Read on Twitter
I keep returning to interrogate the line of logic taken to contest trans racialism whilst defending transgenderism, but no one can distinguish between the two without relying on gender ideology presented as fact (meaning the distinction remains unexplained).
In this video for instance with 300,000+ views, the whole argument relies on sex not even being mentioned for it is irrelevant to the invisible authentic gender inside, in contrast to biologically based race (=pigment etc).
In this way Kat Blaque concludes that to be transgender is an expression of 'truth' a state of being which just is, where an individual follows as inner imperative of thy self (e.g. as a woman) without agency over this true state of being, but to be transracial is to be a liar
So a 100 tweet thread deconstructing this logic is unnecessary - its only necessary to show that the distinction is based on a disingenuous dichotomy in which the definition of gender utilised is one ideologically constructed exactly for the project of defending transgenderism
It's not like a definition of race which legitimises Rachel Dolezal and trans racialism doesn't exist - one which conversely overturns the status quo acceptance of 'race' as a physical trait and newly defines it as non-biologically based on self identity.
Its just that Kat Blaque and the TRM conveniently don't utilise THIS revised definition of race in their efforts of proving a distinction between Dolezal and Jenner - even though it would be the logical inverse of their chosen definition of gender.
The ideological revision of gender (exc sex) is presented as naturalised & legitimate, but it is the product of the SAME ideological labour, the same normative intention to legitimise inclusion, that the revision of 'race' by Rachel Dolezal is.
Somehow we are to regard the revision of race as illegitimate and explicitly ideological serving the sole sake of Dolezal's unvalidated niche experience YET the ideological work which has already produced the revision of gender (making TWAW possible) - we are not to interrogate
If we do interrogate the the revised meaning of gender, we must see it as a 'liberationary' revision (corrected to better reflect truth), not an 'ideological' one (revised to reflect the ideas and values of a particular interest/project)
Kat Blaque says: "I feel some type of way when I see a white woman who is living in this country that has a history of racism who is very aware of that history of racism, feel entitled to position that have been carved out for black women, as a white woman."
..."And the sad part is that her voice is cherished above others in her community, And what's sadder to me is that most of the people that stand in support of her, are black people"
This is EXACTLY how women feel.
Hopefully this thread demonstrates that the same concerns legitimised on lines of race, are vilified when expressed by women only through an ideological slight of hand which selectively validates (gender ID) & dismisses (all other ID) based on its own interests & aims, not fact
