I’m sure you’ve all heard of Rachel Dolezal, the NAACP president of Spokane Washington. She has recently been outed as a white woman. Her bloodline is Czech, German, and Swedish, not African. Yet, she has been posing as a black woman for several years now. According to her interview on the Today show, she has identified as a black woman since she was five years old.
What I would like to know is why those who side with the transgender are up in arms over Rachel Dolezal. She is simply transracial. Her true self is a black woman, but she is trapped in a white woman’s body. It is not her fault that she was born in the wrong body. Remember, the mind trumps the body. It doesn’t matter that her body is as white as they come. What matters is how she perceives herself. Since she perceives herself as black, she is black, and she ought to be able to undergo skin darkening treatments to align her body with her true identity.
Those who think transgenderism is normal, and the proper treatment is gender reassignment surgery, please tell me why you think that Rachel Dolezal is not black. After all, race is not as fixed as sex. There are only two sexes, but there are many races, and race is not as clearly defined as sex. New races can be created by consistently mixing two people of different races. The same cannot be said of sex. Indeed, what is the racial identity of mixed race children? If a Mexican woman has a child with an African man, is the child Mexican or African? Something else? Race and racial identity is rather fluid. So if anything, we ought to be more supportive of the transracial than the transgender.
Thinking to Believe 
June 16, 2015 at 9:20 am
A person who makes this comparison has not done their research on transsexualism and the latest brain evidence of its generally having physiological root causes. This is the most boring and benignly true response I can make on the matter.
LikeLike
June 17, 2015 at 10:23 am
Perhaps Rachel is black in her mind and white in her body; one can only live according to their perception one might even call her notion of identity as Justified True Belief.
The presence of black anscestors in the black child’s genetic history can express itself generations later through skin color but not nessesarily through identity or may express in identity but not necessarily skin color. This could account for the comment:
“According to her interview on the Today show, she has identified as a black woman since she was five years old.”
Norman Bethune was a Canadian of Scottish descent, not Chinese but he identified with Chinese insomuch that Chairman Mao Zedong of the People’s Republic of China published his essay entitled In Memory of Norman Bethune (Chinese: 紀念白求恩), which documented the final months of the doctor’s life in China.
Virtually unknown in his homeland during his lifetime, Bethune received international recognition when Chairman Mao Zedong of the People’s Republic of China published his essay entitled In Memory of Norman Bethune (Chinese: 紀念白求恩), which documented the final months of the doctor’s life in China. Almost the entire Chinese population knew about the essay which had become required reading in China’s elementary schools during the 1960s. Grateful of Bethune’s altruistic help to China, the nation’s normal elementary school text book still has the essay today:
“Comrade Bethune’s spirit, his utter devotion to others without any thought of self, was shown in his great sense of responsibility in his work and his great warm-heartedness towards all comrades and the people … We must all learn the spirit of absolute selflessness from him. With this spirit everyone can be very useful to the people. A man’s ability may be great or small, but if he has this spirit, he is already noble-minded and pure, a man of moral integrity and above vulgar interests, a man who is of value to the people (In Memory of Bethune, Mao 1939, pp. 337–338) ”
Bethune is one of the few Westerners to whom China has dedicated statues, of which many have been erected in his honour throughout the country.
There is one Race; The Human Race:
There are Social Groups with which one identifies:
Caucasian Social Group (Aryans, Hamites, Semites)
Mongolian Social Group (northern Mongolian, Chinese and Indo-Chinese, Japanese and Korean, Tibetan, Malayan, Polynesian, Maori, Micronesian, Eskimo, American Indian),
Negroid Social Group (African, Hottentots, Melanesians/P
Researchers have studied young children’s reports of past-life memories for the last 45 years. The children usually describe a recent, ordinary life, and many of them have given enough details so that one particular deceased individual has been identified to match the children’s statements. These cases occur worldwide, and although they are easiest to find in cultures with a belief in reincarnation, many cases have been found in the West as well. This review explores the facets of this phenomenon and presents several recent American cases.
Click to access REI37.pdf
LikeLike
June 22, 2015 at 6:16 am
Jason,
Your mildly sarcastic post is, in my opinion, simply unfair. Christians should try to understand and love others. I agree with Stanrock. It is quite evident that transgender is a physiological matter. It seems certain that it is not a “choice” made by those who just want to deny the way they were made by God. Something about their physiology is different. I believe they are born with broken genes. It is a product of the fall – man’s sin. We are all born with broken genes. Does that mean that if that had happened to one of my kids I would support what Bruce Jenner has done? No. I am only saying that Bruce Jenner is an excellent example of someone who is certainly different inside than outside. Really, Jason, do you think Bruce Jenner chose to be a woman because he is in some sort of spiritual denial? Bruce Jenner? The Olympic Decathlon champion?
Rachel Dolezal is not comparable to Bruce Jenner. Rachel has made a choice. Why does she choose to be called black? Who knows for sure, but it appears to be related to a tough childhood. Bruce Jenner’s situation is physiological and Dolezal’s was a choice effected by her environment. Christians should try to understand and love Bruce Jenner and Rachel Dolezal. We should not attack them. Jesus told Peter to lay down his sword. And, surely you know that Jesus never once said one word about transgender people or homosexuals. Why do you think they are people who should be condemned by the Church?
The Great Commission, Jason, that is our job.
