This week’s table talk was about ‘transracialism’ (if such a thing truly exists and is valid) with a particular focus on Rachel Dolezal. She was the white woman who passed herself off as black for years as a civil rights activist and leader of the NAACP before her parents outed her with her true racial identity. I remember hearing about the whole scandal on cable news a few years ago but I was not aware of the academic and social discourse surrounding the idea of transracialism. The debate at the table talk was about how this story relates to transgenderism, if at all. For example, Dolezal is quoted as saying, “I feel that I was born with the essential essence of who I am, whether it matches my anatomy and complexion or not […] whiteness has always felt foreign to me, for as long as I can remember. I didn’t choose to feel this way or be this way, I just am. What other choice is there than to be exactly who we are?” Removing all context and examining the content at its core, Dolezal’s justifications for her actions pretty strongly echo those for transgenderism. Yet Dolezal is met with anger, outrange, and skepticism whereas most progressive societies are supportive of transgenderism. So why the difference?

The most problematic thing about Dolezal is that her claim of blackness comes from a place of privilege with no experience with the history or culture associated with the struggles of racial minorities. She could have championed for equal rights without changing herself to fit what she thinks is representative of blackness such as changing her hair type and skin tone. Most people at the table talk believed what she did was wrong. At best, she’s just ignorant. At worst, she is appropriating black culture in a way that really is not so different from blackface.