Weak Analogy? If you support transgender, to be consistent, you should support people who wish to identify as another race.

Well this falls under the assumption that both "race", and "gender" are socially constructed. But this analogy ignores the multiple strains of social constructivism (some are weak constructs where it is subjectively viewed by society, and some are strong constructs where society views that specific construct, in a structural manner; like race).

(Also I don't know if this would fit but I'm thinking its a false dilemma, or possibly a false equivalence.)

I agree that it is perhaps a false equivalence, but not a false dilemma.

In addition to my in-depth answer below; what do we mean by 'support'?

Do we mean 'accept' (as in, if Becky Smith thinks she's black, go along with it), or 'advocate' (as in, start transracialism into an acute social movement where white black-identifying people would, say, benefit from racial diversity quotas)?

The argument could be more or less reasonable depending on how 'support' is defined, as the former would rely on less similarities between transracialism and being transgender in order to be valid.

As it stands, this can be considered weak analogy and non sequitur.

However, since the words "gender" and "race" are relatively often used in different meanings, I would ask a person who states something like this to explain his position to me, to explain to me why he thinks that "gender" and "race" are so similar.

Identifying as "another race" has more scientific credibility. The claim that people who have gender dysphoria have seemingly different brains than their outward appearance suggests has struck me as politically INcorrect. I.e. Women/men are ALL supposed to share a type of brain. I'm pretty sure scientists don't have several billion brains to study this by to make their conclusions. However, I know some people can show genetic evidence, even if small, of having another race in their biology. 

So, yes weak analogy, false equivalence, maybe  I've read that gender confusion has risen 1500% among teenagers in the last decade. I've never thought there was any confusion amongst teens....Aren't teens mature and mostly stable?

It seems like you are correlating having gender dysphoria with being immature. Having the gender dysphoria doesn't mean your immature.

This is pretty spot on. I think it could also fall under a false equivalence , because it equivalences race and gender as an equivalent construct, when in reality that is not the case. 

Depends what you believe race and gender as. If they are social construct than no fallacy. But scientifically we know that it is more complicated than that. Looking at it  scientifically I would call it a False Equivalence.

I actually think there is something quite problematic in the first two promises.

If we accept a person who identifies as another gender, it is not because that gender is socially constructed but because however gender is socially constructed, we believe it is reasonable for the person to identify as another gender. What justifies my claim that I am a female than male, therefore, must be irrelavent to what is socially constructed. This indicates that "Gender is socially constructed" may well be true, but it is irrelavent to the second premise. Similarly, even if race is socially constructed, it does not follow that we should accept whoever identifies as another race. We should accept people who identify as another race if we believe it is reasonable for the person to so identify, regardless of if or how race is socially constructed. 

It seems to me that the argument may be invalid, for the second premise is in fact a subconclusion.

[To LogicG]

You are correct. Just because something is socially constructed does not mean that it is reasonable to identify as it.

If it is reasonable to identify as X, then we accept people who do so.

So, 'it is reasonable to identify as X' would be another implicit premise.

Then again, the degree to which something is constructed also plays a role in determining whether it is considered reasonable to identify as X, so...

Race is brand new, it does not really have a long history to it at all and certainly isn't part of anyone's primitive evolutionary instincts, even if we were to stretch it to ancient bigoted religious supremacy notions (Judaism), it still makes it rather young.  Gender is pretty old, older than the human race but does not really provide anyone with an tribal identity, more of a status within a given tribal identity. 

The former is far more of a social construct than the latter, the socially defined categories are also far more similar.  People of different races are far more alike than men and woman are. 

Interesting observation. I do wonder, however, how many people really do want to abolish race rather than celebrate it and make it a primary factor in self-identification.

 
Interesting observation. I do wonder, however, how many people really do want to abolish race rather than celebrate it and make it a primary factor in self-identification.

I thought that was the definition of anti-racism, that you wanted to abolish race as a social category.  The practical problem of anti-racism is in order to fight racism you have to mobilize races to fight against the dominant/privileged races but in doing so you can end up strengthening the race concept and the dominant/privileged races very much want to keep their privileges which would go if race no longer existed. 

It is the general controlled opposition problem, how do we know the opposition to something really is it's opposition and not just puppets of the existing power misleading it's enemies into self-destruction.