You know, the notion of "trans" potentially exists in all systems, but it’s only really pushed and forced to be accepted in the patriarchal system, that is, the system that oppresses women: roughly four billion human beings, regardless of their social status, ethnic origin, or conformity to gender norms (which are themselves a tool of patriarchy).
The capitalist system, for its part, oppresses according to social class, mainly the working class and the proletariat. Yes, "transclass" people exist, but it would be absurd to imagine that one day a "transclass" person could be politically recognised as an oppressed category.
Let’s imagine, for example, that a millionaire (I won’t even take billionaires as an example) becomes poorer and now belongs to the middle class a heavily taxed class, but not, in itself, the oppressed class in this system. Suppose this "transclass" person then starts campaigning, claiming they no longer have any rich privileges and that, as a result, they deserve more administrative aid than the middle class and the working class.
They would explain that they are now judged both by their former class and by the middle class, and that therefore they are more oppressed than the working class. They would add that they now pay proportionally more taxes than before and are therefore even more oppressed especially since the working class wouldn’t recognise them as such.
They would go everywhere claiming that the most oppressed people in the capitalist system are middle-class transclass people, while rich transclass people would, of course, still be privileged. Yet it’s well established that people from the working class who rise to the middle class or wealth continue to face prejudice and closed doors, precisely because of their social origin.
Or a "rich" person who calls themselves transclass because they now consider themselves poor while still earning 45,000 euros a month and paying taxes wuld claim they should get social benefits and access to places reserved for poor people. They would say their existence is credible as an oppressed person, on the grounds that millionaires are supposedly closer to the middle and working classes than to the truly rich — billionaires.
They would even go so far as to argue that the capitalist system oppresses all classes, but especially transclass people, and that "cis-classes" benefit from privilege because they grew up in that environment. They would argue that a 35-year-old transclass person has to relearn social codes and is therefore more oppressed, because they suffer both capitalism and "cis-capitalism".
Everyone would find that completely absurd.
Now let’s talk about the racist system, which oppresses according to racial hierarchy.
It’s well known that Black people are the most stigmatised in universities, workplaces, and the medical field. Then come the transracialists.
A white man says he feels Chinese. He undergoes surgeries to get as close as possible to East Asian ethnicity, dyes his hair black, and now wants surgery to have a "smaller penis" — because obviously you can’t be Asian if you have a big one 🙄.
He goes everywhere saying he wants to change his name to something with an Asian-sounding name. He explains that his surgical and administrative costs should be covered, and that transracial people are the most oppressed by the racist system.
He claims his existence is credible because mixed-race people, as well as those with vitiligo or albinism, exist. Anti-racists reply that those people still belong to the same ethnicity despite their medical condition.
He then retorts:
"Oh, so now you’re reducing people to their skin colour and racial stereotypes? That’s really racist."
He even uses as an example the fact that in many African countries, white or Asian people who grew up in Black communities are sometimes welcomed and considered part of the group. He claims that opposing this under the pretext of theoretical anti-racism amounts to "colonial anti-racism", which imposes outside rules and denies the autonomy of the communities concerned.
Yet when anti-racists look at these situations more closely, they explain that these people can indeed be socially accepted in the community, but they still occupy positions inaccessible to Black people, even when they come from low social classes. Their acceptance doesn’t erase the racial hierarchy.
Despite that, he insists that transracial people are the most oppressed by the racist system, because on top of racism they suffer "cis-racism".
Once again, people would find this absurd, even insulting.
In other oppressive systems, class theory is perfectly understood. But when it comes to feminism, suddenly no: patriarchy is no longer the system that oppresses women, but simply "anything that isn’t man".
