 According to Silvermint, passing and resisting one’s oppression share the aim that they are both ways to improve one’s life or circumstances in the face of oppression (38). The main difference he sees between them is that persons who resist in various ways attempt to improve their well-being by undermining, changing, or escaping the oppressive system that constrains their well-being, while persons who engage in passing as a member of a privileged group act in ways that sustain those constraints while attempting to exploit the way in which they are distributed so as to avoid being constrained by them. Essentially, the latter make a trade-off between two valuable constituents of their well-being, both of which cannot simultaneously be promoted under oppression. For example, a trans woman might pass as a cis-gender woman in order to avoid physical violence; a victim of stereotype threat might pass as a confident professional in order to succeed (31); and a queer femme might pass as a cis-gender woman by avoiding holding hands with her girlfriend in order to ward off an insensitive co-worker (11). But unlike classic resisters, persons who engage in passing leave intact rather than challenge the very system that harms them. Silvermint likens them to the teenager who is bullied and comes to school dressed like his bullies and engages in behavior similar to them and eventually gets accepted by them. Silvermint takes issue with three main arguments that passing is morally wrong, namely, that it compromises the agent’s authenticity, that it involves deception, and that it harms fellow victims by reinforcing stereotypes. He instead defends the view that passing is a permissible form of self-regarding complicity on the grounds that persons who engage in passing are not responsible for being victims of oppression and are navigating their circumstances in the best way they can in order to promote their well-being (40).