Naturally, comparisons have been made to "transgender" as it relates to "transrace" theory - and understandably so. There are parallels between the theories, as well as nuanced differences that distinguish them. However, to simply say "transrace isn't a thing" is not only intellectually lazy, it's incorrect. "Transrace" has been a "thing" for centuries. Fair complected black people have been passing themselves off as white for centuries; people of "inter-racial" heritage have identified with one race at one particular time in their life, and transitioned to a different self-identifier later in life, exercising a transient self-identification process when it comes to racial identity that suits their own personal identity and perception of self. Further, it's important to note that the modern conception of "transgender" (gender dysmorphic) wasn't a "thing" until we made it one by classifying it as DSM-III in 1980. As such, the fact that "transrace" is a relatively new term that has not been validated by mainstream ideology does not mean the concept of transrace is invalid.

What I find most interesting is the intellectual dishonesty and philosophical inconsistency that is now being applied to "transgender" in comparison to "transrace." Evangelical conservatives have prototypically rejected transgender theory for the same reason many so-called progressives are now rejecting transrace theory: They both want to prevent the individual from having the creative space (and legal right) to self-identify based on conventional definitions of what "gender" and "race" are. In transgender analysis, progressives rightfully champion the right of the individual to transcend gender (a social construct) when an individual finds normative gender identity to be insufficient in defining them. Yet many of those same progressives now want to define who Rachel Dolezal is for her, tell her how to feel, and rally against her right to disregard conventional race classification (another social construct) and identify as she sees fit. Most have issues with her dishonesty (as do I), but it's also important to note that lying is intricately linked to "passing" in transracial theory, just as lying was and still is intricately linked to an LGBT person who initially does not feel comfortable identifying as gay/lesbian, and instead lives a heterosexual lie to appease the normative conventions of mainstream society.

Whether you agree with how Dolezal has lived her life is irrelevant to supporting her right to self-identify, if that is an alleged progressive principle that you claim to support. Frankly, I think she would be far more effective in embracing her lineage and being honest about her background in order to have this discussion, but my tolerance to her right to self-identify isn't contingent upon my agreeing with her or even understanding her. I don't have to understand a transgendered person's feelings - I just have to support their right to have those feeling and ensure that the law does not discriminate against them. Many people say as a white woman, Dolezal does not have to deal with daily injustices of what blacks in America have to deal with. Ok, but Bruce Jenner never had to deal with the daily injustices that a woman deals with in her lifetime, let alone the biological experience of pregnancy, menstrual cycles, and menopause. Yet, I don't hear these same voices now condemning Dolezal belittling Jenner's right to self-identify. So why the inconsistency?

Identity politics is always an ever-evolving realm, and many of us attach more value to certain identifiers than others, be it race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc.. etc... But as a principle, we should always be supportive of an individual's universal right to self-identify, and it would be helpful to exercise a level of suspicion about the ability of social constructs like race and gender to accurately portray the multi-dimensional beings that we are.

Perhaps Maajid Nawaz said it best:

"There's a dangerous corrosive side to identity politics, ie: making one's gender/skin colour/religion/sect/sexuality one's *defining* trait. Between groups this can divide people rather than unite them, promoting rather than reducing group stereotypes, and therefore increasing discrimination.

Within groups this can lend itself to reinforcing a hegemony for those individual members who refuse to conform to what being a member of that group is *meant* to mean, as defined by that community's internal power structures. This is like the old trope "You can't be a true Muslim/black man, and be gay."

Ultimately, people are individuals and have more in common with those who share their outlook/interests, not their skin colour/gender etc.."
-->