah, you're not going to find me arguing that she's the genuine article, and, if this concept has any legitimacy, she's definitely the worst possible person to bring it to public attention. I do have a bit of an issue with the "where are all the others if this is real?" argument, however. To me, it sounds too similar to arguments used by the wrong sides in the past. And the answer has always been pretty simple, it seems. When you know that, at best, you'll be ridiculed for sharing how you truly feel, what are the chances you're going to be all that open about how you truly feel?

[downzy]

You know, the Nazis had pieces of flair that they made the Jews wear.

But it's possible to reject Dolezal herself and, at the same time, accept the possibility of a transracial experience. That's not my position, but I think it's perfectly possible to make that argument. You've done it yourself to an extent by pointing out adopted children. Certainly, if race is "fluid" enough to morph in those circumstances then it is only a matter of environment and we have effectively accepted the premise.

Yeah, I don't disagree with that. However, outside of the adoption situation, there exists very few, if any, individuals like Rachel to help support the notion of transracial. Moreover, the concept might be given more credence if it weren't promoted by an individual who falsified much of where she came from and the many claims of victimization. I read the other day the suggestion that she forged the instances of being a victim of hate crimes because she believed that to be black was to be a victim. But being black shouldn't require someone like Dolezal to create such a reality for herself. Black individuals are disadvantaged already for reasons that I've covered and that I'm sure you're well familiar with. The fabrication of victimization in an effort to gain credibility and acceptance within the black community is what's so troubling. Finally, if she were truly "transracial," she would have answered the question as such the first time it was asked of her. Instead she literally ran away from the reporter, abandoning her car keys and purse. That's not the actions of someone who is legitimately self-identifying as a black person, that strikes me as the response of someone who had just been outed as a fraud. As Larry Wilmore suggested on Monday, no black woman would ever leave their purse and car keys with a white stranger.

Yeah, you're not going to find me arguing that she's the genuine article, and, if this concept has any legitimacy, she's definitely the worst possible person to bring it to public attention. I do have a bit of an issue with the "where are all the others if this is real?" argument, however. To me, it sounds too similar to arguments used by the wrong sides in the past. And the answer has always been pretty simple, it seems. When you know that, at best, you'll be ridiculed for sharing how you truly feel, what are the chances you're going to be all that open about how you truly feel?

Well, there's been many documented instances of black people posing as white. But the transition wasn't so much a product of psychology, but as means by which to escape the racial power dynamic that disadvantaged black people. But rarely, if ever, do we find instances where members of the dominant sect portray themselves as a member of a disadvantaged group outside the context of the male-female paradigm.

Only instance I can think of was Grey Owl, a British-born white guy who perpetuated the identity of a native-American. But here, he used his newfound identity for personal fame and notoriety (though, he did further and helped the cause of conservation).

I do think one can identify culturally with a race or ethnicity different than one's race at birth. A white kid living in a predominantly black neighbourhood will likely adopt the local culture as his or her own. But I would surmise that most who are born and raised in such an environment would still identify their race as white. A white kid who presents himself as black in a black community might and will likely be accepted by his peers. But is that white kid going to get away with dropping the n word in front of his black friends? Do his black friends view him as a black person?

[alfierose]

'The other big distinction between those in the transgendered and transexual communities and Dolezal is that those in the transgendered communities don't pretend to speak for their transitioned-to genders. A male who is genuine with their identification with the female gender doesn't pretend to speak for women.'

Actually they really do, well some anyway. The UK media has increasingly been giving high profile column space to transactivists who are doing just this. It's one of the biggest issues for feminists, the erasure of female voice.

See

Paris Lees - more women should enjoy cat calling and harassment because I love it (The Guardian)

Janet Mock - Prostitution is a liberating thing, especially for children. (A mainstream paper, maybe Guardian)

Susan Talusan - Women should be prioritising transwomen applications for women's colleges and centering studies around us because we have a lot we can teach them. (Recent Mainstream newspaper)

A mainstream press article about women achieving new heights in IT ( these were all former men).

If people are claiming they have always been women then by default their position is that they are speaking for women.

This is just off the top of my head and I can come back and add links later as I need to go on the school run.

I also dispute that there is a raft of evidence supporting gendered brain differences, if that's what you mean by medical evidence.

