Thread by @Aella_Girl

The difference with which people treat transgenderism and transracialism is really fascinating to me. Both involve visibly different (but not always) groups, different cultural behavioral expectations, studies/debate around how much this is genetic, etc. 1/

Many of my trans and enby friends have described their identification as based off not wanting gendered expectations - "ppl think women are like x, but this does not describe me!". This seems like a motivation I could easily see applying to the concept of race as well. 2/

In fact, I pretty regularly see people- from multiple directions- trying to disidentify with their racial expectations; some of it seems reactionary, but some of it seems pretty similar to the attitude my trans/enby friends have - "I'm better described by that group, not this"

I've heard people say the difference is that racial groups have full inherited oppression, and that gender doesn't - that men and women are brought up mixed, while race often wasn't. This is... maybe a small bit of evidence, but still doesn't feel that convincing to me.

Men and women being mixed together didn't prevent extremely disparate treatment throughout history, often far more disparate than different races were treated. I suspect this perspective comes from ppl who haven't been exposed to conservative or traditional cultures.

Or sometimes they say that black people were deeply oppressed, and that identifying as black without having experienced truly that level of oppression is disrespectful and 'fake', sorta? Like part of the black identity *is* that oppression?
Which like, I get; it's good argument.

But this is also the argument feminists apply to trans women; they view women as having deep, historic oppression that permates culture (only able to vote for 100 years!); how could you identify as a woman without having experienced how women are treated?

And like, ultimately we've settled on "still, feeling like womanhood describes you better is valid! There's lots to womanhood that isn't oppression."
This is a Big Deal; gender is probably the deepest, most totalizing division we've ever had. So why is this not applied to race?

My suspicion is that it's cause we haven't yet culturally agreed that there's much more to blackness besides oppression. For a white person to identify as black is an existential racial threat; it's impossible, because white ppl can't transition in the way that matters.

And if white people *could* transition, if we accepted that race is simply an identification, then this weakens the conception of race as meaningful, as a powerful story to rally justice behind. It means sacrificing the story of oppression and tribal unity.

So this is why I think (i guess, progressive?) culture no longer *really* thinks that women are oppressed. It's no longer central to female identity. They might talk about woman-power, but once you admit the oppressor group into your own ranks, your tribal unity is gone.

And I think this is good! I'm really glad people who are born male have the freedom of expression to be able to inhabit and be accepted in their female identities (and vice versa).
I also feel grief for those who feel this about race but don't have the freedom to inhabit it yet.

I do predict that, assuming that the race war thing ends up dying down over the next several decades, we'll see a very similar shift to accepting transracialism as we did to transgenderism. Once actual artillery stops getting fired, I'm looking forward to the trans peace treaty.