If I can choose my gender then why not my race?

If it is logical and acceptable to be able to choose one’s gender then it follows that it is logical and acceptable to choose one’s race. Personally, I have a veritable smorgasbord of ethnic identities to choose from. Shall I identify with my paternal German great-grandparents or my Maternal Lebanese great-grandparents? I also had Grandparents who were Poms so should I choose them? My husband’s great grandparents were porridge wogs from Scotland and I quite fancy his hairy legs peeking out from a kilt so perhaps I want to identify with them instead? Then again maybe my ethnic identity should be determined by my skin tone or nose shape or then again my anal fixation with black and white logic might show my German roots? Decisions decisions.

A feminist philosophy professor has been pilloried by an outraged academy for suggesting that transgender rights are not substantially different from transracial rights, and if one can choose one’s gender, the same should apply for choosing race.

…In her article, titled “In Defense of Transracialism,” Tuvel notes that choosing one’s racial identity is no more difficult than choosing sexual identity, since both involve putting one’s subjective opinion of oneself ahead of objective biological realities.

“Considerations that support transgenderism seem to apply equally to transracialism,” and therefore society “should also accept transracial individuals’ decisions to change races,” she argued.

In response, the academic establishment rose up in collective histrionics, with more than 500 professors signing an open letter denouncing Tuvel’s paper, asserting that it “painfully reflects a lack of engagement beyond white and cisgender privilege.”

In an odd request for academic censorship, the letter demands that the journal retract Tuvel’s article, since “its continued availability causes further harm,” while accusing the journal of “a failure in the review process.”

The author of the open letter, Shannon Winnubst, chair of the department of women’s, gender, and sexuality studies at Ohio State University, later insisted that the article’s publication “signals an arrogant disregard for the broad, well-established, interdisciplinary scholarly fields of both critical race theory and trans studies.”

In other words, how dare a “junior scholar” break ranks, questioning the accepted conclusions of the reigning academic establishment? Such independent philosophical thinking would seem to show a lack of appropriate deference to the self-anointed priests of academic orthodoxy.

While scholars publicly seethed in righteous indignation, privately some have come forward to defend Tuvel’s work, albeit timidly.

One scholar privately admitted that Tuvel’s article is “a tight piece of philosophy” that clearly shows that the position that transgender is totally legitimate, while transracial is not “can only be justified using convoluted essentialist metaphysics.”

The Tuvel affair underscores both the biased close-mindedness of the academic establishment and the cognitive dissonance of supporters of transgenderism. A willingness to believe that people can simply define their own biological identity by an act of sheer will flies in the face of objective fact.

…Last year, Joseph Backholm, the director of Washington’s Family Policy Institute, interviewed a number of millennial students, to see just how far they were willing to concede that people can choose to redefine themselves.

Beginning with the transgender question, Backholm moved on to questions of race (“If I told you that I was Chinese, what would your response be?”), and ending with height (“If I said that I am six feet five inches, what would you say?”) The majority of students interviewed were willing to allow a person to self-define as belonging to the opposite sex or as Chinese, but arbitrarily drew the line at height.

In her remarkably honest inquiry, Professor Tuvel noted that it is intellectually dishonest to allow subjective self-definition in one sector of biology without similarly allowing it in every area.

And this is what the academy, steeped in political and cultural bias, refuses to accept.



Do you want:

  • Ad-free access?
  • Access to our very popular daily crossword?
  • Access to daily sudoku?
  • Access to Incite Politics magazine articles?
  • Access to podcasts?
  • Access to political polls?

Our subscribers’ financial support is the reason why we have been able to offer our latest service; Audio blogs. 

Click Here  to support us and watch the number of services grow.