>1. 'transrace' doesn't actually exist. at least not yet.
>

A big issue may actually be with the term transrace/transracial then. For starters, many of us learned in this post that in some circles 'transracial' is already used to describe individuals of one race that are raised in a family/home environment of a different race. So perhaps a better term, at least for now, is race dysmorphia.

But then, discussing race dysmorhpia and characterizing it is what would bring its existence to light. I don't think this phenomenon is as non-existent as people think. For example, skin lightening is a multi-billion dollar industry supported by Asia, Africa and the Middle East alone:

http://www.latinpost.com/articles/8096/20140304/skin-color-politics-african-diaspora-latinos-america-latin-america-skin-lightening-creams-series.htm

The fact that there is not an organized community raising awareness or providing education on the motivations for race dysmorphia doesn't mean it is not worthy of discussion.


>2. except for Rachel D, none of the ppl in your example
>actually changed their race identity.

This is a good point, but I'm not sure if you are correct. I'll give you that for Tiny and MJ. But understanding the well-documented denouncement of black race in the Dominican Republic and by many Dominican immigrants to the United States, I think it is highly plausible that Sammy Sosa's modifications were influenced by a desire to shed indicators of black race.

while they may have
>made body modifications none of them made a racial
>transition.

At some point, making extreme changes to a conspicuous combination of biological features is more than simple body modification. These features are not randomly related, they are biological indicators of ones ancestry. Is changing one's genitalia, internal organs, endocrine profile, equivalent to piercing one's ears, tattooing one's skin, and dying one's hair? I think resting on the term body modification, at least in these cases, is a bit of an over-simplification.