>And I still don't have it completely worked out. But I race
>is about ancestry. It's about history. There isn't really room
>for fluidity in ancestry.

Why not? Is it not the case the overwhelming majority of us are comprised of a plethora of ancestral lineages dating back to our very first, original humanoid ancestors? Isn't that - as a matter of DNA composition - evidence of an ethnic fluidity within our DNA?

I would argue there's more empirical evidence to support a transracial theory than a transgender theory - although I consider transgendered to be absolutely legitimate because it is my belief that regardless of what sex you are born as (male/female) - you are comprised of both masculine and feminine principles - but this is much more difficult to empirically demonstrate than that of a simple DNA tests which proves the "racial"/ethnic fluidity of a human.


-->