Are TRUSCUM Evil? | Re ContraPoints "Transtrenders" | BreadBusting #9

Welcome to BreadBusting, where we attempt to examine the problematic ideas that come out of BreadTube, and the ideology of Breadism more generally. Basically, it's like Myth Busting, but for Breadism. Please note that, while I do have my personal political beliefs, all this is done in the name of intellectual discussion and seeing things from different perspectives. This is the second part of my response to the latest ContraPoints video, titled Transtrenders. Last time we looked at the conflict between assimilationist vs anti-assimilationist LGBT people; and this time we will take a look at the transmedicalists vs anti-transmedicalists conflict.

But then... Truscum Trouble?

Technically, 'transmedicalist' refers to trans people who believe that being trans has a firm basis in the medical condition called 'gender dysphoria'. 'Truscum' originally meant a transmed who acts exclusionary towards trans people who don't agree with them, but nowadays many people just use the term as a smear for transmeds in general. Based on the way Tiffany treated Baltimore in the video, Tiffany would fit both definitions of a 'truscum'. But then, as I explained last time, putting down people who disagree with your worldview is an attitude problem, not a belief problem, and since I have already dealt with Tiffany's attitude problem last time, I won't explore that again. Instead, I'm going to focus on the difference in belief between Tiffany and Justine, and that difference is the acceptance vs the rejection of the transmed idea. In the rest of this video, I will see if this incompatibility is the make or break for this potential couple.

Are TRUSCUM Evil? Let's Look Deeper.

So, the main conflict we are presented with is that, Tiffany, like all transmeds, believe that being trans is a medical condition, and Justine, like all anti-transmeds, is opposed to this idea. Well, then, people have different ideas about various things, and they disagree all the time. So what? But then, this is actually personal for both Tiffany and Justine, because they are both trans. Therefore, Tiffany's theory about trans would apply to Justine too, and Justine's theory about trans would apply to Tiffany too. This is why the argument between transmeds and anti-transmeds have gotten so toxic, and people on both sides have taken it so personally. But then, to be fair, if people like Justine hate being described by Tiffany's transmed theory, people like Tiffany hate being described by Justine's theory just as much. And what was Justine's theory? It's that gender is performative, a theory originally described by Judith Butler in her book Gender Trouble back in 1990. And from what I know, this view of gender is hated by the vast majority of trans people across the political spectrum. I am certainly very opposed to it myself, as I have described in my previous video, 'Are Transwomen Women'. So then, both Tiffany and Justine are promoting a theory of trans-ness that some other trans people hate. They need to recognize that, they have at least this in common.

If theories about being trans are dividing us, why can't we just not have them? Why do we need those theories anyway? As Justine said, there's no theory about being gay. But then, being trans affects one's identity and interaction with other people much more extensively than being gay does. It requires family and friends to get used to some serious changes when they interact with you, every single time. It can't just be put aside for a while, it is always there. Hence, most trans people feel the need to explain their circumstances to many people in their lives. And this is where theories about being trans come in. Tiffany believes that the transmed story is the one that represents her. Justine believes that the Butlerist performativity theory story is the one that represents her. It's like two people who have different religions, or two people who support different football teams. And within each camp, we can have further divisions. For example, I am a transmed too. But then, I don't share all of Tiffany's views, nor do most transmeds I know. For example, most of us have certainly evolved to be accepting of non-binary people. I don't like the label 'transsexual' and I prefer to reclaim HBS instead. I would classify gender dysphoria as an endocrine condition rather than a mental disorder. I also think the idea that seeking medical transition being what makes trans people valid is fundamentally wrong, because medical diagnosis should always be separate from what treatment choices the patient makes. Nevertheless, the thing we all agree on, as transmeds, is that being trans can be traced to a medical cause of some sort, and is not explainable by sociological theory.

And trans theories are very personal for many of us. In the video, Tiffany seems to say that she favors the transmed theory because it can be more readily accepted by others, but I don't think this is the reasoning for most transmeds, but rather, just Natalie's idea of how we think. For most of us, it isn't about which theory gets acceptance at all. For me, the transmed narrative accurately represents my story, and I feel that other narratives such the Butlerist performativity theory or the gender as a social construct idea don't speak to me at all. For me, only the transmed narrative adequately explains my onset of gender dysphoria the very first time I learned that the world was divided into genders, my feelings of missing out on things throughout childhood, my experience of awkwardness with puberty and so on, and any sociology-based narrative wouldn't represent my history adequately. Sociology theories also can't explain physical dysphoria. For me, I feel as though the sociology based narratives invalidate a large part of my past 30 years. It feels like some so-called expert in an ivory tower, often a radical feminist theorist, tries to fit my existence around her own view of what the world should be, and not caring that it invalidates me as a person in the process.