Randy
LikeLike
June 22, 2015 at 8:46 am
Randy:
Well written. Wisely stated.
The Takeaway
LikeLike
June 24, 2015 at 6:35 am
stanrock,
If you’re going to call on evidence, then please cite the evidence. Doing so, in this case, however, is interesting but irrelevant to my argument. I don’t doubt that there could be a physiological basis for the transgender delusion. But all that does is explain the origin/cause of the delusion. It doesn’t make it any less delusional, nor does it invalidate the comparison.
The point of similarity is the mental delusion – the fact that their mental self-perception does not match reality. Why each person is delusional may be different, but it is inconsequential to the point of the comparison. The point of comparison is not the cause of the delusion, but the fact of the delusion. If liberals are going to take the position that the mind trumps reality, then not only must they conclude that Bruce Jenner is truly a woman, but they must also conclude that Rachel Dolezal is black. But if biological reality trumps the mind, then Bruce Jenner is a man and Rachel Dolezal is a white person.
Jason
LikeLike
June 24, 2015 at 7:51 am
Jason:
I believe stanrock was commenting about the content of your argument. I must say however your reply to his comment shows you have now switched your argument from content and are now arguing in support of the argument, not the content of the argument but arguing for the structure of the argument doesn’t make sense in forwarding the discussion.
You say stanrock should cite the evidence (for a physiological basis). But you then go on to say that you’re prepared to disregard the evidence as irrelevant even if he does cite the evidence.
So you are only arguing for the structure of your argument disregarding the content.
As far as delusion goes:
Studies on psychiatric patients show that delusions vary in intensity and conviction over time, which suggests that certainty and incorrigibility are not necessary components of a delusional belief.
Furthermore delusions do not necessarily have to be false or ‘incorrect inferences about external reality’. Some religious or spiritual beliefs by their nature may not be falsifiable, and hence cannot be described as false or incorrect, no matter whether the person holding these beliefs is diagnosed as delusional or not.
In other situations the delusion may turn out to be true belief. The reality is, delusional features can be found in “normal” beliefs. Many religious beliefs hold exactly the same features, yet are not universally considered delusional.
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Delusion
LikeLike
June 26, 2015 at 2:21 am
TakeAway,
I asked stanrock to provide the evidence he said exists because I think people should support their claims rather than just make them. But I went on to say that I don’t doubt that such evidence exists, but it wouldn’t make a different to my argument. In other words, I was saying stanrock was missing the main point I was making for a trivial difference – the very opposite of what you claim. I am not arguing over trivialities, but trying to eliminate trivialities that distract from the main point.
My claim was that if reality is determined by the mind rather than the body, then not only is Bruce Jenner truly a woman, but Rachel Dolezal is truly black. Stanrock wants to say that this isn’t a valid comparison because the cause of their self-perception is different. I am willing to cede that that may be true, but that’s not the issue. It doesn’t matter if one’s self-perception is rooted in their physiology or a sheer act of will. The cause of their self-perception is not the issue. The issue is whether self-perception trumps biological reality or the converse. You can’t say self-perception trumps biological reality in the case of Bruce Jenner, but then change the rules for Rachel. Besides, surely not every person who experiences transgenderism does so because of physiological causes. For some, the cause is social (think of Shiloh Jolie-Pitt, who now identifies as a boy. Clearly it is not coincidence that before she was even born Angelina made it clear that she was not going to dress Shiloh in girly clothes. Nor is it a coincidence that a girl that is treated as a boy and made to look like a boy suddenly begins to see herself as a boy). Do you think any of the people who support transgenderism would say that Bruce Jenner is truly a woman because his self-perception is caused by his physiology, whereas Shiloh Jolie-Pitt is not truly a boy even though she thinks she is since her self-perception is caused by her social upbringing? No way. They would support both equally, because they believe that the mind trumps the body, and every person has the right to self-determination. So why deny that Rachel is black, then?
Jason
LikeLike
June 26, 2015 at 7:52 pm
Greetings. I had a question regarding the validity of the moral argument for God’s existence. Is the comments section here the best place to ask you or should I email you? If so what is your email?
LikeLike
June 27, 2015 at 7:58 am
“The issue is whether self-perception trumps biological reality or the converse. You can’t say self-perception trumps biological reality in the case of Bruce Jenner, but then change the rules for Rachel.”
Jason, I don’t know why there has to be only one rule as your comment suggests, one or the other; perhaps they are both at play.
When Jesus spoke out on behalf of the afflicted, the poor, the sick, the disabled, the brain dqamaged, the downtrodden was he given them comfort, food, healing, care and release from religious bondage, was this because of his genetic disposition or his empathy? EMPATHY: “the psychological identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another.”; and, the capacity to understand or feel what another person is experiencing from within the other person’s frame of reference, i.e., the capacity to place oneself in another’s shoes.
Full Definition of EMPATHY
the feeling that you understand and share another person’s experiences and emotions : the ability to share someone else’s feelings
1: the imaginative projection of a subjective state into an object so that the object appears to be infused with it
2: the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present without having the feelings, thoughts, and experience fully communicated in an objectively explicit manner; also : the capacity for this.
You may have heard or seen the documentary about the “Family that walks on all fours” with some claiming that this is an insightful step for “backwards evolution”. Here is the BBC Doc first aired in 2011:
LikeLike