Hypatia Transracialism Controversy

[Meed]

An article called "In Defense of Transracialism" was published by a young professor named Rebecca Tuvel, in the feminist philosophy journal Hypatia, passing the peer review and editorial process. It posed the question of whether some of the arguments in favor of transgenderism could also be applied to "transracialism". The author made very clear that she was supportive of trans people, in the article.

500 people, including some academic philosophers (apparently it included two people who had served on Tuvel's dissertation committee) signed an open letter to Hypatia demanding for the article to be retracted. It lays out four criticisms of the article and four steps Hypatia should take to remedy the situation. You can read the letter here: Open letter to Hypatia

[The article's] continued availability causes further harm, as does an initial post by the journal admitting only that the article “sparks dialogue.” Our concerns reach beyond mere scholarly disagreement; we can only conclude that there has been a failure in the review process, and one that painfully reflects [a lack of engagement beyond white and cisgender privilege.

One complaint was that Tuvel "deadnamed" Caitlyn Jenner by writing "Caitlyn (formerly Bruce) Jenner". Another complaint was about her use of the term "transgenderism", which the writers of the letter deemed an unacceptable term. Another was that she didn't cite work by women of color in her article. (This is not an exhaustive list. Read the letter for yourself.)

Hypatia's Board of Associated Editors responded to the open letter by posting an apology on Facebook, throwing Tuvel under the bus and agreeing that the article should never have been published.

t is our position that the harms that have ensued from the publication of this article could and should have been prevented by a more effective review process.

However, the editor-in-chief said that she stood by the article and claimed the associate editors acted independently. The editor-in-chief's position was supported by the president of Hypatia's board of directors.

Nora Berenstain, a philosophy professor at University of Tennessee wrote a Facebook post critical of the article's publication:

Tuvel enacts violence and perpetuates harm in numerous ways throughout her essay. She deadnames a trans woman. She uses the term “transgenderism.” She talks about “biological sex” and uses phrases like “male genitalia.” She focuses enormously on surgery, which promotes the objectification of trans bodies. She refers to “a male-to- female (mtf) trans individual who could return to male privilege,” promoting the harmful transmisogynistic ideology that trans women have (at some point had) male privilege.

Jesse Singal of New York Magazine wrote a lengthy and detailed article defending Tuvel and admonishing some of the attacks against her: This Is What a Modern-Day Witch Hunt Looks Like.

The point of the article, as the title suggests, is to toy around with the question of what it would mean if some people really were — as Rachel Dolezal claimed — “transracial,” meaning they identified as a race that didn’t line up with how society viewed them in light of their ancestry.

What’s remarkable about [the Open Letter] is that, as Justin Weinberg noted in the Daily Nous, a philosophy website, each and every one of the falsifiable points it makes is, based on a plain reading of Tuvel’s article, simply false or misleading.

It is pretty remarkable for an academic journal to, in the wake of an online uproar, apologize and suggest one of its articles caused “harm,” all while failing to push back against brazenly inaccurate misreadings of that article — especially in light of the fact that Tuvel said in a statement (readable at the bottom of the Daily Nous article) that she’s dealing with a wave of online abuse and hate mail.

Suzanna Danuta Walters wrote a similar article in The Chronicle of Higher Education: Academe's Poisonous Call-Out Culture

As a feminist journal editor, I am not only shocked by the policing move of the signatories and their weak, vague, and easily refutable argument. I am astonished by the immediate and hyperbolic "apology" by the associate editorial board of the journal, an apology that the editor herself did not sign and has in fact rebutted. Indeed, the apology doubles down on the notion of the "harms" caused by the publication of the article. Nowhere does this apology challenge the inaccuracies and empty accusations made by Tuvel’s critics. It simply reiterates them as if they were fact. And nowhere, but nowhere, does this "majority" of the associate editorial board defend the right of a junior feminist philosophy professor to make an argument.

Tuvel has since written a statement, which can be found here (scroll down). A few excerpts:

I regret the deadnaming of Caitlyn Jenner in the article, which means that I referred to her birth name instead of her chosen name. Even though she does this herself in her book, I understand that it is not for outsiders to do and that such a practice can perpetuate harm against transgender individuals, and I apologize. The deadnaming will be removed from the article.

