Can someone 'identify' as a different race, age, or species?
How are these aspects of identity different from gender?
This question might seem quite absurd at first. However, there are actual people who claim to identify as a different race, age or species, and also claim that their experience is no different from that of transgender people. There are also those who want to be disabled despite being able-bodied, those who identify as a different age and gender, those who are interested in anthropomorphic animal characters and have an entire fandom based on it, and who have built entire communities online especially in the last few decades.
A lot of the language used by such individuals or subcultures or their allies while seeking wider acceptance can seem similar to the rhetoric of transgender people and their allies. There are also those who cynically equate all of these examples to transgender experiences and claim that if we accept one, we must accept all, hoping that the absurdity of such a claim will convince people not to accept any such identities and experiences including those of transgender people. According to such cynical opinions, if anyone can simply 'identify as' any gender, then why can't they also identify as a different race, or age, or species?
Although there are many who have explained elsewhere why these experiences cannot be equated to transgender ones, we still see a lot of people including queer or trans allies struggling to articulate these differences. Therefore, we are going to dig a bit deeper today, and see how these aspects of identity differ from each other. Let's look at them one by one.
Can someone identify as a different species?
We are going to talk about biology. Facts of biology. Biological realities. Precisely the things which transphobes often try to use against us.
Humans are born from human parents. Animals of any species are born from parents of the same species. It is a simple biological fact. (Don't worry... we are soon going to talk about the 'biological facts' of gender too... how they are not so simple after all)
Of course there are many, many examples of human-animal hybrids, or humans turning into animals, or of legendary animals which don't actually exist, which can be found in human myths and legends and literature and art and films or any creative output of any kind... but we all know that there is no real-world basis for a human to 'identify as' any other animal.
No, this is not where he starts ‘identifying as’ a different animal. It’s coming up later. We are not sure what this is.
The entire field of taxonomy in biology is devoted to classifying various species and studying how they are related to or differ from each other. There is enough attention given to hybrid animals, and to understanding which species can or cannot produce viable and fertile offspring with each other. Hybridization has 'naturally' occurred throughout the history of most species on this planet. And... deliberate attempts involving humans have been made in the last century itself. However, all of this matters only when the two species in question are closely related. And humans are not closely related enough to any other species.
Is any of this relevant to people who simply say that they feel some spiritual or neurological connection with another species, or who are fans of anthropomorphic animal characters, i.e. cartoon animals who talk? If this 'self-identification' is only limited to indulging one's imagination for some time, finding others who share the same 'identity', not harming anyone else, and not seeking legal acceptance for one's identity, then why should the rest of us worry about it? It is just another way in which people are believing what they want, just like one follows a religion, or a cult, or any other belief system.
Even if someone were to seek legal recognition of their 'identity' as another species, even if such a claim (for which there is no real-world basis) was seriously considered, a human adult cannot evade their responsibilities by simply 'identifying as' another species. (For the record, transgender people are also fully responsible for all their actions before or after any legal acceptance of their gender identity)
We know that kids have active imaginations and they often talk of themselves as being some other animals. But if an adult were to say that they feel like a puppy or a cat, or part-human and part-feline, will we indulge them? And even if we do, will we laugh it off if they go on to bite someone else? No.
Humans are considered legally and socially responsible for their actions in ways that many other species aren't, no matter how they 'identify'. As long as this basic tenet holds true, why should it matter if some people sometimes want to walk around in animal clothing?
You can ‘identify as’ any animal you want. Just don’t go around biting other people. Humans are not your food.
Ok, but what about age?
This one is a little trickier. On one hand, time is a more clearly defined concept compared to race or gender or species. On the other hand, almost all laws everywhere in the world have some exceptions for people 'of unsound mind', who do not have the same rights and responsibilities as other adults. While there are many debates around such laws and mental health in general and in specific cases, e.g. Britney Spears, it is widely accepted that not everyone of the same chronological age might 'feel' or behave exactly the same way, even when they have the same legal and social responsibilities. And of course, stories about adults who 'have the mind of a child' are part of our collective imagination too...
Before being a superhero, he had to be ‘trans-age’. And act more like a kid than all the other kids around.
Moreover, age is very clearly seen as a spectrum, as a number that gradually increases from birth to death. Even if people are put in discrete boxes for specific legal purposes, e.g. who can vote and who can't, who is considered a 'senior citizen' and who isn't, the variability of age from one individual to another is a commonly understood concept.
So... what does one do when an adult claims to 'identify as' a 6 year old child? Just like in the case of species, if it is limited to certain behaviours and not harming others, how does it matter? And if they are clinically considered as responsible as any other adult, then their claims can't and shouldn't be legally recognized anyway.
There is, of course, an even trickier scenario when it comes to age. So far, it is hypothetical, but with a clear scientific basis. And that is the twin paradox, or any similar scenarios involving relativity and high-speed travel, e.g. Matthew McConaughey in Interstellar aging much slower than his own daughter.
