Journal of Controversial Ideas

(ISSN: 2694-5991) Open Access Journal
Rss Feed:
Controversial Ideas 2022, 2(2), 5; doi: 10.35995/jci02020005

The Limits of Identity: Running Tuvel’s Argument the Other Way

1 Bowling Green State University;
This article was initially published under the pseudonym of K.Whittaker.
* Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Received: 29 May 2022 / Revised: 23 Oct 2022 / Accepted: 7 Oct 2022 / Published: 31 Oct 2022
View Full-text Download PDF (200kb)


Rebecca Tuvel provoked a firestorm by arguing that since we should accept trans* self-identification, we should accept transracial identification as well. This paper defends Tuvel’s conditional claim (if trans* acceptance, then transracial acceptance) but draws a different conclusion. I argue that reasoning similar to Tuvel’s establishes that people who identify as something other than human, and people who identify as physically disabled though their bodies aren’t impaired, plausibly also deserve recognition. This reductio ad absurdum of her reasoning should lead us to doubt whether we must embrace trans* self-identification as fully as self-described trans* allies claim that we must. This shouldn’t be construed to mean that trans* people, or members of any of these other groups, deserve anything less than respectful treatment and compassion as moral persons.
Keywords: transgender; trans*; gender; gender identity; Tuvel; Hypatia; transracial; identity; otherkin; trans-ability
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. (CC BY 4.0).
Case, S. The Limits of Identity: Running Tuvel’s Argument the Other Way. Controversial_Ideas 2022, 2, 5.
Case S. The Limits of Identity: Running Tuvel’s Argument the Other Way. Journal of Controversial Ideas. 2022; 2(2):5.
Case, Spencer. 2022. "The Limits of Identity: Running Tuvel’s Argument the Other Way." Controversial_Ideas 2, no. 2: 5.
Not implemented