Actually, 'Trans-Racial' is Much More Reasonable Than 'Transgender'...
Okay, okay, now hold your hate mail. I am not saying that 'trans-racialism' is something that should be normalized, accepted or hell, even given a second thought. Allow me to clarify my position before you read any further.
You are born with a specific sex and race. It is hard-wired into your DNA, you cannot change it. If you choose to identify as something other than as defined by your biology, you are delusional. Sociology does not supersede biology.
Okay? Good. Now, the left has absolutely freaked out over the Rachel Dolezal story. I predicted it, it was easy to see coming. It created a very difficult juxtaposition in forcing modern leftists to make an uncomfortable decision. Are they going to risk being 'racist' by supporting this black-face charade? Or would they risk being 'trans-racial-phobic' by not supporting the black-face charade. There've been leftists on both sides. Some called Rachel Dolezal out as a fraud, while some at MSNBC basically said that this whole trans-racial thing deserves a second look.
Hilarity ensued.
That being said, allow me to presuppose something here: 'trans-racialism' isn't any more absurd – and I would argue is actually much more reasonable – than the modern transexual movement. I know, I know, some of you think that I'm taking a controversial opinion here simply to be the jackass that I am. I assure you that's not the case.
As opposed to sex, which differentiates humans by their organs, reproductive functions, hormonal profiles, bone-density, neuropsychiatry and physical capabilities, many of the delineations surrounding race are merely cosmetic. Of course I'm not suggesting that there aren't noticeable contrasts between say, a gentleman from Okinawa or a man off of the African Savannah. I'm also not suggesting that we all try and fake color-blindness here.
What I am saying however, is that what is required for someone to successfully become "transexual" is much more expensive, invasive, dangerous and ultimately scientifically unfeasible when compared to what would be required to change one's race.
In order for a man to become a "woman", he is required to undergo severe hormone replacement therapy, amputate his testicles/penis from his body and create a massive wound in its place, which must constantly be re-opened as to prevent the male anatomy from instinctively closing it. In addition, the following cosmetic surgeries to make one resemble a woman can number well into the six figures.
The end game: it usually still very much looks like a man wearing a dress. See, Caitlyn Jenner.
Rachel Dolezal didn't undergo any surgery, any hormonal treatment or psychiatric counseling. She slapped on a fake tan and got a perm. Her "transition" required less work than restoring grandpa's Ford Fairlane.
The end game: Rachel fooled people for over a decade. She was believable enough that the freaking NAACP bought her schtick and put her in a position of black leadership.
So again I ask you... how is it any more absurd?
As a matter of fact, those arguing that 'trans-racial' is any less legitimate than 'trans-sexual' are unkowingly holding an inherently racist position. In order to justify said position, one must believe that men and women are fundamentally more similar, and ultimately inter-changeable, than people of different colors. Liberals are telling you that black and white people are so different, sooooo far apart, that it's much more reasonable to change one's gender than their race.
Of course, I don't believe that. While there are obvious differences to be contrasted between ethnicity, I believe that on a fundamental level, a black mommy can do anything a white mommy can do.
I don't believe that 'Caitlyn Jenner' can.
Yet in today's America, my view is the one considered to be trans-phobic, bigoted, and anti-science, while leftists get to continue to hold their sexist, racist positions without ever been forced to defend or rationalize them on a national platform.
Progress.
