Yes, I know that "progressives" justify their hypocrisy by claiming their position represents progress (without ever presenting arguments to that effect). If anything, the radical subjectivity you referred to above can easily be claimed to be regressive.
'Regressive' compared to *what*, exactly?
How about using the scientific method to understand reality? Do you think claims like that the idea that there is a reality is about exercising power are profoundly regressive?
You're indicating the political balkanization on the left, according to turf, which is a fair critique, empirically.
Coming from *you*, though, such a critique has to be viewed with suspicion, since you're definitely *not* a leftist, or sympathetic.
And what are the allegedly "hypocritical" arguments being made by progressives (presumably 'cultural warriors [of color]') -- ?
People have a right to determine their own identity when it comes to gender, but not when it comes to race.
I can't agree that the two are inherently comparable regarding individual 'identity' -- you're subscribing to the notion that gender identity is a *choice*, and I just don't see the empirical social evidence for that to be the case.
Rather, aspects like sex and sexual / gender identity are internally *realized*, and so no one can argue against someone's 'straightness' or 'gayness', or 'masculinity', or 'femininity'.
In attempting to situate gender identity as being a 'choice' you're trying to open the door to *cultural* arguments and provocations, to fuel right-wing-type *culture wars*, as over gender. But, since gender identity *isn't* a lifestyle choice, it's inherently *removed* from bickering over cultural preferences, and instead well-situated in the domain of *human* rights, and civil rights.
Racial preferences, on the other hand, are *clearly* a lifestyle choice, and so *is* cultural -- meaning whatever culture one may choose to subjectively select and identify-with, whether it's a *nationality* culture, or a *racial* / cultural one.
I don't see why any of this matters (more on this below) but either way the claim is that whites who regard themselves as black are appropriating blackness in some way, for their own gain. And it's similar to what TERFs claim, in that MtF transgender people are also trying to appropriate femininity in some way.
But are *you* making this argument? You're detachedly indicating the left-wing 'cultural imperialism' argument, but you're not left-wing yourself.
I'll invite you to acknowledge the distinction between  personally-discretionary / lifestyle, and  biological / genetic. The first *is* arbitrary, and possibly progressive, depending, while the second is simply *empirical* / emergent, *involuntary*, and thus not a personal socio-political decision of any kind, though one's own *response* to it may potentially be socially expressed -- 'consciousness'.
There are 3 possible responses to this:
1) Gender is not biological, not according to some feminists at least. Particularly those of the postmodern kind who will claim it's socially constructed like race is (and some, like Judith Butler, take this further and claim sex is also socially constructed). A more moderate claim is that gender is about social roles and perception, while sex is strictly about biology, which justifies that seeing yourself as a woman while being a biological male (with a normal Y-chromosome) is possible.
If you want to consider a 'mix', or 'hybrid' treatment of nurture-with-nature, that's fair as well, though the result, regardless, is a gender identity that is still not *chosen* by oneself. By the age of adolescence, or earlier, one has a fairly solid sense of one's own gender / sexual identity, meaning that it's *still* not a lifestyle choice, contrary to right-wing imputations.
2) It's a meaningless distinction when the arguments for supporting one trans-category can apply to the other.
You seem to be indicating the civil-society sphere here, so, yes, I'd say we all need to get used to transgenderism -- as in public bathrooms -- just as we should all be past Jim Crow attitudes by now.
3) If race is, as you imply, personally-discretionary (or socially constructed) and not a biological construct dealing with skin pigmentation or genealogy, you could say there is a stronger case for trans-identities dealing with race than for those dealing with sex (or gender, if used as a synonym of sex).
I never said or implied that race itself is solely socially constructed -- *of course* there's genetics for racial characteristics at the biological level.
That said, though, what I *did* say is that racial *identity* is a lifestyle choice, as much as one's cultural dining preferences.
Your right-wing approach here is to take the *biological* basis of gender identity, and to incorrectly *generalize* it to 'transracial' cultural choices, in an attempt to situate racial-cultural treatments on the same hard ground as (inherently involuntary) gender-identity ones.
In other words if someone can say that they're "inherently" black, despite being phenotypically white, then they would have socially legitimate access to plundering marginalized, culturally-rich black cultures, for the sake of commodification and profit-making.
For all of these cases, the conclusion is the same: It is hypocritical and arbitrary to support one and not the other when it comes to both transgender and transracial identities.
No, it's *not* an arbitrary, false dichotomy -- it's a *real* dichotomy. Gender identity is mainly / mostly *biological* (combined with social conditioning from early-on), while one's chosen *cultural* identity, including preferences of race / ethnicity / gender / nationality / etc., is *not* involuntary, and is instead personally subjective and *intentional* as far as society and government is concerned.