“Turns Out, I’m 100% That B—”: A Scholarly Essay on DNA Ancestry Tests and Family Relationships

Abstract

With increasing attention on DNA ancestry tests, scholars have explored how these tests inform modern understandings of race. Current research reveals the flaws and misinterpretations that arise when DNA tests, such as those offered by 23andMe and AncestryDNA, are used as a proxy for racial identity. While prominent in popular culture, the legitimacy and implications of these tests remain contested in the scholarly literature. Some researchers have explored how the increased availability of DNA tests affects how multiracial individuals identify and disclose their racial and ethnic identities, though this exploration remains limited. As discourse about mixed race identity and ancestry tests becomes more nuanced, I argue for the utility of using diunital perspectives, an expansive lens that resists either/or thinking, to complicate conversations about ancestry tests and multiraciality. This scholarly essay integrates personal narrative and a genealogical deconstruction of monoracialism to explore the question, “How can DNA tests contribute to the unlearning of monoracialism?” I share two personal vignettes to illustrate how these tests can reveal a preference for discrete racial categories. Drawing from Critical Race Theory, strategic essentialism, and diunital perspectives, I examine how DNA tests intersect with identity, family, and monoracialism, concluding with implications for disrupting monoracial logics.

1. Introduction

With increasing attention on DNA ancestry tests in recent years, scholars have started to explore how these tests shape and inform modern understandings of race (Jones and Roberts 2020). The current research highlights the flaws and misinterpretations associated with race and DNA tests. Some scholars argue that DNA tests, such as those offered by 23andMe and Ancestry DNA, cannot serve as a proxy or determinant of racial identity (Fullwiley 2011; Jones and Roberts 2020). Although DNA tests remain prominent in mainstream media and popular culture (Foeman et al. 2015), their utility remains a topic of contention across the scholarly literature. Alongside examining how ancestry tests shape the discourse about race more broadly, some researchers have explored how the increased availability of DNA tests affects how multiracial1 individuals identify (Lawton and Foeman 2017) and disclose their racial and ethnic identities (Shaff et al. 2024). However, this exploration remains limited, and as more nuanced discourse about mixed race identity and ancestry tests emerges, I argue for the utility of using diunital (Pope et al. 2021) perspectives—an expansive lens that pushes against dichotomous understandings—to complicate conversations about ancestry tests and multiraciality.

In this scholarly essay, I incorporate narrative elements and draw upon postmodern ways of knowing (Agger 1991) to nuance the complexities of DNA kits in relation to genealogical deconstructions of monoracialism, race, and multiraciality. The central question I aim to address through this analysis is, “How can DNA tests contribute to the unlearning of monoracialism?” Similarly to previous autoethnographic scholarship (Combs and Johnston-Guerrero 2022), Petra Munro’s epistemological work informs the theoretical approach of this essay. When discussing her own research and writing process Munro (1998) reflects, “I weave my own story of the research through the life histories as a way to create a tapestry of our lives, an interweaving of connections, which is not only central to women’s survival, but an epistemological act” (p. 11). I share two personal vignettes rooted in my own experiences and find interwoven claims across the narratives as an epistemological act about the relationship between DNA ancestry tests and deconstructing monoracialism—the preference for discrete racial categories (Johnston-Guerrero and Renn 2016). Drawing from Critical Race Theory, strategic essentialism, and diunital perspectives, these vignettes highlight larger claims about how essentialized notions of race shape complex family and identity dynamics. At the time of writing the vignettes in this essay, Lizzo’s song, Truth Hurts, had reached number one on the Billboard charts. In her song, she offers the lyric “I just took a DNA test. Turns out I’m 100% that b—.” Those lyrics echoed in my mind as I wrote this piece alongside my personal narrative. The title of this essay, Turns Out, I’m 100% That B—,” intentionally plays with popular cultural language and song lyrics to engage with how people interpret DNA results as definitive or empowering. Additionally, I utilize scholarly support and framing to explore and complicate the connections between DNA ancestry tests, monoracialism, multiraciality, and family dynamics.