Again, you're using three anecdotal examples to paint an entire group. The first two (I've never heard of the Talusan), Lees and Mock, are quite active in the transgendered community in terms of promoting transgendered issues. It is wrong to suggest that they only speak out on women issues, as if they are ignoring or obfuscating the biological and physical realities when they were born. They may disagree with their sex at birth, but they do acknowledge that they made efforts to transition, and as such, are very much part of the trans community. Sure, I suppose at times they write and speak about their experiences as women, but it's never done in the context of ignorance with respect to who they once were. Rachel Dolezal, until she was outed, has led many to believe she was the product of an interracial marriage.

When I spoke of medical evidence, I'm referencing studies that purport similarities between female-to-male transsexuals with their male counterparts. See here: http://www.journalofpsychiatricresearch.com/article/S0022-3956(10)00158-5/abstract

I'm also referring to the credence given by the American Psychological Association for transgendered individuals. Beyond biology, the psychological community seems to have largely found consensus on this issue.

I have to ask, whether you believe the psychological and medical communities have it wrong, that most, if not all, within the transgendered community are simply fooling themselves just as Rachel Dolezal is attempting to fool everyone else.

This is the problem I have with associating the transgendered community with what Rachel Dolezal is arguing. If you want to disagree or take issue with the concept of transgender, then fine. But to do so within the context of a noted fraud likens all transgendered individuals as frauds as well. It's that kind of logic that I vehemently disagree with. If the test group for "transracial" included more than one disturbed individual who has a history of fabrication, then I'm be more inclined to give credence to the concept.

This is a quick response as I have to go out in 10 mins.

I don't believe the medical and psychological professions have it wrong because there are a number of theories out there that have some evidential support. I also don't believe that transgender people are a homogeneous group who all arrive at being transgender for the same reasons.

Some theories I have seen that all have some degree of either medical, psychological or cultural evidence for their existence

Brain sex differences (feels like the opposite sex inside)

Autogynephila ( presents in late transitioning males, largely those who identify as lesbian post transition with a long history of cross dressing. The desire to be viewed as female is driven by erotica)

Internalised homophobia ( young gay men and lesbians feeling uncomfortable with presenting as gay)

High incidences of certain neurological conditions or personality disorders (autism, BPD, NPD) compared to the general population.

This is without delving into media and social media influence on the growing TG community. I would like to see more research done rather than the definitive trapped in the the wrong body trope brought out all the time. Until there are fuller answers I don't feel the movement should be effecting legislative changes.

[Len Cnut]

He called himself Grey Owl? Talk about wanting to get caught!

Richie: I'm part Red Indian yknow. Mmmmhmm, Cherokee

Eddie: Oh yeah? What was your Red Indian name then? Running Mouth? Sitting Down? Talking Bollocks?

Edited June 17, 2015 by Len B'stard

[downzy]

'The other big distinction between those in the transgendered and transexual communities and Dolezal is that those in the transgendered communities don't pretend to speak for their transitioned-to genders. A male who is genuine with their identification with the female gender doesn't pretend to speak for women.'

Actually they really do, well some anyway. The UK media has increasingly been giving high profile column space to transactivists who are doing just this. It's one of the biggest issues for feminists, the erasure of female voice.

See

Paris Lees - more women should enjoy cat calling and harassment because I love it (The Guardian)

Janet Mock - Prostitution is a liberating thing, especially for children. (A mainstream paper, maybe Guardian)

Susan Talusan - Women should be prioritising transwomen applications for women's colleges and centering studies around us because we have a lot we can teach them. (Recent Mainstream newspaper)

A mainstream press article about women achieving new heights in IT ( these were all former men).

If people are claiming they have always been women then by default their position is that they are speaking for women.

This is just off the top of my head and I can come back and add links later as I need to go on the school run.

I also dispute that there is a raft of evidence supporting gendered brain differences, if that's what you mean by medical evidence.

Again, you're using three anecdotal examples to paint an entire group. The first two (I've never heard of the Talusan), Lees and Mock, are quite active in the transgendered community in terms of promoting transgendered issues. It is wrong to suggest that they only speak out on women issues, as if they are ignoring or obfuscating the biological and physical realities when they were born. They may disagree with their sex at birth, but they do acknowledge that they made efforts to transition, and as such, are very much part of the trans community. Sure, I suppose at times they write and speak about their experiences as women, but it's never done in the context of ignorance with respect to who they once were. Rachel Dolezal, until she was outed, has led many to believe she was the product of an interracial marriage.

