Only an absolutely UNHINGED madman could buy this one

I think "transracism" is possibly already more common. I would include people of mixed heritage who identify as something simpler. Plus the deal with, eg, Italian Americans becoming "white", and similar more recent disputes. Someone can "change race" just by getting on an airplane to a place with different racial categories.

@MartinRandall Doesn't count. I'm referring to people who are clearly "white" identifying as "black", and similar.

@IsaacKing I'm not quite clear on the distinctions. For example, Italian Americans were "clearly not white" at one time. And then they identified as "white". And then later they were "clearly white". So there was a period when many of them were identifying as a race that broader society considered different from their ancestry, which is the current Wikipedia definition.

The most obvious distinction is that there were lots of Italian Americans, but Rachel Dolezal is one of a small number. But if any "transracial" group stops being "transracial" when it gets too big, how would this market ever resolve yes?

@MartinRandall I'm not talking about cases where racial categories are unclear or overlap. I'm talking about cases where a racial category becomes decoupled from the physical characteristics that it used to unambiguously refer to. Like how "man" used to mean "has two X chromosomes", and now it doesn't anymore.

Uh, reverse that last sentence. One X chromosome.

@ManifoldMarkets Edit button when? :)

@IsaacKing Well maybe I'm wrong about the history here. I thought that the term "white" was in 1700 unambiguously coupled to Northern European physical characteristics and it was decoupled from that and then recoupled by 1900 to unambiguously include Southern European physical characteristics.

@MartinRandall Hmm, that's fair.

@MartinRandall I think that gets overstated. Anti-miscegenation laws never stopped any white people from marrying an Italian. The South welcomed Sephardi Jews, Arabs have been white on the American census since 1915.

@MichaelWheatley Looks like the anti-miscegenation laws specifically barred marriages between someone "of African descent" and "not of African descent", so wouldn't apply to marriages between people of differing non-African descent.

@MartinRandall Plenty of counterexamples here: Anti-miscegenation laws in the United States - Wikipedia

@IsaacKing When was "man" ever defined as "someone with two X chromosomes"?

that's star trek level "healthy society of the future" stuff. it would take a generation after all forms of racial bias have been repaired durably before this would become possible.

@L to be clear, I mean that there's no way the bulk of people would accept this if society weren't already healthy enough that there's pretty much no relative capability and cultural access advantage invoked in the process of transitioning physical race characteristics. In the meantime, it is worth studying each other's cultures to truly understand why there would be such pressure against this right now. If you don't know the history of blackface minstrels it might be hard to understand just how intense the resistance to this would be right now.

Is this about the number of people, or something more vague like how accepted they are?

@Yev Number of people

(Roughly. If transgender people are 4% of US population and transracial people are 3.5%, I'll still resolve to YES.)