Agreed. Kyle's post treats gender as though biological sex were the only aspect though. That's where the confusion seems to arise.
Again, this neatly demonstrates: denying physiological reality.
Again: why can we be transgender but can't be transracial?
Gender: Either of the two sexes (male and female), especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones. The term is also used more broadly to denote a range of identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female.
Race: a grouping of humans based on shared physical or social qualities into categories generally viewed as distinct by society.
Both have large social/cultural components and neither term denotes a clear cut 'physiological reality' as you've claimed. So, I'd argue that people can be transracial. Indeed, in this thread you're the only one making the claim that they cannot. Transracial people have been around for a long time. The Nazis (as the first example off the top of my head) liked to identify themselves as Aryan even though few of them were from the Indo-Iranian area that is historically recognized as the location Aryan people originated.
I feel like the question you're really trying ask though is different from what's written. You seem to be upset that society treats someone who is trying to express themselves as transgender differently than someone who is trying to express themselves as transracial. Is this what you're trying to get to?
Why can I identify as a person with different organs, but can't identify as a person with different skin colour?
You can't identify as either. If you have a third lung, that's a measurable and concrete difference. If you have darker pigment in your skin, that's an observable and measurable difference.
What are the measurable characteristics of 'race'?
I have brown eyes, brown hair, pale skin, and a big nose. My ancestry is Polish, English, Scottish, German. My culture is Canadian. Scientifically, what race am I?
My son has brown eyes with epithelial folds, pale skin, brown hair, and a small nose. His ancestry is Polish, English, Scottish, German, Chinese, Filipino, Spanish. His culture is Canadian. Scientifically, what race is he?
The more you research into the concept of race, the more you see that there's no scientific definition to hold onto. Depending on who you talk to, it's based loosely in various mixes on observable differences, culture, and ancestry. There's certainly no 'physiological reality' to be had here.
Why am I allowed to ignore internal physiology, but not allowed to ignore cosmetic physiology? The ignoring science isn't even internally consistent. Likewise with rightwingers who deny climate change but still check the weather updates each day, or believe in geological science when drill cores tell them where oil is, but not when the drill cores tell them past temperatures.
Ignoring science because it doesn't fit ideology is the essence of being an ideologue. Thus rightwingers ignoring climate science, and leftwingers ignoring physiology, both gender/sex and (commonly) vaccination. Both also, by the by, ignore that their particular approaches when tried purely simply don't work. "The Soviet Union wasn't real communism," and "The US isn't real capitalism." Weaseling away from reality makes productive change difficult. This is a problem in our polarised ideological society.
This one's easy. You're allowed to ignore internal physiology because it doesn't apply here. (
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/race-is-a-social-construct-scientists-argue/)
The problem you're running into is bad initial assumptions. Race isn't scientific at all. Don't believe me?
- How many races have been scientifically identified?
- What are the defining characteristic differences between races?
- What happens when races intermingle? Which race is the resulting offspring?
These questions do not have exact scientific answers. There isn't even a scientific definition of what race is. Without defining something, it's not possible to begin scientific examination of that subject.
Because you've simply assumed that race is scientific though, you've come to incorrect conclusions about it.
This is very different than the large amount of research that exists regarding climate change to which you're comparing 'race'. No scientists are claiming that climate change is a social construct. It exists, it's real and measurable, and we have defined various contributing factors.
The question is not whether conservatives or progressives are more wrong, but whether their wrongness actually matters.
The science-ignoring of "progressives", since the Soviet Union fell, is currently less damaging to the world than the science-ignoring of "conservatives", because we still have the USA. The lefty stuff is never going to take over the world without a great power sponsoring it. That's why it's given a pass in society. If Bruce wants to become Caitlin it doesn't really matter. She's happier now, so who cares.
Again, this example is not science denying.
Gender is largely a social construct. A person can't change their sex . . . it's a biological reality that they're born with. You've got XX or XY chromosomes at birth, and that's never going to change. You can change your gender though, as that's not a scientifically defined, measurable thing - it's predominantly cultural. Using the two words interchangeably really only demonstrates an ignorance of the topic being discussed, and you're smarter than that.