2. Vignette 1: I Have a Sister Now?

As a mixed race Filipina woman of color, with one parent and one Filipinx parent, my epistemological and ontological orientation is deeply informed by lived experiences and liminal embodiment. I see messiness and complexities in my mind, and it’s my location in the chaos that often allows me to see the unseen. However, I have spent my entire life diminishing the loud in my head, craving to think similarly to others, and to be understood. As I continued my graduate education, I began to lean more towards my own way of knowing, beyond the rigidity of traditional ways of knowing. I start this vignette with my epistemological location because I believe that it is shaped by my birth order. Like other cultures, birth order plays a role in Filipinx families. My entire life, I have been the oldest. I have always wanted to be the bunso, the youngest child. As I observed my younger brother growing up, I observed his free nature and what it means to live on the wild side beyond order. From my perspective, he seemed to show up and be who he wanted to be without responsibility, shame, or guilt. As the oldest child, I felt an intense commitment to protect my brother from the trauma in our family. There was a part of me that knew what I now know as my ontological existence was beyond order and rigidity. However, I spent my entire life fulfilling my role as the eldest sibling, aligning with order, rigidity, and rule-following.

My understanding of birth order, inherently rigid categories in themselves (Ernst and Angst 2012), was shattered in 2019. As a result of a DNA ancestry test, I discovered that I have a White half-sister who was unknown to my family and me for over 20 years. My sister has known she was adopted her entire life, and one Christmas, her husband bought her a DNA ancestry test as a gift. Through her test results, she learned that there was a 99% chance that my aunt, my dad’s sister, was her grandmother, aunt, or mother. My sister, Courtney, took what I believe to be a vulnerable risk and reached out to my aunt via social media. In this process, we began to unravel some of the long-hidden truths that have been shrouded for so many years. My dad was in the military, and before he joined, he had a high school girlfriend. She became pregnant and never told my dad. It was fascinating to watch my dad’s reactions to his discovery of a “new” daughter. For context, my dad’s entire being and identity were wrapped up in fatherhood, his most significant source of pride. He always says, “Being your dad is the greatest thing I have ever done in my life,” which only magnifies his guilt over never knowing or building a relationship with his first daughter. Along with my dad’s guilt came fear. He was afraid to tell me and reached out to my fiancé first to ask advice about how to share the news. Certain memories play back in my mind with vivid imagery. This moment when I found out I had a sister is one of them. I can remember the sounds, the smells, and the feelings that came along with the news all too well.

I was on my way home from work, riding the L in Chicago. I remember trying to call my fiancé to check in about dinner plans, and it was odd to me that he didn’t answer the phone. As I walked up to our apartment door, I heard quick whispers and a hushed urgency as my partner hung up the phone with someone else. I asked him what was going on, and he told me to sit down, just like a trope in the movies when bad news is coming. I sat down with trepidation as I prepared my body mentally and physically for whatever unknown was about to happen. My body began to tense up, but as my husband shared the story, every muscle started to unclench. I wasn’t upset. I was shocked. I was confused. However, I was not mad. I was relieved that this was the news. There was a part of me that thought this was going to be news about a death in the family. However, in some ways, it felt like a birth. I called my dad to reassure him that I was not angry with him.

Over the next few weeks, I processed the news more and more. In casual conversation, others often ask, “How many siblings do you have?” I would always answer one, and then suddenly correct my error and say, “I have a sister now?” She is older than I. Does this mean I am no longer the oldest? I wonder what life would be like if I were the middle child. Are birth order roles also categorized? This reflection feels ironic to me because growing up, I occupied an in-between space in terms of racial identity as a mixed race person who identified with more than one racial category. I exist beyond the discrete and rigid, navigating a liminal space as I come to understand my racial embodiment (Bowling and Combs 2023). Similarly, I defy traditional birth order categories, further highlighting the parallels between the inflexibility of monoracial categories and fixed roles and expectations tied to birth order. To nuance this point further, I find it imperative to also differentiate racial categories from birth order categories. For instance, racial categories are socially constructed and determined mainly by personal experiences and others’ perceptions, while sibling order is based on family dynamics, biology, and habit.

