Dr Phil and the Dogma

There was a show on Dr Phil last week featuring a black girl who is extremely and viciously racist. She has decided that she is white and wants to join the KKK. The family is understandably devastated. It soon became clear that the girl is traumatized by the death of her Dad and the racist persona is a reaction to her grief.

But the funny thing was how nobody on the show dared to tell the girl that race isn’t something you can choose. The poor Dr Phil was contorting himself into all sorts of bizarre shapes with his meek and confused, “Of course, you can choose to be white because everybody has the right to choose their identity but. . . erm. . . but. . . uhm. . .”

It’s not OK to contradict the Dogma. And the Dogma is that biology doesn’t exist and anybody can choose their sex or race or ethnicity, and anybody who contradicts this is the bigotedest bigot of the most bigoted bigots. All this progressive blethering did was confuse the poor unwell child even further but the Dogma is more important than that, obviously.

27 thoughts on “Dr Phil and the Dogma”

  1. “nobody on the show dared to tell the girl that race isn’t something you can choose”

    I’ve yet to hear a convincing explanation of how Caitlyn Jenner was supposed to be a role model while Rachel Dolezal is a super villainess… I’m fine with accepting both (I have a soft spot for people who defy the consequences of accidents of birth) to more or less the same extent but can’t applaud one and boo the other (at least not with the sad rationalizations that people have put forward).

    I assume in this case that eventually the girl will work through her issues and the more pushback she gets the longer that will take. Appropriate therapy would speed up the process but TV shows are notorious for losing interest in people about two seconds after taping ends…


    1. Yeah. . . And Dolezal had all the same arguments, pictures of herself as black that she drew at the age of 3. I still don’t understand how a 3-year-old can draw such complex pictures, but whatever. But you are right, the whole thing was pathetic.


      1. And the argument that Dolezal was appropriating the suffering of an underprivileged group is ridiculous given that it means MtoF transgender shouldn’t exist either.


        1. “given that it means MtoF transgender shouldn’t exist either.”

          Radial feminists have a long and very vocal history of angrily rejecting male-to-female transsexuals as fellow women. This began in the 1970s at the height of so-called “second-wave feminism,” and for years was the loudly expressed view of many feminist leaders like Germaine Greer and Gloria Steinem.


    2. I see a difference in transgender and transracial, since at conception we all start out ambiguous in regard to sex and have the potential to develop either way. However, what race you are is determined solely by who your parents are; there is no possibility of being a different race than them. A couple potentially can have a child of any sex, but not of any race. So it seems more plausible to me that some weird biological mixup could happen with sex than with race. To me, there’s no way that someone born to black parents was “meant” to be white.

      That’s just my thinking. Either way, I don’t hate on people from either group. And I don’t hold up Caitlyn Jenner as a role model because she is an awful human being.


        1. Yes, a white and black couple had white and black twins. But they did not have Indian twins. That is my point here.


      1. Forgot to add: race is a human invention to a large degree which could be defined and discussed while different human populations were separated. Nowadays with higher frequency of intermarriages among various ethnic groups, to talk of race is harder and vaguer than ever.

        Besides, many groups cannot be easily labeled as black or white in American fashion. Are Syrians white? Are Sephardic Jews? There are people of very different skin colors in both groups.

        In contrast, biological sex is a given for all human beings except when things go wrong somewhere. May be, “we all start out ambiguous in regard to sex” but according to nature we are supposed to end up very not ambiguous in regard to sex in order to continue the species. As for shades of skin color – which Americans attach such significance to – nature could not care less since nothing important like reproduction depends on it.


        1. There was an article recently about the high percentage of people with African ancestry among very white (and some very racist) people in southern states. DNA tests demonstrate that pretty much anybody can find an ancestor who was a different race.


      2. “at conception we all start out ambiguous in regard to sex and have the potential to develop either way.”

        Actually, a child’s sex is determined at the moment of conception (fertilization), when the female egg cell fuses with the male sperm cell — and it’s determined by the sperm cell. All biologically normal women’s egg cells carry an “X” chromosome, but the sperm cell can carry either an “X” or a “Y” chromosome. So the male sex partner determines if the child is a female (“XX” chromosomes) or male (“XY”).


        1. Genetics determine how the fetus will develop. But sex differentiation does not happen for a couple months. And from time to time, the sex the baby develops into does not correspond to those genetics. There was even at least one instance where a woman who’d had children end up being XY. It’s not common, but neither is being transsexual (although the many young people claiming to be “genderqueer” may create a different impression.) I suspect with further study transsexualism will be found to have similar origins to some intersex conditions, something gone wrong involving hormones in the womb. This is only speculation though, I’m not a scientist.

          There’s no racial equivalent to intersex where a child born of Japanese parents somehow gets born black from a weird fluke. Though that would be some handy plausible deniability if you cheated on your husband.