But so much wrath on electronic media has been expressed in the form of ad hominem attacks. I have received hate mail. I have been denounced a horrible person by people who have never met me. I have been warned that this is a project I should not have started and can only have questionable motivations for writing. Many people are now strongly urging me and the journal to retract the article and issue an apology. They have cautioned me that not doing so would be devastating for me personally, professionally, and morally.

So little of what has been said, however, is based upon people actually reading what I wrote.

Calls for intellectual engagement are also being shut down because they “dignify” the article. If this is considered beyond the pale as a response to a controversial piece of writing, then critical thought is in danger. I have never been under the illusion that this article is immune from critique. But the last place one expects to find such calls for censorship rather than discussion is amongst philosophers.

I don't know that Tuvel's article wasn't flawed. I haven't read it, other than a few quotes here and there. But I find it disturbing that so many people, including academics are calling for what sounds an awful lot like censorship within academia. I find it more disturbing that the associate editors of Hypatia almost immediately threw the author of an article they'd accepted into their journal under the bus and agreed with those calling for retraction. I see this kind of thing all the time in other spheres, but I've never heard of it happening in academic philosophy.

 

[crescent]

My 2 cents: Mentioning that Jenner was once known as "Bruce" is not deadnaming. Insisting on still referring to Kaitlen Jenner as a man named Bruce would be deadnaming.

Considering how famous Bruce Jenner was, is seems harmless to recognize that Kaitlen Jenner was formerly known as Bruce Jenner. I mean, those of us where were alive in the 1970's know that Bruce Jenner was very, very famous. It seems silly to suggest that the name should never be used again.

 

[shemp]

I think most of the people involved in this tale should follow what I call "Shemp's Three Ups":

1. Suck it up.
2. Grow up.
3. Shut up.

 

[Hungry81]

My personal identity disorder is better than your personal identity disorder.

 

[Brainster]

My 2 cents: Mentioning that Jenner was once known as "Bruce" is not deadnaming. Insisting on still referring to Kaitlen Jenner as a man named Bruce would be deadnaming.

Considering how famous Bruce Jenner was, is seems harmless to recognize that Kaitlen Jenner was formerly known as Bruce Jenner. I mean, those of us where were alive in the 1970's know that Bruce Jenner was very, very famous. It seems silly to suggest that the name should never be used again.

At this point, it seems obvious that there is nothing anybody can do that is right. I see that Wikipedia now mentions that "she" (Jenner) guest-starred on a bunch of TV shows in the 1970s and 1980s after winning the decathlon. But at the same time, the list of winners of the decathlon still includes "Bruce" Jenner. But if she was a she when she guest-starred, wasn't she Caitlyn when she won the gold medal? How long before we start saying that she disproves the theory that men are naturally stronger and faster than women?

 

[TragicMonkey]

Academics have a lot of time on their hands.

 

[shemp]

Academics have a lot of time on their hands.

And nothing in their heads.

 

[madurobob]

At this point, it seems obvious that there is nothing anybody can do that is right. I see that Wikipedia now mentions that "she" (Jenner) guest-starred on a bunch of TV shows in the 1970s and 1980s after winning the decathlon. But at the same time, the list of winners of the decathlon still includes "Bruce" Jenner. But if she was a she when she guest-starred, wasn't she Caitlyn when she won the gold medal? How long before we start saying that she disproves the theory that men are naturally stronger and faster than women?

Nonsense. Caitlyn is "she". Period. But, correctly using the feminine pronoun to reflect today's reality, does not by any stretch of the imagination go back in time and change the past.

She lives in California
She guest starred on several shows
She was an Olympic super star.

The fact that at the time she did some of those things she was he is beside the point.

 

[crescent]

Nonsense. Caitlyn is "she". Period. But, correctly using the feminine pronoun to reflect today's reality, does not by any stretch of the imagination go back in time and change the past.

She lives in California
She guest starred on several shows
She was an Olympic super star.

The fact that at the time she did some of those things she was he is beside the point.

However, the author in question has been excoriated for saying (more or less):

She was once known as Bruce

The author did not use male pronouns to describe Jenner, only once mentioning Jenner's previous (and very famous) name. For which the author is now facing severe repercussions by her colleagues.

Based upon this reaction, it is clear that the very mention of the previous existence of a person named "Bruce Jenner" is grossly unacceptable; deadnaming.


The question is: Who won the gold medal in the decathlon in the 1976 Olympics?