In the end, I ultimately reached out to my sister because I value family; whether I knew this person for 25 years or 14 days, she was still my family. I have spent the last few years getting to know her and my nephew. We see each other on holidays and stay in touch via text. Her son, my nephew, was the ring bearer in my wedding. The other night, as I was watching a commercial for DNA kits, the company had a tagline about connection and building families. I started watching ancestry commercials and videos on YouTube, as they boasted of transformative experiences for families and how learning about our shared histories changes the way we see ourselves (Nayani 2020; Washington et al. 2019). My experience with DNA kits illustrates that these ancestry tests have the potential to empower and foster profound connections across and between families. However, if there is anything I have learned about the implications of these tests related to race, it’s that it’s complicated.

3. Vignette 2: You Are Racially Enough

The second vignette is closely tied to issues of race and multiraciality. As someone who is writing about DNA kits, I must admit that I have never taken a DNA ancestry test myself. This avoidance is rooted in fear of what these tests might reveal. As a multiracial person, I have never felt racially enough (Ashlee and Quaye 2021, a feeling shared with many other people who do not feel they uphold racial expectations. I did not want a test to confirm an existing deeply rooted insecurity, namely, that I have always questioned the commodification and quantification of race and ethnicity connected to DNA ancestry. However, many of my friends and family have taken DNA tests to learn more about their genealogies, identity, and shared family histories. In my previous role before graduate school, I became close friends with another multiracial woman of color colleague. It felt empowering to build a strong community with another multiracial woman of color who existed in the borderlands of race (Anzaldúa 1989).

My friend identifies as Afro-Latina, with both Black and Latinx ancestry in her family, and holds a deep connection to her mixed heritage. We often had conversations about the differences and nuances of our multiracial identity in our office space. Specifically, we reflected on how others perceived our mixed identity and the environment or context in which we lived. We also shared similarities about our complicated family histories. My colleague and friend decided to take a DNA test to learn more about her ancestry. Her results led her to question her racial and ethnic identities. We had multiple processing conversations where she began to have doubts about her identity, which she had claimed for her entire life. In our conversations, she shared that her grandmother told her about her mixed Black and Latina identity, but she began to wonder about the validity of her own identity. Her DNA ancestry test results led her to question her identity as a multiracial woman of color, therefore interrogating her racial enoughness (Ashlee and Quaye 2021).

In our processing conversations, I attempted to affirm my colleague and friend that she is racially enough. Together, we began to interrogate the DNA tests through the lens of capitalism and neoliberal logics. Scholars have challenged the purpose and popularity of these tests, arguing that “this phenomenon of quantifying identity is a function of White supremacy that commodifies race and equates it to a number to contribute to capitalism and uphold systems of oppression” (Johnston-Guerrero and Wijeyesinghe 2023, p. 235). Beyond commodifying race, DNA tests also commodifying the concepts belonging and family. For instance, they are often marketed to adoptees as a means of reunification with biological relatives (Washington et al. 2019).

My colleague continued this conversation and processing, and, in my affirmation, I wanted her to know that naming the flaws in the DNA tests does not negate any insecurity she may have felt about her multiracial legitimacy. Holding space for multiple perspectives is part of an expansive paradigm that resists binary thinking. Interrogating the validity of ancestry tests may reveal the inadequacies of DNA kits, which are often reinforced by positivist paradigms—worldviews that privilege quantification, objectivity, and certainty over lived experiences, multiple relationships, and complexity (Miles 2023). Renn (2023) argues that DNA kits reinforce “ideas about racial biology and genetic determinism” (p. 29) because they emphasize the idea that race is inherently biological rather than socially constructed. Additionally, DNA ancestry tests align with monoracialism and the preference for rigidity about identities. These fallacies can contribute to a dangerous narrative about race and lead me to wonder why society relies on scientific tests to tell us who we are. Informed by Boveda and Bhattacharya’s (2019) call to focus on love as an ontoepistemological act, where one’s embodiment is tied to how they learn, I contend that identity claims should be rooted in love, familial connection, genealogical ancestry, and one’s own way of knowing.