When I spoke of medical evidence, I'm referencing studies that purport similarities between female-to-male transsexuals with their male counterparts. See here: http://www.journalofpsychiatricresearch.com/article/S0022-3956(10)00158-5/abstract

I'm also referring to the credence given by the American Psychological Association for transgendered individuals. Beyond biology, the psychological community seems to have largely found consensus on this issue.

I have to ask, whether you believe the psychological and medical communities have it wrong, that most, if not all, within the transgendered community are simply fooling themselves just as Rachel Dolezal is attempting to fool everyone else.

This is the problem I have with associating the transgendered community with what Rachel Dolezal is arguing. If you want to disagree or take issue with the concept of transgender, then fine. But to do so within the context of a noted fraud likens all transgendered individuals as frauds as well. It's that kind of logic that I vehemently disagree with. If the test group for "transracial" included more than one disturbed individual who has a history of fabrication, then I'm be more inclined to give credence to the concept.

This is a quick response as I have to go out in 10 mins.

I don't believe the medical and psychological professions have it wrong because there are a number of theories out there that have some evidential support. I also don't believe that transgender people are a homogeneous group who all arrive at being transgender for the same reasons.

Some theories I have seen that all have some degree of either medical, psychological or cultural evidence for their existence

Brain sex differences (feels like the opposite sex inside)

Autogynephila ( presents in late transitioning males, largely those who identify as lesbian post transition with a long history of cross dressing. The desire to be viewed as female is driven by erotica)

Internalised homophobia ( young gay men and lesbians feeling uncomfortable with presenting as gay)

High incidences of certain neurological conditions or personality disorders (autism, BPD, NPD) compared to the general population.

This is without delving into media and social media influence on the growing TG community. I would like to see more research done rather than the definitive trapped in the the wrong body trope brought out all the time. Until there are fuller answers I don't feel the movement should be effecting legislative changes.

I think that's a fair assessment and one that I would not necessarily disagree with, save for the last part regarding legislative changes. While not homogenous, I still consider it a large enough group where some legal considerations should be given.

Again, my main concern is the use of Dolezal's story to de-legitimize the entire trans community. I do agree that the narrative being put forward with respect to gender identification issues is broad and a bit heavy-handed. But that's a different critique than what's being discussed with respect to Rachel Dolezal.

He called himself Grey Owl? Talk about wanting to get caught!

Richie: I'm part Red Indian yknow. Mmmmhmm, Cherokee

Eddie: Oh yeah? What was your Red Indian name then? Running Mouth? Sitting Down? Talking Bollocks?

He actually wasn't caught until long after his death.

[Słash]

When I was 7 years old, I wanted to change my name to Lui Kang

Charlize Theron is a white African American, just sayin.....

[Len Cnut]

When I was 7 years old, I wanted to change my name to Lui Kang..

Shit, i still do

[DieselDaisy]

When I was seven I wanted to be Bruce Lee.

[alfierose]

'The other big distinction between those in the transgendered and transexual communities and Dolezal is that those in the transgendered communities don't pretend to speak for their transitioned-to genders. A male who is genuine with their identification with the female gender doesn't pretend to speak for women.'

Actually they really do, well some anyway. The UK media has increasingly been giving high profile column space to transactivists who are doing just this. It's one of the biggest issues for feminists, the erasure of female voice.

See

Paris Lees - more women should enjoy cat calling and harassment because I love it (The Guardian)

Janet Mock - Prostitution is a liberating thing, especially for children. (A mainstream paper, maybe Guardian)

Susan Talusan - Women should be prioritising transwomen applications for women's colleges and centering studies around us because we have a lot we can teach them. (Recent Mainstream newspaper)

A mainstream press article about women achieving new heights in IT ( these were all former men).

If people are claiming they have always been women then by default their position is that they are speaking for women.

This is just off the top of my head and I can come back and add links later as I need to go on the school run.

I also dispute that there is a raft of evidence supporting gendered brain differences, if that's what you mean by medical evidence.

Again, you're using three anecdotal examples to paint an entire group. The first two (I've never heard of the Talusan), Lees and Mock, are quite active in the transgendered community in terms of promoting transgendered issues. It is wrong to suggest that they only speak out on women issues, as if they are ignoring or obfuscating the biological and physical realities when they were born. They may disagree with their sex at birth, but they do acknowledge that they made efforts to transition, and as such, are very much part of the trans community. Sure, I suppose at times they write and speak about their experiences as women, but it's never done in the context of ignorance with respect to who they once were. Rachel Dolezal, until she was outed, has led many to believe she was the product of an interracial marriage.