 

[Cavemonster]

I'm not sure the opening post here does a great job of characterizing the objections to this article.

You seem to be focussing on elements of the critique that can be written off as "SJW" or oversensitivity to minor choices in language. And while elements like that were cited, the larger issue that colored these was a failure of the original author to research and engage with the academic fields of the topics she was talking about. There may be a stereotype that philosophers pull their views from out of thin air, but generally a lot of research is expected, and work that fails to engage with what's already out there is expected to justify that as a choice.

Here's the actual open letter.

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1ef...l2mU/viewform?ts=59066d20&edit_requested=true

 

[Emily's Cat]

Does deadnaming apply only transgendered people? I have a friend who is fine with her birth-gender, but desperately hated her birth name. As soon as she turned 18 she had it legally changed.

Would I be in violation of a sacrosanct social edict if I referred to the name that her parents assigned her at birth?

These are the things I need to know, if I have any ope of successfully navigating this field of oversensitive triggers with which I find myself surrounded...

 

[angrysoba]

Blasphemy!

Or should that be "blasfemi!"?

 

[bytewizard]

Caitlyn used to be Bruce. If Caitlyn has a problem with someone referring to her as "Bruce" or "Formerly Bruce", then maybe she should grow a pair... oh wait.

 

[Polaris]

And nothing in their heads.

It's not nothing. It could fuel a lot of sailboats if it was tapped as a resource.

 

[Meed]

I'm not sure the opening post here does a great job of characterizing the objections to this article.

You seem to be focussing on elements of the critique that can be written off as "SJW" or oversensitivity to minor choices in language. And while elements like that were cited, the larger issue that colored these was a failure of the original author to research and engage with the academic fields of the topics she was talking about. There may be a stereotype that philosophers pull their views from out of thin air, but generally a lot of research is expected, and work that fails to engage with what's already out there is expected to justify that as a choice.

Here's the actual open letter.

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1ef...l2mU/viewform?ts=59066d20&edit_requested=true

It was not my intention to fully summarize the objections. I posted a link to the actual open letter in the OP and said to read it for yourself. I also said the objections I mentioned were not an exhaustive list. I highlighted some of the objections I that I found to be the most questionable at face value. However, having read critiques of the letter that refer to quotes from the article, it is my impression that none of the objections have much merit and some are outright false.

I have seen multiple claims that she failed to engage with the field (specifically that she failed to engage with research by trans and black women in the field), but I haven't seen any concrete examples. Like, "X made arguments specifically relevant to her arguments that she should have addressed".

If the complaint is mainly about not engaging with other research enough, I do not think there would be such a large outrage and so many claims of "doing harm", etc.

What I'm mainly interested in is not whether or not the article had flaws, but more the way in which the disagreement was handled.

 

[Newtons Bit]

There's no doubt in my mind that the people describing, or agreeing therein, that the authors words are "violence" have preemptively justified future violence against the author.

 

[fuelair]

I think most of the people involved in this tale should follow what I call "Shemp's Three Ups":

1. Suck it up.
2. Grow up.
3. Shut up.

4. Throw up!!! Deadname is an idiot concept by me. This is beginning to get sillier than I ever expected.......... Neither Bruce nor Caitlyn is dead. Yet.

 

[fuelair]

Academics have a lot of time on their hands.

Which is great when they do things intelligently!!!!!

Not so much when not!!!!!

 

[madurobob]

However, the author in question has been excoriated for saying (more or less):

She was once known as Bruce

The author did not use male pronouns to describe Jenner, only once mentioning Jenner's previous (and very famous) name. For which the author is now facing severe repercussions by her colleagues.

Based upon this reaction, it is clear that the very mention of the previous existence of a person named "Bruce Jenner" is grossly unacceptable; deadnaming.

Yeah, I get that. And, has been pointed out upthread already, thats a gross overreach of the concept. Ive not yet read the original story, but the reactions to it seem a bit over the top, falling over themselves to be more offended than the rest to show how caring and open minded they are.

The question is: Who won the gold medal in the decathlon in the 1976 Olympics?

Caitlyn Jenner did. She sure did. But, she did it when she was Bruce.

 

[Travis]

1) I don't understand why people get upset over transracialism. It doesn't harm anyone so...have at it.

2) I don't understand why it would be so terrible to mention, not use, the former name of someone that seems to make no attempt to distance themselves from that former name.