4. Grounding Theory and Literature

Before I connect claims across the two vignettes, I ground my scholarly essay in theoretical framing and the previous literature about DNA tests and race. I draw from Critical Race Theory, and specifically anti-essentialism and strategic essentialism, to complicate my analysis. Additionally, I utilize Pope et al.’s (2021) diunital thinking, which cautions against either/or thinking to make room for expansive, complex, and nuanced approaches to social justice work. This section provides a brief overview of the existing literature on DNA tests and race, situating my claims within the larger scholarly discussion about DNA kits.

4.1. Critical Race Theory and Anti-Essentialism

Critical Race Theory (CRT) and education scholars have multiple tenets, which include racism as ordinary, the social construction of race, differential racialization, intersectionality, anti-essentialism, interest convergence, counternarratives, a commitment to social justice, transdisciplinary perspectives, and the centrality of race and experiential knowledge (Delgado and Stefancic 2017). For the scope of this narrative piece, I focus on anti-essentialism as a key assertion and frame for my vignettes. Delgado and Stefancic (2017) conceptualize anti-essentialism as a refutation that argues minoritized and racialized experiences cannot be simplified to a single, essentialized depiction. In other words, one person of color’s experience cannot be representative of all people of color’s voices and narratives. Anti-essentialism works in tandem with intersectionality because racialized experiences cannot be essentialized due to the interlocking systems of power that shape individual identity experiences. This concept also directly connects to critical mixed race studies, as multiple scholars have asserted that the multiracial experience is not a monolithic one (Atkin and Jackson 2021; Johnston-Guerrero et al. 2020; Strmic-Pawl 2023; Waring 2023). What it means to be a multiracial Asian and White person may be a completely different experience from what it means to be a mixed Black and Latinx person.

Anti-essentialism is a critical concept when discussing and analyzing both monoracial people of color experiences and multiracial experiences. While essentialist notions of race can be problematic due to the assertion of sameness, other scholars have also complicated the concept of essentialism. Scholars can recognize and address shared experiences without assuming that individuals with the same racial group have identical experiences. Daniel and Haddow (2010) discuss the idea of strategic essentialism as a tactic that racially minoritized people can mobilize around essentialized notions of race to work toward common objectives as a community. Daniel and Haddow’s conceptualization of strategic essentialism is compelling because it reveals the both/and nature of essentialism, allowing for agency and underscoring empowerment within POC communities, while utilizing essentialism as a resistance strategy. Essentializing minoritized experiences may diminish individual intricacies related to identity. However, essentialist notions of race can also foster a sense of community among and between people of color. For example, one person of color may have an essentialized idea in their head that people of color have similar tastes in music. On one hand, this reductive depiction may lead to stereotypes or cause someone who does not share the same musical interests to question their racial legitimacy. On the other hand, this common interest in similar music may create opportunities for connection across communities of color.

4.2. Diunital Thinking

Examining essentialism through an expansive lens is an example of diunital thinking, which Pope et al. (2021) explain as complex and nuanced thinking that pushes the boundaries of dichotomous thinking. Pope et al. (2021) describe the necessity of this type of thinking, “A dichotomous mindset is based on either/or thinking where one perceives the world in hierarchical (top/down) ways; however, a diunital mindset spurs both/and thinking and allows for the possibility that seemingly contradictory or incompatible ideas exist simultaneously (p. 241).” I take up diunital thinking as a frame in this paper because of my epistemological experiences with DNA kits. My encounters with DNA ancestry tests have allowed me to see the complexities associated with this phenomenon; therefore, from my positionality, it is necessary to utilize reasoning tools that facilitate complex, nuanced, and thoughtful analysis. This expansive frame may allow for postmodern and imaginative implications for how individuals think about race, identity, and family.

