Addressing the long controversial debate on “race changers” to another reality
Hello.
I feel the need to address, so I will. Before I get into my argument, I want to be clear about my intent. This post does not dismiss history, feelings, or lived experiences. The topic of race especially in the reality shifting context is inseparable from colonialism, imperialism, hierarchy, commodification, fetishization, racism, and all the voices of all shifters of color. All of that matters and none of it is being pushed aside.
This is not an attempt to justify RCTA in this reality nor invalidate anyone’s discomfort with the topic of it. This post is an attempt to explore the different idea of shifting to a reality where one may be a different race from the one they were born as in their current reality. It is also an attempt to explore this topic with nuance, ethics, and historical awareness with a metaphysical framework of shifting. I will assume most of us know the difference with RCTA (Race Change To Another) and shifting to a reality where one is a different race. If not, RCTA is the active manifestation of changing one’s race to another using subliminal audios while shifting to a reality where one has been a different race their entire existence in that reality.
Here are some of the main concerns shifters have about the topic of shifting to a reality to exist as a different race: intent, the why(s), erasure/being inconsiderate of history, dismissing struggles and experiences.
Concerns, or rather questions that come up repeatedly are: “why do you want to exist as another race? Why do you want to shift to a reality where you’re another race?” These questions are usually rooted in curiosity but ultimately shows the concern about intent. While intent matters, another way of approaching these questions is to ask what assumptions they’re built on.
The common belief seems to be that the desire to experience life as another race comes from shame, rejection, or unhappiness with one’s own race. Some argue it stems from aesthetic desires instead of genuine self-expression. This concern has historical roots. Race has often served as a tool for domination and exploitation, not just as a neutral way to describe differences. Systems such as chattel slavery, the encomienda system, and racial caste hierarchies focused on control rather than culture or identity. Race was created to justify extracting labor, stealing land, and dehumanizing people. Blackness, Indigenous identity, and non-European bodies were linked to violence and disposability, while whiteness was connected to power and safety.
This historical context is important and influences how people view racial identity today. Thinkers like Frantz Fanon discussed how colonized individuals were made to see themselves through the lens of a racist system. Angela Davis has pointed out that racism is not just personal prejudice; it is a structure that decides who is safe and who is harmed. Sylvia Wynter suggested that race was invented alongside a specific concept of “Man,” one that excluded much of humanity from full recognition. None of this is being denied here.
This leads to Shay’s argument, which deserves serious consideration.
Shay contends that race changing is wrong, not only because people of color oppose it, but also because none of us exist in isolation. We are shaped by the world we grow up in—a world structured by white supremacy and colonization. From this perspective, when someone shifts to exist as another race, they do not abandon that frame of reference. Even in a different reality, they carry values, assumptions, and privileges from this one. As Shay puts it, this makes race changing a way to avoid confronting real pain while picking and choosing features, even if the individual doing it insists they mean no harm. This argument is compelling and arises from genuine experiences of feeling ignored, spoken over, and treated as disposable. The call for people to listen is valid and should be respected. People of color should not be dismissed in moral discussions, and their unease should not be ignored.
However, I begin to differ—not because I disregard the concern, but because I question the conclusion drawn from it.
One tension in Shay’s argument is that it treats race as if it must always function the same way in every context, even while recognizing that race was socially constructed for exploitation. If race was created as a tool for domination, it is hard to argue that it must remain a permanent moral boundary across all realities without asking if that reinforces the very system it aims to challenge. Another contradiction shows in the comparison to violence. Shay suggests we don’t justify murder in other realities simply because infinite possibilities exist, so race changing should be seen similarly. But killing is a direct act of harm, while existing in a different body is not inherently harmful. This analogy assumes harm as a given rather than something dependent on intent, behavior, and impact. It collapses all forms of identity exploration into violence, which oversimplifies the conversation instead of clarifying it.
There is also an assumption that choosing to exist as another race implies prioritizing personal desire over someone else’s dignity. That conclusion only holds if we see race as something that can only be “worn” or “used,” rather than lived as a full human experience in a different context. It does not allow for the possibility that someone could approach this with care, research, boundaries, and respect, or that someone could reject fetishization and still believe identity can shift across realities. Most importantly, the argument assumes that because we are shaped by this world, we can never step outside its moral limits. But shifting, at its core, already accepts that consciousness can move across contexts. If we accept this idea, the question becomes not whether individuals bear responsibility—they do—but whether that responsibility must always mean restriction rather than care.
I am not arguing that race changing (to shift to a reality as another race, not RCTA) cannot be harmful. It can be. Fetishization, stereotyping, erasure of history, and treating identity like an accessory are serious issues that need addressing. But harm isn’t automatic, and intent alone isn’t the full picture either. What matters is how someone understands race, how they engage with it, and whether they perpetuate the same hierarchies that caused harm initially. For me, this isn’t about evading responsibility. It is about rejecting the notion that our ethical imagination must stop at the boundaries formed by colonial history. Remembering the past does not require reliving it. Respecting lived experiences does not mean freezing identity indefinitely. And believing in infinite realities should be used not only to envision more suffering, but also to explore more thoughtful, conscious ways of being human. ❣️
signing off,
belladonna ♡