The Benefits and Burdens of Engaging in Argumentation: Trans*feminist Reflections on Tuvel’s “In Defense of Transracialism”

  • Stephanie Julia Kapusta Dalhousie University
Keywords: Rebecca Tuvel, misgendering, argumentation, argumentational injustice, transgender

Abstract

After considering some ways of assessing argumentation, I present an ethical assessment of Tuvel’s argument in her article “In Defense of Transracialism.” My claim is that some transgender women engaging with Tuvel are exposed to certain kinds of injustice associated with argumentational work, namely, disproportionate burdens and risk of psychological harm.

Author Biography

Stephanie Julia Kapusta, Dalhousie University

Stephanie Kapusta is a Visiting Assistant Professor in the philosophy department, and Interim Coordinator of the Law, Justice and Society Program in the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences at Dalhousie University, Nova Scotia. Her principal research interests lie in feminist philosophy, and social and political philosophy, with an emphasis on trans* studies. She has published, among other pieces, articles on misgendering in Hypatia ("Misgendering and its Moral Contestability") and on the indeterminacy of sex predicates in Topoi ("Imposing Sex Predicate Indeterminacy"). She has also written a forthcoming entry in the International Encyclopedia of Ethics (Wiley) on “Transgender Rights,” and a soon-to-appear article in the Australasian Philosophical Review on “The Social Practise of Cognitive Estrangement.” Stephanie gave a recent interview (“Trans*feminism: How Trans Issues and Feminism Overlap”) for the Blog of the American Philosophical Association (APA Blog Interview). She loves trees and fall colours, good Sci-Fi movies, and singing.

Published
2018-12-06
Section
39.2 Special Section