5. Threads and Revelations Across Vignettes

While a central thread of my vignettes is DNA testing, my main claim and argument are not necessarily about the intricacies of DNA testing, but instead on what they reveal from a critical lens. My analysis of essentialism, racial categories, and their connection to the complexities of racial identity and connection within multiracial families begins to fill the gap in the literature. I share central threads throughout both of my vignettes through a diunital lens to make larger claims about essentialism, race, monoracialism, and family/genealogy.

5.1. Are DNA Tests Good or Bad?

When thinking about this question through a diunital lens, the answer is both, neither, and all of the above. My vignettes demonstrated both the opportunity to find familial connections and the precarity of DNA kits within a monoracist (Johnston and Nadal 2010) society, as it relates to racial legitimacy and multiraciality. DNA tests can simultaneously create and start relationships while also contributing to essentialized and commodified conceptualizations of race (Roth et al. 2020). The results from ancestry tests inherently associate a number with one’s race, therefore quantifying one’s identity. Moreover, ancestry tests cost upwards of USD 100, contributing to capitalistic notions that one should pay money to understand and prove their identity, although not all choose to identify with their results (Roth and Ivemark 2018). As illustrated in the story with my sister, DNA tests can connect families that were previously unknown to individuals, and those family members who, having searched for their entire lives, may have been seeking a connection to their genealogy (Theunissen 2022). I am not arguing that DNA tests don’t foster empowered forms of connection across generations, geographical spaces, and time. However, informed by my second vignette, I claim that one should be cautious in interpreting the results. This caution is further highlighted by the fact that DNA test results evolve and change over time as they are measured against the pool of others who have already completed the kits versus every human being in the world (Washington et al. 2019). One’s access and proximity to their racial and ethnic identity should not be associated with a percentage on an ancestry test. However, Roth and Yaylacı (2024) found that although genetic ancestry tests do not necessarily lead to changes in racial identity, they did find support for changes in ethnic identity, and that identity aspirations may contribute to changes in how one identifies. These are essential considerations when reflecting on the intricacies and implications of DNA tests.

Moreover, DNA tests may contribute to a larger narrative of racial essentialism and influence some to view certain threshold percentages as a gatekeeping mechanism for what it means to have access to a specific identity. In other words, DNA tests might essentialize a racial or ethnic identity to require a certain percentage reflected in one’s results. Roth et al. (2020) found that those with increased knowledge about genetics had decreased essentialist notions, but those with lower levels of knowledge about genetics had increased essentialist beliefs. What does it look like to apply nuanced diunital thinking to both DNA tests and essentialist notions of race? When navigating academia, what can we learn about DNA tests and essentialism to complicate academic concepts? For example, this expansive thinking prompts me to wonder if critiquing essentialism is always necessary, or if strategic essentialism (Daniel and Haddow 2010) can provide opportunities for community. However, when nuancing ideas, it is imperative to apply compassionate caution (Ashlee and Combs 2023) by handling these conceptualizations with stewardship and intentionality (Duran 2023).