So, which one of them is going to be ‘trans-age’? But… it’s not just ‘self-identity’, right? It’s physics.
Of course, when such scenarios become realistically possible, 'age' as an aspect of human identity will become more complicated.
Ok, so what about race? Is 'transracial' a valid identity?
As we mentioned earlier, this piece already does a good job of explaining why 'transracial' cannot be considered a valid identity. Besides the fact that it is stolen from people who are raised in families of a different race or ethnicity than their own, there is also biology at work again.
Human genealogy can be complicated, but broadly, children usually look similar to their genetic parents. There can be some variations in skin colour based on how varied the gene pool within a family is, but one does not expect it to be drastically different for a child compared to their genetic parents. And besides one's ancestry, the other aspect of one's racial identity, especially if it is an oppressed race, is the common experience of entire families and communities being oppressed. In other words, if a racial identity is based on your ancestry and a shared experience of oppression going back many generations, it cannot simply be changed or appropriated based on how one 'feels' or 'identifies'.
If you are famous enough, then your race and ethnicity cannot stop you from playing any role that you want.
In India, a clear parallel is with caste. Just like Rachel Dolezal tried to appropriate a Black identity and claimed to be 'transracial', the question of someone falsely claiming to be from an oppressed caste is a well-known one in India. Whether in legal or bureaucratic spheres or within communities, this question arises often, and is debated and negotiated and resolved in different ways depending on who is asking this about whom, and why.
On the other hand, people trying to 'pass' as a more privileged race or ethnicity or caste is also a well-known and probably more common phenomenon. In both cases, it may lead to social acceptance in limited ways, but does not change the reality of one's ancestry and racial identity.
Why bother with accurate and sensitive representation, when makeup can solve all your problems?
So how does gender differ from all of these?
First of all, unlike species or race, and unlike what is commonly assumed, gender or even 'biological sex' is not determined solely by one's genes, but is gradually constructed over many months of fetal development. In addition, race and gender, or the conventional expectations associated with race and gender, are both socially constructed even after birth, but the key difference is that while racial identity is shared by entire families and communities (even in inter-racial families, it is shared with an entire lineage from either side), gender is a more individual experience. Even if women and queer, trans, nonbinary or gender nonconforming individuals are oppressed en masse, how one relates to their own biology, gender identity, gender expression, and sexuality, is an individual experience, unlike race.
I am confused. Please tell me whether I am ‘trans-racial’, ‘trans-species’, or just another ‘white saviour’.
All of us start off in the womb from the same generic default state, closer to what's considered phenotypically female. Moreover, not just gender identity but even biological sex is not binary, or even easily classifiable in a few well-defined boxes, as one can read here and here.
Any 'high-school biology' that anyone cites, relies on a lot of claims about what is 'typical'. Those who are 'atypical' though, whether in terms of their gender identity or their biological sex, are about as common as twins are. And have the same right to be accepted and legally recognised as anyone else.
The more we get into the details of biological sex and gender identity and all their possible variations, the more we realise that transgender people are not just claiming to identify as someone, but are expressing their biological reality in whatever way they can, not just now but since long before science could understand it.
And before we worry about all the possible questions around identifying as a gender different from the one assigned at birth, we should ask ourselves why so much of the world around us is gendered in the first place. The experiences of cis women, trans women, trans men, and nonbinary individuals may be different from each other in many ways, but there is a shared experience of oppression in a gendered and patriarchal world, that we are all part of.
So... to summarize, gender is different from other aspects of identity because... one's species is simply determined by one's genes and ancestry. Race is similarly determined not just by genes and ancestry, but in cases of oppressed races, it's also a shared experience of oppression of entire families and communities. Age is a well-defined linear parameter at least for those with 'typical' mental development, and in non-relativistic scenarios.
Gender on the other hand, is a binary construct imposed on everyone at the time of birth based on a quick visual inspection of a newborn's genitalia, without looking any further into what's going on inside the body or the brain.
For an overwhelming majority of people (>90%), it doesn't matter, and the binary seems to work.
But what about those for whom it doesn't work?
If you liked what you read, please consider supporting our work by clicking ‘Membership’ or ‘Support’ on:
You can also follow us on Instagram or Twitter, and subscribe to our newsletter so that you don’t miss any future editions. A new edition will be published every Saturday.
If you would like to contact us, you can message us on Instagram or Twitter or by replying to any edition of this newsletter, and we will get in touch with you.
Sorry, but scientifically speaking, men can never be women and vice-versa. Because humans reproduce via sexual, not asexual, reproduction, male gametes are small and motile, while females gametes are large and stationary. All of the hormones in the world can't change this, though the person taking them may eventually 'look' like the opposite sex. Yes, there are intersex people, but they are rare. Most transgenders are not intersex.