I don’t think you can really call it rational or irrational. I mean, how do you say whether any given individual would be better off with a penis or a vagina? By what standard?
It seems more like an aesthetic judgment than anything.
It does seem -strange- to look at it as anything other than the way it just is, but a “metaphysical assault on reality”?
Where might one find Peikoff’s explanation of that?
Suppose I “feel” I have more in common with dophins than I do with humans… Further suppose that I am a human, and that dolphins and humans are both mammals, but different kinds of mammals.
No, not only do I feel I have more in common with a dolphin, I think I AM a dolphin… but somehow reality has “mis-expressed” my metaphysical identity. Swapped my body for what it should have been… somehow in the mammal warehouse the DNA elves messed up… I aim to correct such an error by using laser surgery to remove all my hair, I have my legs sewn together surgically, have my skin pigmented grey, and have the skin and fat of my buttocks fashioned into a fin for the middle of my back.
What is the result? Is it a dolphin? Heavens no. Is it human? Certainly, bodily, it structurally and functionally is a contorted remnant of a human. Is it more like “me”? Certainly not… not if me means what I AM (here “was”).
The me that I was, is the me that I have assaulted on the basis of a fiction and an evasion. I wished I were a dolphin (not me), and I assaulted metaphysically what I was, a human… in the hopes to attain something unattainable… a rebellion on reality.
Although a metaphysical assault on reality… it succeeds only insofar as it destroyed identity (what I was) but an utter failure insofar as it was unable to substitute identity with the wish… I could not become a dolphin,
and the reason why is simply because I was not and never was one.