      3. The problem is that African Americans all do have significant Caucasian heritage. And even lily-white folks like Elizabeth Warren can drag out an indigenous relatives l and claim she’s Native American. With the proliferation of DNA testing, I have no idea how affirmative action will survive.


          1. I would much prefer AA based on economic rather than racial criteria. The observation has been made that a disproportionate number of black recipients are from the black middle class. I’m sure that’s helpful and wouldn’t mind continuing that too but I’m worried that the real poor are left out of the shuffle….


            1. I understand what you are saying but racial diversity in itself does bring bonuses. Yesterday, for instance, there was an African American woman on TV – I turned it on late so I didn’t catch her name – and she said interesting things about the impact of illegal immigration on the black middle class. She said that the jobs that traditionally offer entrance into the middle class for African Americans – social work, police, etc – requires bilingualism more and more because of the growth in illegal immigrant population, and that is another barrier for entry for African Americans. I would have never thought of this because I don’t know about it. But it’s a valuable perspective that one doesn’t get if one isn’t part of the community. I never even heard of this before.


              1. “she said interesting things about the impact of illegal immigration on the black middle class”

                I’m all in favor of a racially diverse campus and some AA for middle class Blacks (for a variety of reasons) but I’d also like systems that can help real disadvantaged people.

                One problem for African Americans has been a string of bad timing. The civil rights movement set the stage for rapid economic progress and there was a lot. I remember stories from the early 80s where AA communities were growing economically faster than any other sector but the triple whammy of the 1965 immigration act, illegal Latino immigration and then the crack cocaine epidemic dissipated a lot of potential progress.


      4. “what race you are is determined solely by who your parents are”

        Except that progressives have spent the last 30 odd years proclaiming that race doesn’t exist (has no basis in biology) and using arguments of how the same person might be classified differently in different times or places.

        Sow here back at the beginning….


  2. Well, race is a visual marker of difference and you will get categorized by others according to the classifications as they work where you are, whether you like it or not … and discriminated against if you’re not in the right category. Regardless of “feeling white,” say, if you look African-American you will be treated as such by others; and if you look white you will not experience what people who don’t, experience.

    Gender, it is said, doesn’t work that way, so changing gender isn’t the same as trying to change race. I don’t understand gender well enough to fully opine. My visceral feeling is the rad-fem one, being raised as a woman is not something men can understand even if they “feel like women.” Yet it is said this is simplistic and uninformed, so — I don’t know what to think on this.

    In Lat Am, though, you can change your race somewhat by changing your culture. If you are Native American and you speak Spanish, wear Western clothing, read, write, eat Western food, etc., i.e. practice Western and not indigenous culture, you can be mestizo or, depending, even join the white or almost-white category. So physiology doesn’t matter as much as it does in the U.S., and culture matters more. Of course this means leaving a culture behind, and it is a political choice too.


    1. “Well, race is a visual marker of difference…if you look African-American you will be treated as such by others…Gender, it is said, doesn’t work that way.”

      The vast majority of people still don’t make a distinction between “gender” and biological sex — that’s for so-called “woke” persons, like academics, feminists, and enlightened progressives. The day may come when the average person won’t look at someone who is obviously biologically male and think “man” (or think “woman” if the person has obvious female features), but for better or worse, that day is still a long way off.


      1. And until gender ceases, some people will have gender dysphoria, it seems. I don’t know whether that is based in being intersex in some subtle way. I think part of the argument for changing or modifying gender is that you’re not choosing, you’re trying to better approximate what you really are. Where I get lost is that that seems to assume gender is real. So the whole argument seems circular to me. I don’t truly get what it would be like, at all, to have gender dysphoria.


        1. I’m all for preventing discrimination for trans people, full rights, paid medical assistance, etc. But when the activists lose me is in the demand that I believe that MtF are actually women and WtM are actually men. I find it very off-putting that anybody should tell me what to believe and should create hounding and an environment of fear in the workplace if I don’t believe the dogma. This is a very recent development and it’s making it harder to be supportive of this variety of trans rights. When the word “women” was scrubbed from my announcement for my conference panel of our feminist organization of scholars because it might offend trans men (who weren’t there and weren’t participating in any way), this is just too much. I don’t believe that the word “woman” is offensive and those who find it so should go stuff themselves.

          Liked by 1 person

    2. “In Lat Am, though, you can change your race somewhat ”

      Exactly. This is another reason that claims by Dolezal (or Shaun King) to be black didn’t seem odd to me. In a lot of Lat Am saying “I’m mestizo” or “I’m white” is more about cultural and/or material ambitions than ancestory (conversely “I’m Indian” can be more about solidarity with the downtrodden than just, or mostly, ancestory).


        1. “Changing down isn’t really solidarity, it’s appropriation.”

          So transwomen are by definition appropriating victimhood? Got it!


          1. Well, there’s where I differ from the radfems. I wouldn’t say appropriating victimhood by definition, but I have known a few transwoman and also “non-binary” guys who constantly weep about how they are discriminated against as women (by men), and mansplain to me what discrimination against women is.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.