When I spoke of medical evidence, I'm referencing studies that purport similarities between female-to-male transsexuals with their male counterparts. See here: http://www.journalofpsychiatricresearch.com/article/S0022-3956(10)00158-5/abstract

I'm also referring to the credence given by the American Psychological Association for transgendered individuals. Beyond biology, the psychological community seems to have largely found consensus on this issue.

I have to ask, whether you believe the psychological and medical communities have it wrong, that most, if not all, within the transgendered community are simply fooling themselves just as Rachel Dolezal is attempting to fool everyone else.

This is the problem I have with associating the transgendered community with what Rachel Dolezal is arguing. If you want to disagree or take issue with the concept of transgender, then fine. But to do so within the context of a noted fraud likens all transgendered individuals as frauds as well. It's that kind of logic that I vehemently disagree with. If the test group for "transracial" included more than one disturbed individual who has a history of fabrication, then I'm be more inclined to give credence to the concept.

This is a quick response as I have to go out in 10 mins.

I don't believe the medical and psychological professions have it wrong because there are a number of theories out there that have some evidential support. I also don't believe that transgender people are a homogeneous group who all arrive at being transgender for the same reasons.

Some theories I have seen that all have some degree of either medical, psychological or cultural evidence for their existence

Brain sex differences (feels like the opposite sex inside)

Autogynephila ( presents in late transitioning males, largely those who identify as lesbian post transition with a long history of cross dressing. The desire to be viewed as female is driven by erotica)

Internalised homophobia ( young gay men and lesbians feeling uncomfortable with presenting as gay)

High incidences of certain neurological conditions or personality disorders (autism, BPD, NPD) compared to the general population.

This is without delving into media and social media influence on the growing TG community. I would like to see more research done rather than the definitive trapped in the the wrong body trope brought out all the time. Until there are fuller answers I don't feel the movement should be effecting legislative changes.

I think that's a fair assessment and one that I would not necessarily disagree with, save for the last part regarding legislative changes. While not homogenous, I still consider it a large enough group where some legal considerations should be given.

Again, my main concern is the use of Dolezal's story to de-legitimize the entire trans community. I do agree that the narrative being put forward with respect to gender identification issues is broad and a bit heavy-handed. But that's a different critique than what's being discussed with respect to Rachel Dolezal.

He called himself Grey Owl? Talk about wanting to get caught!

Richie: I'm part Red Indian yknow. Mmmmhmm, Cherokee

Eddie: Oh yeah? What was your Red Indian name then? Running Mouth? Sitting Down? Talking Bollocks?

He actually wasn't caught until long after his death.

Dolezal and her family seem to have a mass of issues and deceits going on and on some level it is disingenuous for her to appropriate arguments and language used in transgender debate however I do think if a lot of these arguments posited stood up under close scrutiny she wouldn't have been able to do this in the first instance.

I suppose I see it in the same way as I view religion. If someone proposes there is an unseen God then the burden of proof is on them to convince me and until that point I'm not willingly going to church every Sunday. People have a right to their beliefs but if they start to impinge on the rights of other I will question them. At the moment the concept of being born into the wrong body requires a leap of faith in others to support it beyond politeness and the human rights that should be afforded to everyone no matter what.

[Len Cnut]

When I was seven I wanted to be Bruce Lee.

If im not mistaken Liu Kang is a bruce lee rip off. I'd still trade my shite life in for being Bruce.

Out of interest where did you see your first Bruce films? How old are you? I ask cuz i think we're the same age and for a good long while you just couldnt find Bruce Lee films for sale anywhere. I remember they rereleased a cut Enter the Dragon in 96, that was the first time i had a copy that werent a shite copied tape.

Other than that you could only find them in some old dusty rental place somewheress.

[DieselDaisy]

Originally rented them out on VHS but they were cut to hell, nunchukas missing, etc., and pan and scanned. Locating uncut copies was like video nasties. I remember ITV accidentally screened Enter with full nunchukas and we knew somebody who coincidentally recorded it. Then 4 started putting on kung fu seasons from the mid 90s which were better, more uncut, prints but still sans nunchukas.