5.2. How Does This Connect to Monoracialism? Unlearning Discrete Racial Categories?

Johnston-Guerrero and Renn (2016) define monoracialism as the predisposition or preference for discrete and rigid racial categories. To specifically delineate monoracialism from monoracism, they state, “To be clear, we argue that monoracialism is the social force shaping a monoracial paradigm while monoracism is the system of oppression that results from such a paradigm.” (p. 140). In other words, monoracism is the system of power or dominance that shapes this proneness for distinct singular racial categories. My second vignette lends itself well to discussing larger themes about racial categorization and unlearning monoracialism. In this situation, my colleague expressed doubt about fitting within a discrete racial and/or ethnic category, specifically Latina, based on the results of an ancestry test. Reflecting on this conversation with my friend and colleague, I am struck by how DNA tests may contribute to larger narratives of monoracialism, or how monoracialism, as a preference, shapes and influences the interpretation of test results. For instance, when someone receives ancestry test results, they may be more likely to identify with the racial or ethnic identity that has the highest percentage, reflecting the influence of monoracialism. Conversely, from an expansive and diunital lens, ancestry test results can complicate preconceived notions of race and identity, such as when someone discovers a mixed racial and/or ethnic background they were previously unaware of.

Further research is needed to explore the complex concepts of identity claims and legitimacy. The ability or confidence to make claims is often shaped by one’s access to knowledge, culture, and family ties, as indicated by examples in political spheres and popular culture. For example, Elizabeth Warren, a Massachusetts U.S. Senator, made claims to an Indigenous identity on college applications and used DNA test results to prove her identity (Tsosie 2018). She was criticized by the media and society, sparking contentious discussions about her claims to Indigeneity. When a person takes a DNA test and traces Indigenous ancestry without previous knowledge of this identity or engagement with the Indigenous community, their confidence in claiming their identity becomes complex. Another popular culture example is from the TV Show Charmed. One of the main characters, Maggie, finds out later in the series that the man she always thought was her father was in fact someone else. Throughout this process, she also learns that her biological father is Black. Maggie starts to wonder if she should know more about her Black identity as a mixed Afro-Latina woman of color and if she now has access to spaces and communities within the Black Student Union on her college campus. These issues of identity claiming and legitimacy become more convoluted when applying the same question to my vignettes. For my friend, she claimed her Latina identity her entire life; however, her results showed “smaller” amounts of this in her genealogical history. Does this mean she no longer has a claim? For my own story, I was raised as the oldest sibling for my entire life. However, this was no longer the case, though it did not invalidate my experience as the oldest child. The DNA tests raise larger questions about legitimacy and the complications related to race, as well as the rigidity of current identity categorization.

Informed by my postmodern approach, I argue that monoracialism and the overall societal preference for rigidity around social identity categories contribute to and interact with larger concepts of legitimacy. The existence of discrete racial categories may lead others to question whether someone is “racially enough” to fit within fixed social identity categories. When a person receives DNA test results and receives “lower numbers” associated with an identity they have claimed their identity lives, the rigidity of the categories themselves may be creating the fear that one must attain a certain threshold to position themselves within the existing rigid categories.

DNA tests can contribute to the unlearning of monoracialism by challenging classifications and highlighting the complexity of ancestry, thereby illustrating that people can and do exist beyond the current categorization system. As DNA kits currently stand, they reinforce rigid racial and ethnic categories and emphasize them by assigning numbers and percentages to identity, thus essentializing experiences further. For my colleague, this led to questioning her legitimacy and racial enoughness (Ashlee and Quaye 2021). As I have argued, DNA tests provide opportunities for genealogical and generational connections, as well as strategic essentialism. However, the way people in society and academia discuss and critique DNA tests must be complicated in order to unlearn monoracialism and to stop contributing to the larger narrative of distinct racial and ethnic categories that people must contort themselves to fit into.

6. Implications for Academia and Society

Overall, analyzing DNA tests reveals larger implications for studying race within the academy and taking a diunital, postmodern, and expansive approach to academic conversations about race and multiraciality further nuances current conceptualizations of race. For example, in this piece, I discuss the complications of essentialism and how DNA test results might contribute to essentialized notions of race related to threshold percentages. Critical Race scholars such as Delgado and Stefancic argue that anti-essentialism is a key tenet of CRT because people of color experiences cannot exist in a monolithic silo. However, Daniel and Haddow (2010) complicate essentialism in conversation with Critical Race scholars by expanding upon strategic essentialism, which demonstrates how essentializing experiences can also foster connections within communities of color. As academics, I encourage scholars to examine race and, specifically, critical mixed race studies with a dual approach to capture the essence of concepts related to identity. Moreover, my vignettes and personalized experiences demonstrate and illuminate the “both and” nature of DNA tests. DNA tests may create essentialized and commodified notions of racial and ethnic categories while simultaneously creating genealogical links across and between families. These nuanced conceptualizations can better capture the experiences of people of color, enabling the dismantling of monoracism and disruption of monoracialism. These expansive approaches may also give way to more complex recommendations for praxis.

