She has the right sort of background for it. I wish someone would ask her if she’s ever watched The Shape of Things.

Posing as black is more dangerous – there are huge tangible benefits to being black – not nearly as much of a benefit for being a woman.

Gender is a harder and less permeable category than race. Many individuals are very close to white or black, or white and any other of the major colors – but cases of legitimate biological sexual ambiguity are less common.

As far as racial categories, there is a social definition to it. Race is at the confluence of biological and social organization. When Progressives say that “race is a social construct” they are logically correct, but limited, in their view – race is a social construct that is built on a biological matrix.

On the question of sex, there is much less of a social distinction to be made, upon the biological matrix – and yet it is on that question that the Progressives would have allowances and discretion.

It is a mistake to look consistency or insight, in their views on things. But perhaps it reveals something about the nature of this game that they (and we) are playing, about determining who gets to be what. In “the game”, a man can be a woman and vis-versa, but people are bound to their race.

To repeat the question. What does it reveal (if anything), that the Progressive framework will abuse real sex categories, but when it comes to it, will not deny race categories?

Perhaps it is that race has to be real for the racket, for the Narrative; but sex not so much so, because the feminists – and women – don’t matter so much? The feminists who are part of that racket are more compromised (“broken”) people than the blacks who are actually advocating for themselves and for something real. The feminists are arguing for something they don’t really know what.

You are far too kind.

As I think Antidem pointed out, when we think things are crazy, they get crazier, and this is a sign we are approaching the Leftist Singularity, from which it follows logically that we are approaching societal collapse since this is achieved before the mythical Leftist Singularity. This is very positive however.

The anti-racist campaigners of yesteryear were highly convincing. Sharpton and company… less so, but they could still don the fat suit and claim New Jersey cops gang raped and defecated on a black girl, and maintain credibility. Dolezol? You’ll notice there is not even half the coverage of this woman in the media that there should be, and that is because certain Leftists realize how toxic their own emissions have become. Freakish opportunist conwomen like Dolezol are way too obvious, ideologically they are the ugliest creature at Prom, and no amount of blackface makeup is going to disguise that fact. As such, when they appear, the Left has to underplay their significance to the max.

The problem is that we are going to see such people in increasing frequency. It’s going to become monthly, and then weekly that we get a “Gay activist rapes newborn” or “Univison presenter is a Cartel member” story. The Left has enabled this. They have made a market for it. I think in the near future, it is going to turn a lot of people (even if quietly) against the current order and system. The Left’s political goals with power in mind have been assembling a coalition of those who would oppose the ‘aristocratic order’. Unfortunately for them, there is a very good reason that people like Dolezol are not, and could never hope to be, part of that order.