Edited June 17, 2015 by DieselDaisy

[Len Cnut]

Originally rented them out on VHS but they were cut to hell, nunchukas missing, etc., and pan and scanned. Locating uncut copies was like video nasties. I remember ITV accidentally screened Enter with full nunchukas and we knew somebody who coincidentally recorded it. Then 4 started putting on kung fu seasons from the mid 90s which were better, more uncut, prints but still sans nunchukas.

I remember seeing this copy of Enter the Dragon and on the back was a picture of Bruce Lee kicking Bolo. Where the fuck that picture was from, and I've seen it since, or whether it was a cut scene or a still from the set I don't know but for the rest of my life i was thinkin' there's a fuckin' copy of a Bruce vs Bolo fight, that would've been fuckin' wicked, John Saxon didn't deserve a scene against Bolo.

Also, in Impact magazine, apparently, there's a copy of Big Boss out there where Bruce saws through on of the Ice Factory fighting minions heads...to this day i ain't never seen a copy of that nowhere else, cept that one still photo.

[downzy]

'The other big distinction between those in the transgendered and transexual communities and Dolezal is that those in the transgendered communities don't pretend to speak for their transitioned-to genders. A male who is genuine with their identification with the female gender doesn't pretend to speak for women.'

Actually they really do, well some anyway. The UK media has increasingly been giving high profile column space to transactivists who are doing just this. It's one of the biggest issues for feminists, the erasure of female voice.

See

Paris Lees - more women should enjoy cat calling and harassment because I love it (The Guardian)

Janet Mock - Prostitution is a liberating thing, especially for children. (A mainstream paper, maybe Guardian)

Susan Talusan - Women should be prioritising transwomen applications for women's colleges and centering studies around us because we have a lot we can teach them. (Recent Mainstream newspaper)

A mainstream press article about women achieving new heights in IT ( these were all former men).

If people are claiming they have always been women then by default their position is that they are speaking for women.

This is just off the top of my head and I can come back and add links later as I need to go on the school run.

I also dispute that there is a raft of evidence supporting gendered brain differences, if that's what you mean by medical evidence.

Again, you're using three anecdotal examples to paint an entire group. The first two (I've never heard of the Talusan), Lees and Mock, are quite active in the transgendered community in terms of promoting transgendered issues. It is wrong to suggest that they only speak out on women issues, as if they are ignoring or obfuscating the biological and physical realities when they were born. They may disagree with their sex at birth, but they do acknowledge that they made efforts to transition, and as such, are very much part of the trans community. Sure, I suppose at times they write and speak about their experiences as women, but it's never done in the context of ignorance with respect to who they once were. Rachel Dolezal, until she was outed, has led many to believe she was the product of an interracial marriage.

When I spoke of medical evidence, I'm referencing studies that purport similarities between female-to-male transsexuals with their male counterparts. See here: http://www.journalofpsychiatricresearch.com/article/S0022-3956(10)00158-5/abstract

I'm also referring to the credence given by the American Psychological Association for transgendered individuals. Beyond biology, the psychological community seems to have largely found consensus on this issue.

I have to ask, whether you believe the psychological and medical communities have it wrong, that most, if not all, within the transgendered community are simply fooling themselves just as Rachel Dolezal is attempting to fool everyone else.

This is the problem I have with associating the transgendered community with what Rachel Dolezal is arguing. If you want to disagree or take issue with the concept of transgender, then fine. But to do so within the context of a noted fraud likens all transgendered individuals as frauds as well. It's that kind of logic that I vehemently disagree with. If the test group for "transracial" included more than one disturbed individual who has a history of fabrication, then I'm be more inclined to give credence to the concept.

This is a quick response as I have to go out in 10 mins.

I don't believe the medical and psychological professions have it wrong because there are a number of theories out there that have some evidential support. I also don't believe that transgender people are a homogeneous group who all arrive at being transgender for the same reasons.

Some theories I have seen that all have some degree of either medical, psychological or cultural evidence for their existence

Brain sex differences (feels like the opposite sex inside)

Autogynephila ( presents in late transitioning males, largely those who identify as lesbian post transition with a long history of cross dressing. The desire to be viewed as female is driven by erotica)

Internalised homophobia ( young gay men and lesbians feeling uncomfortable with presenting as gay)

High incidences of certain neurological conditions or personality disorders (autism, BPD, NPD) compared to the general population.

This is without delving into media and social media influence on the growing TG community. I would like to see more research done rather than the definitive trapped in the the wrong body trope brought out all the time. Until there are fuller answers I don't feel the movement should be effecting legislative changes.