Additionally, DNA tests also serve as a function of and simultaneously reinforce monoracialism and the propensity for rigid, single categories. When discussing the implications of DNA tests in scholarly conversations, careful attention is needed when interpreting these test results. Additionally, DNA tests should not be positioned as a gatekeeper of racial legitimacy regarding claims to specific identities. DNA tests can be utilized to connect families or reconnect to one’s ancestry. However, they should not be used as a tool to essentialize or determine one’s claims to identities.

7. Final Thoughts: Why Do We Rely on Scientific Tests to Tell Us Who We Are?

Ultimately, I conclude with one final question to consider when reflecting on my experiences with DNA tests. Why should one rely on scientific DNA tests to tell us who we are? As my analysis demonstrated, from a diunital and expansive lens, DNA tests may reveal genealogical connections previously unknown. I also want to acknowledge my own privilege as someone who is not adopted (Linehan 2021), nor do I have severed family ties. However, when it relates to claims of identity, I argue that scientific tests should not be relied upon to unearth what we know about ourselves. For example, in my vignette, I shared questions about whether I was still the oldest. In my heart, I am still the oldest. This birth order label resonates with me. My colleague and friend questioned whether she can still identify as Afro-Latina. This is an identity she has held closely to her for her entire life, and she feels strongly connected to both her Black and Latina identities. DNA tests, rooted in positivist and scientific ways of knowing that are also flawed (Miles 2023), should not inform identity legitimacy, which is strongly connected to emotional ways of knowing. Boveda and Bhattacharya (2019) introduced love as a decolonial form of onto-epistemology, where one’s being is connected and one and the same as one’s way of knowing. I argue that our own identity claims—our way of being—should be connected to an emotional way of knowing that is rooted in love, familial connection, and genealogical ancestry. When applied with stewardship and care, one can decide what their claims to their ancestry and identity are, and if those claims change. I invite readers to reconsider relying on DNA ancestry tests for identity answers and belonging and instead turn to generational futures (Ashlee and Combs 2022; Wong-Campbell and Soltis 2025) to imagine, claim, and empower future ways of being and knowing.

DNA tests may reveal a biological or genetic connection. However, in direct contradiction of these DNA ancestry test ads, these companies do not determine who you are. You do that. In sum, you are 100% who you decide you are, and that may change and evolve over time. Physical appearance can influence how others racialize us, and ultimately, we cannot control others’ perceptions. Echoing Lizzo’s sentiments, while we might not be able to change how we are racially perceived or how those perceptions shape our racial formation and development, we do have autonomy to make choices about how we present ourselves to society and in doing so challenge and decenter the importance of racial categories in shaping our personal identities. Throughout my analysis, I explain how DNA tests reinforce rigid categorizations related to race and multiraciality, which is noteworthy because a multiracial existence inherently exists beyond rigidity. I urge critical mixed race scholars to apply postmodern, poststructural, and diunital approaches to nuance race from a liminal positionality as mixed race scholars. This is complicated and messy, but that doesn’t mean it’s not worth it. Perhaps this makes it all the more worth it, all the more necessary, to make up for the decades of work that refused to acknowledge such messiness. Resisting the rigid categorization and commodification of race in DNA tests can lead to unlearning monoracialism and a preference for discrete categories, therefore complicating race. This complexity could allow for a more holistic sense of belonging for those who exist beyond the categories.