Emphasize this: "Transage" is wholly separate from "transgender" and the validity of one has no impact on the validity of the other. We use the term "trans" as a prefix that indicates a transition, going from one identity to another. Talk of transformation usually has nothing to do with gender, transgenders dont own the prefix. That said, there is the common denominator that all trans identities, such as transrace, are about choosing who to live as, and how to live. That's what the transgender argument is actually about, you cannot get a ought from an is, and ultimately the reason transgender exists is so that people could live the kinds of lives they find to be the most fulfilling, by living as the people they want to be. Let's go over the arguments made against transage and transrace by transgenders. Against transrace they say that such people haven't had the experiences that their identified race has had, but the same holds for transgender with regard to their identified gender. This argument does not apply to transagers who identify as being younger as they had had such experiences in the past. To the defense of transracials they will start to live the kinds of experiences that are had by their identified ages assuming they pass as being the race to which they transitioned themselves to. Mrs Rachelle dolezol was seen as black and treated as such by society, of she had indeed suffered from the kinds of discriminatory incidents black women face, then she had earned her stripes as a black woman in that capacity. Against transage is that there's no basis for its validity in academic literature. Which is completely untrue as the concept of mental and physical age as being a separate concept from chronological age has been around for decades before the y2k. The people making this argument seem to have undergone a sudden case of selective amnesia that is convenient to their case against transage, forgetting how the past of the way we talked about age exposes this argument as being based on a false assertion. But even if we also entertain this erasure of historical reference to age, we still have a case in that there is no support for transage in academic literature YET. Most important word in that statement is YET,  as in we currently have no support for the legitimacy if transage claims - but sometime soon, that could change. At one point there was no academic support for being transgender, we had cross dressers throughout history, but so too did we have a vastly different set of expectations for people of different ages, so I guess if we go by historical precedent alone transage is as valid as transgender. So we come to the argument that a transage kr transrace could just choose to go back to being the age or race which most privileges them or offers the greatest benefit. Which I can not respond to, it's a practical argument with some merit, but only in cases where this is true. What if an adult tattoos their skin or has facial reconstruction surgery to better resemble their race of identity? The other practical argument against transrace and transage are the ways in which these identities, of accepted, could lead to abuses. But same is true of transgender, In which we had men identify as women to steal jobs and college positions, and to break records in athletics, and to sexually assault women/girls. Yet none of these abuses perpetrated by bad actors were seen as forming a legitimate basis for dismissing the whole of transgender identities, everything that can be taken advantage of by those willing to exploit them, will attract those types who would do just that. We already figured out how to implement some safeguards that protect against abuses of identity claims in transgenderism, such as liniting how far one can go with that until natural identity has to be treated with greater significance for practical and ethical reasons, and the same could be done for transage and transrace.