"Oh hey guys, let's coopt the rhetoric of a marginalized group to claim our brains are wired opposite to our bodies across a distinction that, biologically*, basically doesn't exist and is largely determined by an ancestry we don't have, so that we can try to reap the paltry advantages of another marginalized group that largely stem from our overarching culture's fetishization of marginality and the ruling class's attempts to mitigate and thereby maintain white privilege, without having to give up our own white privilege!"
(*I will point out the obvious that cultural distinctions between races are very real, just to stem accusations of total assimilationism.)
I don't know how far this was seriously meant, but it is freighted with
massive unspoken and unexamined assumptions about race and culture.
The idea that there is no biological difference between races is
extremely debatable, and normally forms part of a propaganda narrative that pretends that race does not exist, so racism can't exist, so that members of ethnic minorities can't be experiencing racial discrimination, and should just shut up. It is legitimate to argue that the biological differences between races are trivial compared to what they have in common, or that the differences should not matter outside a few specialised medical contexts, but to argue that there are no biological differences at all strikes me as extremely dubious on factual grounds. If there were no biological difference between the races, rates of lactose intolerance, or density of melanin in the skin, for example, would be statistically uniform across the global human population, and this is simply not so.
The very idea of human "races" is profoundly and inescapably tied to ethnic appearance, which is a matter of biology, and not simply a cultural construct. When I walk down the street in Sydney and people perceive me as "Asian", it is not my culture that they are observing, but my phenotypic ethnic appearance which is biological.