Progressive Dogma: all morality is “situational” and deeply personal – and the goal for all interpersonal relationships must be to increase tolerance, diversity, and inclusion. And even more important than that is the introduction of a new ideology called “intersectionality” – which means, as one cultural expert writes, “When you support Black Lives Matter or another progressive cause, you are automatically signed up to everything else. LGBT advocacy, the pro-abortion movement, Palestine, and environmentalism have all been linked together for ‘intersectional’ progressivism.”

Enter Rachel Dolezal – – a progressive white woman who has a deep affinity for the black race. So much so that she wanted to “harmonize her inner feelings that ‘black is beautiful’ with her outer appearance.” In her opinion, race is more than a biological reality, it also is a cultural and social construct.

So from the age of four when Rachel sketched herself as black, or her Aunt Becky made her a black Raggedy Ann doll, Rachel believed herself to be Pan African, a black woman. She darkened her skin with bronzer, kinked her hair with a tight spiral perm, and even married a black man.

In 2014, Dolezal was elected president of the Spokane chapter of the NAACP. A year later she resigned from the civil rights organization after her parents and family declared both her biology and ethnicity to be false.

Dolezal’s parents stated that their daughter had been trying to “disguise herself” as African American. They presented a copy of their daughter’s Montana birth certificate and argued that she is of German and Czech descent.

Refusing to back down, Rachel changed her name to Nkechi Amare Diallo, a name with African roots. She even wrote an autobiographical book describing her experiences titled ‘In Full Color: Finding My Place in a Black and White World.’

Many Black Progressives did not receive her book or personal story favorably because they believe she was benefitting from her white privilege. In their view, she was “appropriating black culture for her personal gain” without ever having to experience the harsh consequences of prejudicial bigotry.

Here is how one Black writer explains it, “In taking an African name, Dolezal looks to change her destiny — to revise history. To claim what is not hers to claim. Blackness is a bright and shiny diamond, and here in America, everyone wants to wear it like a Rockafella chain around their neck. The attitude, the language, the humor, the music, the style, all of it is covetable… But, like diamonds, blackness is created under extreme pressure and high temperature, deep down in the recesses of one’s core.”

Note two very important points in this writer’s argument:

(1) Rachel is “claiming what is not hers to claim” and the author says the black culture is something that is “covetable.” Coveting something is wanting that which is not yours to have — and this form of “wanting” in any culture is objectively wrong. I want to be 7 feet tall and play in the NBA, however, I am a 5’ 10” and can’t dribble. Wouldn’t it be a tad bit arrogant if I started demanding that people, and the government, should still allow me to play in the NBA and pay me for it? Just because I want it or I feel my true self is a 7-foot black man does not mean you must join me in my delusion. In fact, the person who confronts me and tells me to live in reality is the one who really loves me.

(2) Because of her inherent whiteness, Rachel has never really paid the price to share in the black experience, because to most African Americans “Blackness is created under pressure.” The black identity, we have been told constantly, has been formed through a “fellowship of experiential suffering.” Whites and other races may sympathize with their pain, we just can’t fully join in it. We will never know the wounds, burdens and obstacles they daily face. That is one of the main arguments for Black Lives Matter, and progressives readily accept this. That is why they reject Rachel’s argument that race is a “social construct”; they know race is an objective reality.

I think these two points have very real persuasive merit; but if we were to apply them consistently across all of life, they would completely undercut other progressive soapboxes — specifically fighting for transgender and to some degree, even homosexual rights.

If you accept the argument presented by the Black writer here, cannot these same two things be said to men who want to identify as women? Or women who identify as men?

Cannot we argue that a gay woman can never take the place of a man because not only is coveting wrong but they can’t understand the real responsibilities and burdens real men carry…and vice-versa?

I saw the silliest thing on social media where two gay men had a baby through a surrogate and when it was born they acted like it was them who did all the labor and nine months of hard work. Just because they “want a baby” and one of the men wants to take the role of a mother does not mean that it is right. So when they are so “woefully under qualified and able to be a mother” we don’t need to join them in their delusion. We must not let our society lose the ability to reason just to make a few delusional people happy.

Why don’t progressives stop pretending two gay men can actually play the part of a mother, or women can be men — that is just as bad as Rachel wanting to be black?

One reason could be is that progressives aren’t truly logical? They are like the spoiled child that wants something their brother has and would rather steal it than ask their parents for permission to take it because they know the parents will say “No, it’s not yours to have!”