I think that's a fair assessment and one that I would not necessarily disagree with, save for the last part regarding legislative changes. While not homogenous, I still consider it a large enough group where some legal considerations should be given.

Again, my main concern is the use of Dolezal's story to de-legitimize the entire trans community. I do agree that the narrative being put forward with respect to gender identification issues is broad and a bit heavy-handed. But that's a different critique than what's being discussed with respect to Rachel Dolezal.

He called himself Grey Owl? Talk about wanting to get caught!

Richie: I'm part Red Indian yknow. Mmmmhmm, Cherokee

Eddie: Oh yeah? What was your Red Indian name then? Running Mouth? Sitting Down? Talking Bollocks?

He actually wasn't caught until long after his death.

Dolezal and her family seem to have a mass of issues and deceits going on and on some level it is disingenuous for her to appropriate arguments and language used in transgender debate however I do think if a lot of these arguments posited stood up under close scrutiny she wouldn't have been able to do this in the first instance.

I suppose I see it in the same way as I view religion. If someone proposes there is an unseen God then the burden of proof is on them to convince me and until that point I'm not willingly going to church every Sunday. People have a right to their beliefs but if they start to impinge on the rights of other I will question them. At the moment the concept of being born into the wrong body requires a leap of faith in others to support it beyond politeness and the human rights that should be afforded to everyone no matter what.

Well, we'll have to disagree, because some of the literature I've come across supports scientific explanations for transgendered. If the white matter of a transgendered brain resembles the white matter of the identified gender, then yes, there is evidence to support the claim from a biological perspective. Moreover, there seems to be few instances reported of post-transition regret, almost to the point where it doesn't exist in terms of being statistically relevant. One would assume that if transgendered was simply a fabrication at worst or confusion by the individual, that there was no basis in reality, then we'd see many post-transitioned individuals regretting their decision at some point afterward. Unless, of course, one views all transgendered individuals as sociopaths.

There is very little evidence in the scientific world that a particular religious viewpoint is accurate, but to say the same situation exists in the scientific world with respect to transgender is wrong.

[alfierose]

I've seen a fair bit about post transition regret. One of the pioneers of trans surgery regularly speaks out questioning long term benefits. The leading hospital he worked at has stopped offering surgery for this reason.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/johns-hopkins-psychiatrist-transgender-mental-disorder-sex-change

I've seen brain studies that suggested some changes in the brain chemistry of transwomen who were on female hormones. I've also seen studies that suggest some areas of the brains of gay men (who are not trans) have similarities to females. I've never seen anything beyond a fairly small sample size and that could be replicated over and over proving that different brains exist to an extent they can be assigned male or female.

Whichever side of the fence you fall on this there is some degree of evidence however it needs a lot more research and funding to get close to proving anything either way. That of course throws up a whole load of medical ethic questions.

On a lighter note I saw Dolezal described somewhere as trans truthful!

[downzy]

On a lighter note I saw Dolezal described somewhere as trans truthful!

[downzy]

[DieselDaisy]

Originally rented them out on VHS but they were cut to hell, nunchukas missing, etc., and pan and scanned. Locating uncut copies was like video nasties. I remember ITV accidentally screened Enter with full nunchukas and we knew somebody who coincidentally recorded it. Then 4 started putting on kung fu seasons from the mid 90s which were better, more uncut, prints but still sans nunchukas.

I remember seeing this copy of Enter the Dragon and on the back was a picture of Bruce Lee kicking Bolo. Where the fuck that picture was from, and I've seen it since, or whether it was a cut scene or a still from the set I don't know but for the rest of my life i was thinkin' there's a fuckin' copy of a Bruce vs Bolo fight, that would've been fuckin' wicked, John Saxon didn't deserve a scene against Bolo.

Also, in Impact magazine, apparently, there's a copy of Big Boss out there where Bruce saws through on of the Ice Factory fighting minions heads...to this day i ain't never seen a copy of that nowhere else, cept that one still photo.

I have seen both pictures. The Lee vs Bolo shot was merely a promo shot or a photo of Lee coordinating the fight scene, since there was never a Lee v Bolo encounter. The ice factory photo is curious; nobody has ever unearthed any footage of it, despite the best efforts.

[Chris1989]

Race is social, gender is physical. You cannot be trans social.

[magisme]

Sex is physical. Gender is social.

[Amir]

Sex is physical.

Never seen the video before.