If one can identify as transgender, can one identify as trans-age or trans-species? [closed]

Question

I feel that I have to make absolutely clear that this whole trans-age and trans-species thing was something which I came across because of politically right-wing media, and most of it likens the purported ridiculousness believed-to-be nonsense of transness to the claimed ridiculousness of being trans-age or trans-species.

I by accident came across this concept of trans-age --- the idea that one really is another age internally on some level and or the idea that one wishes to be a different age, although one is biologically age X --- on YouTube and thereafter began to search it. In some ways it is strikingly familiar to transgender people's claims about having and or wanting to be/already being/always being from birth or perhaps even before birth, e.g. spiritually, a gender that is different from their sex, despite their having a sex which is typically either female or male, not intersex. Thus, I think it is interesting to ask whether or not one can be trans-age and whether, like the concept of transness is in my view, a valid concept?

Naturally there are some problems that arise when one asks such a question: if one is, for example, a woman of 60, yet one identifies as a girl of 10, does that not violate children's rights to protection and dignity, or at least endanger them, as that woman could potentially be with ill intentions with regard to the children, i.e. she could want to sexually or otherwise abuse them --- yes, I am fully aware how this criticism is very much like, even analogous to, the criticism of how trans people, but especially trans women, are allegedly "perverts" or more prone to perverse behaviour, or how they or cis people, especially cis men, who claim to be trans can gain access to toilets, changing rooms, etc., to live out their perverted fantasies and wants, so please do NOT think that these are the lines of support down which I am going, as I am in no way in support of such of you at all --- one thinks of this person, as this individual is the person to whom a lot of people go when they are thinking and or debating the alleged ridiculousness of transness and it's claimed similarities to being trans-age.

Likewise, if one can be trans-age, can one be trans-species, i.e. be human, but identify as a non-human animal, for example, e.g. like this individual --- yes, another right-wing thing on the Internet, but as I said all my sources are right-wing)?

Now, I do have to say that I have talked with some people who identify as otherkin --- people who don't identify as human --- and contrary to what is often touted by people, these people are not saying that they are not human biologically because they know that they are, just like a dyadic trans woman knows she is going to be understood as biologically male by most scientific standards, nor are these people ignorant of their being human on an objective level, by which I mean a level on which others will perceive them.

Interestingly, I did find [this] conversation on Reddit which addressed many questions that I had asked otherkin people, e.g. whether being otherkin could be understood as a mental illness or a departure from reality, etc., so definitely read through it.

Also, while searching on the Internet I came across this question on Reddit about whether transness and Gnosticism are related because, like being trans-age and trans-species, being transgender purportedly requires that one takes leave from reality by denying one's body, etc., as Gnosticism is believed to require one to do.

Though a layperson of anthropology and things so I may be fully wrong, it seems to be the case that in non-Western cultures there are social categories and things for people who are said to have spirits, souls, etc., of non-humans, e.g., and this seems to be accepted quite un-controversially.

Should social, legal categories for one to be a different age, species, etc., be crafted for people who feel this way?

Are trans-age and trans-species valid concept that should be embraced?

Based off a quick search hereon, I did find this and something from this post which was interesting and exactly addressed my question, specifically this part:

I have to also say that if gender identity is just subjective--- meaning that one is whatever one says one is, or whatever one feels oneself to be --- does that mean that one who doesn't feel human (like people who are otherkins don't) are not human in some way?

Answer 1

I would approach this primarily as a political question. In the case of transgender people, it is very clear that we have a political movement demanding specific and concrete forms of recognition, and making various arguments for these demands. Are otherkin, for example, making similar demands in any serious way? It's not clear to me that they are.

There may be a secondary question here, which is more in the realm of clinical psychology. Gender dysphoria is an empirically documented and partially "treatable" condition listed in the DSM. This may be contested politically, but it is based on a degree of objective evidence for the existence of gender dysphoria which does not yet exist for age dysphoria or species dysphoria.

Finally I would point out that "gender identity is just subjective" is not a serious argument I see anyone making here. That seems to be a common misconception. If that were the case though, why would transgender people take hormones or get surgery? What transgender people and their allies are saying instead is that the subjective experience of one's gender matters and should be recognized in particular ways. That's not the same thing.

Answer 2

One thing to consider is that there is gender reassignment surgery, but nothing like that for age or species. The age case is irrevocable at least inasmuch as it would remain true that a person had existed for a given length of time, even if biological accompaniments of normal aging were halted or reversed. Advanced enough tech might allow a person to be turned into another species, though ultimately consciousness would have to be transferred to a new brain, with all the questions of personal identity this raises.

Answer 3

You can’t just identify yourself as transgender. You are, or you are not. Lying about it, to yourself or to others, doesn’t make a difference.

Trans-age seems ridiculous, but there are a few (very few) cases of people whose apparent age is not the same as their real age. There are some people in their twenties who appear to everyone either as 12 year old, or as 80 year old. Caused by different illnesses. Very similar to a transgender woman: “You look at me and think I’m a man, but I’m not. I’m a woman” we have the first person saying “You look at me and think I’m a child, but I’m not. I’m an adult”.

But your example was about people “identifying themselves” as something they are not. That sixty year old woman identifying herself as a child is not a child.

With trans-species the same thing: People who identify themselves as aliens don’t become a different species because of that. It is of course not entirely impossible and a common subject in SF movies that someone looking like a human is indeed another species - you might call Clark Kent “trans-species” if you meet him.

The only difference is that due to human biology, trans-gender happens a lot more often than trans-age (maybe less than a dozen cases) or trans-species (no known cases).

Answer 4

Identity is a cognitive (mental) phenomenon, not a biological one. That's true whether one is considering one's own identity or the identity of someone else. Not that long ago (historically speaking) most professional identities were attached to the male gender. The idea of a 'female' doctor or a 'female' lawyer wasn't just strange or amusing: it was decidedly offensive to many people, who considered it an outrageous suggestion. Such people 'knew' that women were biologically incapable of performing surgery or crafting rational arguments.

Of course, these days no one blinks twice at women who are doctors or lawyers, mostly because certain women dared to identify themselves as doctors and lawyers, and pushed up against the socially imposed identity until it gave way. These professional identities have now been separated from the traditional concept that women are intrinsically (as a matter of biology) too frail and limited to undertake such tasks. However, that points at the idea that gender identity is itself something separate from biology. And that's where we find ourselves today, with certain people identifying themselves as a gender different from the gender identity imposed on them by society, and pushing up against those social restrictions.

With resect to age, it's a well-known trope in psychology that age-identity is highly subjective. Or sense of age does not develop in line with our biological aging, but changes fluidly according to context, social position, and life experience. The tropes of an old person being 'young at heart', or a young person being an 'old soul' are not mere tropes, but accurate reflections of subjective experience.

Trans-species identification I can't speak to. I know there are people who do not identify themselves as human, whether they identify themselves as an alien species or — as in some well-studied cases — believe that they are in fact dead. But the act of having an identity is deeply tied to human cognition and behavior. Someone who identified as (say) a horse in a human's body could not possibly engage in typical 'horse' behaviors, and could not 'think' the way that a horse thinks since that would imply abandoning the linguistic structures that allow an identity to become conscious.

The point is that cognitive identity is not tied to biology, though it generally conforms to biology for both developmental and sociological reasons. Any difference between inner identity and sociologically imposed identity — both of which are cognitive in nature — will inevitably cause conflict. But that conflict cannot be resolved by a simplistic appeal to biology.