Sure, but that's not the difference we're (or I'm) talking about.
There was no psychological science being done in the 18th century.
It isn't racist to point out similarities between transgender issues and race issues. It would be ignorant to say that transgender individuals suffer the same depredation that blacks did in the eighteenth century, that's true; but it isn't at all racist or a stretch to point out that perceptions of racial psychology/cognition in the eighteenth century still permeate cultural rhetoric and understanding today. If there's overlap between transgender and race, it has nothing to do with being an accurate comparison between sexual/gender and race. It's simply a result of the messy and leaky psychological parameters that have been deployed in the past.
So you've only pretended to read Foucault's History of Madness? Insanity has been around for centuries, even if we don't approve of its practitioners' methods.
I was just trolling, was in the middle of watching Venus in Furs.
More seriously, I'm not exactly of the belief that transracialism is a thing.
There's an important distinction between mental illness and mental retardation. Blacks were accused of the latter, transpersons self report the former outside of trans-issues at an elevated rate.
There was no psychological science being done in the 18th century. Complaining that it was "leaky" 100+ years before the field began to take shape, much less become mature, is a non sequitur as far as I am concerned. Studies show that transgendered persons report higher levels of depression and suicidality than the general population, and surgery/HRT does not have an effect in reducing these levels. Allowing an already at-risk population into an occupational field which is an additional risk factor for depression and suicidality is irresponsible and unethical both in regards to transgenders and potential coworkers - over and above concerns regarding specific trans-issues.
None of this is in any way functionally comparable to racism or discussions of mental "inadequacy" (to use a useless blanket term) in the 18th century. Obviously if one plays around with words enough, anything can be compared with anything.
What is transracialism to you, and would you deny its practitioners the same right to serve that is denied to transgender people?
What's your point? Are you saying the mentally retarded are allowed/should be allowed to serve?
surgery/HRT does not have an effect in reducing these levels.
To the latter, no I would only deny people who cannot meet the standards for entry. However, if their inclusion comes with a huge cost to the taxpayer, I might consider caveats to their entry alongside the standard to entry.
To the former, Rachel Dolezal.
Don't be mentally retarded.
OK, but that seems to be a different argument from the one you were making earlier.
Does it bring them to the level of the general population? No. Does it reduce the levels relative to trans people (note there is supposed to be a space there,) absolutely.
And as I've said before - when society at large views you as disgusting and treats you as such - violently and with hate, you're going to be an at risk population. The fault lies with society not giving trans people a place.