Update: Rosie Dimanno's column in the Toronto Star is kind of confusing. On one hand, she writes that Rachel Dolezal "was deceitful, to a staggering extent." On the other hand, Rosie thinks we should all chill, because in our day and age, "Notions of gender identity have never before been so un-fixed"--and who says that that's a bad thing? As Dimanno reasons:
..Her masquerade reeks of reverse-privilege. And her narrative seems to be intertwined with false claims of familial abuse — no evidence has been uncovered of the beatings she claims to have suffered at her father’s hands. So there appears to be a lot more going on here below the surface of pigmentation.
But we’re all free to improvise our own biography. Dolezal’s teaching and activist bona fides are legitimate, which is more than can be said for a few professionally perfidious journalists and politicians who come to mind.
It’s been more than 60 years since the first sex-change operation, a rearrangement of one’s most intimate parts. Rachel Dolezal changed from white to black, on the surface and in her own mind.
What did she seize that wasn't hers? She seized the DNA and identity of the "other," the "victim," a theft that was, yes, staggeringly deceitful and more than a little bit nutty. Nutty, too, is Dimanno's siding with those who mash up the "trans" issue and Rachel's, um, "rearrangement," and who think that if your support the one you must support the other. (Rosie does know that Jenner isn't rearranging the genitals any time soon, doesn't she?)What did she seize that wasn’t hers to mash and manipulate?