I see. That's a very interesting way to look at it.
I don't think it's all that interesting.
Imagine if you will, that during African American History month, organizations were to hold up Rachel Dolezal for approbation of the achievements black people have made.
Do you think that would be appropriate? Dolezal is a white person, who has a black identity. They
identify as black, but they are
factually white. Throughout their childhood, they did not face the barriers that black people face, and they benefited from the privileges accorded to white people.
But Dolezal at least managed to pass as black somewhat. Or at least as mixed, so perhaps they have faced some degree of race-based discrimination that they've overcome.
I think most people would consider it inappropriate to honor Dolezal as a black person for AAHM. I think it's reasonable that most people find it inappropriate.
Now imagine that it's Margot Robbie who is being held up and applauded during African American History Month, being lauded for the advancement they have made as a trans-black person.
Robbie is obviously not black. They've never passed as black, and any current attempts to seem black would very likely be viewed as "blackface". To honor Robbie and showcase their achievements as "black achievements" during AAHM would not just be
inappropriate, it would be
offensive.
Consider the message that would be implied in that act of honoring an obviously and unquestionably white person during AAHM, on the basis of them identifying as black. They've never faced anti-black racist discrimination. They've never experienced the systemic disparities that black people face. They've had all of the advantages of growing up white in a system and culture that still has a considerable amount of racism.
The underlying message in the choice to hold up a white person for accolades during AAHM is that black people are of so little worth that the organization thinks white people make better black people than black people do.
