On Saturday, The Guardian (UK) released an interview with disgraced former NAACP local leader Rachel Dolezal. Dolezal, you’ll remember, was a typical leftist race-baiter who spent her days talking about white privilege…until it was revealed that she is white. She maintained that while she might be genetically white, she identified as black. She was promptly fired by the NAACP as well as the local university employing her.

Now, according to The Guardian, she can’t get a job, she’s nearly homeless, and she’s living on foodstamps. She was assailed as “mentally ill” and guilty of participating in “blackface.” Dolezal explained, “I’m this generic, ambiguous scapegoat for white people to call me a race traitor and take out their hostility on. And I’m a target for anger and pain about white people from the black community. It’s like I am the worst of all these worlds.”

Here’s the sad irony: if Dolezal had believed she was a white man instead of a black woman, she’d be hailed as a hero. As it is, she calls herself a “pan-African, pro-black, bisexual.” But that’s not good enough. She should have called herself a man. She’d spend her days being feted by the media as a civil rights icon. She’d be called a man because she deemed it so. But if she called herself black, she had to be tossed out on her ear. As The Guardian reports:

Today Dolezal is jobless, and feeding her family with food stamps. A friend helped her pay this month’s rent; next month she expects to be homeless. She has applied for more than 100 jobs, but no one will hire her, not even to stack supermarket shelves. She applied for a position at the university where she used to teach, and says she was interviewed by former colleagues who pretended to have no recollection of having met her. The only work she has been offered is reality TV, and porn. She has changed her name on all her legal documents, but is still recognised wherever she goes. People point at her and laugh.

Why did Dolezal say she was black? Because, she explains, she had three younger black siblings adopted from Africa, and she identified with them. When she began braiding her hair and wearing traditional African clothing, people began identifying her as black. “For the first time in her life, she felt beautiful,” The Guardian reports. After her first divorce, she said, “For the first time in my life, I really decided consciously to be free from the repression, and free from feeling like I had to do things in a way that was acceptable to other people. I had the courage to be exactly who I was.”

Is that so different from the transgender people who say they only felt beautiful through being treated as a member of the opposite sex? The Guardian acknowledges the similarity. So does Dolezal, who says that race is significantly less biological than gender – an eminently correct biological position.

But transgender commentators are upset by the parallels. As well they should be, since Dolezal’s case largely debunks their own. It’s impossible to cast Dolezal as a villain for identifying as a different race when there are no clear genetic boundaries to race, while simultaneously defining genetic men as genetic women.

But poor, unlucky Rachel Dolezal is on the wrong side of the leftist social policy divide, in which race is more important and distinct than gender. Which means that she’ll remain an outcast – at least until she becomes Robert Dolezal, at which point we’ll champion her courage.