The LGBT Assimilation Question | Re ContraPoints "Transtrenders" | BreadBusting #8

Welcome to BreadBusting, where we attempt to examine the problematic ideas that come out of BreadTube, and the ideology of Breadism more generally. Basically, it's like Myth Busting, but for Breadism. Please note that, while I do have my personal political beliefs, all this is done in the name of intellectual discussion and seeing things from different perspectives. Today, I want to respond to the latest ContraPoints video, titled Transtrenders. This will be the first part of a three part response, looking at the conflict between assimilationist vs anti-assimilationist LGBT people; transmedicalists vs anti-transmedicalists; and the left-wing stereotyping of centrists respectively. I will try to balance out my discussion so that left-wing theory, classical liberal values and more conservative concerns are all examined.

Today, I will focus on assimilationist vs anti-assimilationist LGBT people. In the video, the character Tiffany Tumbles represents a stereotypical assimilationist, and the character Baltimore Maryland represents a stereotypical anti-assimilationist. One important thing to note is that, while Tiffany was also transmedicalist and Baltimore was also anti-transmedicalist, I think this should be treated as a separate issue, and I will examine this in part two. One thing I didn't like about the video is that it contained all jumbled up stereotypes, for example I'm still unsure whether Jackie Jackson is supposed to be a classical liberal or a centrist, but she actually sounds more like a conservative to me. But let's leave that for part three. Anyway, Tiffany Tumbles wishes to be accepted in mainstream circles, and is therefore inclined to present herself according to conventional expectations of what a woman should look like. On the other hand, Baltimore is happy not to fit into traditional expectations. Tiffany wanted to make the point that she and Baltimore are very different and have very different life circumstances, which is actually true. But then, Tiffany kind of insulted Baltimore when making her point, painting them as a 'transtrender' who is a fashion disaster. Baltimore probably got offended, and like many leftists, responded with indirect insults at what they saw as right-wing judgemental attitudes, the way gay activists have long responded to religious right commentary. As you can see, it's all very stereotypical. Tiffany Tumbles didn't actually sound like your average assimilationist, but rather the left-wing stereotype of one.

But let's look past the stereotyping for now, and let's look deeper as to what is really going on. Tiffany is worried that the existence of people like Baltimore is going to make it difficult for her to explain her circumstances to her social circle, to get them to understand and accept her. From Tiffany's point of view, acceptance from her social circle, which probably leans conservative, is very important to her, and if she doesn't make a case for acceptance that will resonate with conservatives, she has a lot to lose. This is very real indeed for Tiffany. Of course, the case for conservative acceptance will inevitably rest on accepting the conservative social contract, and promising to not upset the conventional order. Baltimore probably can't understand it, because they probably don't interact much with conservatives. In other words, Tiffany has a lot to lose from immediate conservative rejection, but Baltimore probably doesn't. The stakes are different on both sides here.

On the other hand, Baltimore feels as if Tiffany is making her own case for acceptance at the expense of them. And it certainly comes across this way in the video. I mean, Tiffany came across as quite rude in the video, unlike most assimilationists I know, and I certainly don't agree with the way she treated Baltimore. I suspect this portrayal may reflect Natalie's own view of assimilationist LGBT people from her own radical-leaning point of view. But then, as I said earlier, there is indeed a practical need for assimilationist LGBT people to separate themselves from the anti-assimilationist. One group has agreed to live within the conventional social contract and the other is actively tearing it apart, so for the narratives of either to work, they must both deny being similar to the other. There's nothing wrong or condescending about that in priniple. However, I do believe, as a general principle, that people should make their point without putting down other people. For example, as an assimilationist, I would point out that people like Baltimore are in fact very different from people like myself when it comes to our narrative, our life circumstances, our expectations of society, and our desires, but as someone who actually follows real classical liberal values as they were defined by people like John Stuart Mill, as someone who actually celebrates individual freedom, I can have nothing against Baltimore being 'different'. I will try my best to use their pronouns out of respect, and I'm certainly not going to be judgemental about the way they live their life. I also think the assimilationist community has been moving in this direction for some time now. Crude rhetoric like that of Tiffany Tumbles used to be very common 15 years ago, but it's certainly less common now.

I also think respect is a two-way street, and radical anti-assimilationists should look at if they have treated assimilationists with adequate respect. For example, I have to say that Natalie seems not to have enough respect for assimilationists at this point, seeing how Tiffany is portrayed as a crude stereotype rather than a character with real nuance and real needs in life. While assimilationists and non-assimilationists can be friends and allies, anti-assimilationists need to respect that assimilationists have an inherent need to explain their differences clearly. For example, during a recent LGBT politics debate, a conservative assimilationist trans person tried to make the point that she doesn't have much in common with politically radical non-binary people, only for her point to be rebuked. I mean, if someone says their life experiences are inherently different from yours, then you need to respect it. It's just like if an African American person told me I wouldn't know how it's like to grow up black in America, then I have to just accept it. Challenging that would be rude indeed!

While in the ContraPoints universe it is Baltimore who suffered at the hands of Tiffany, in the real world it is often the other way around. For example, I often get the feeling that anti-assimilationists somehow think they're superior to us, and won't ever see us as equals. This bias is probably based in leftist critical theory, which justifies the belief that the non-assimilationists are de-constructing the gender binary and therefore bringing about real liberation, whereas the assimilationists are almost like class traitors who are happy to be slaves living in the master's house. Again, I doubt we can ever get along well if that's what you think about me. As I said, assimilationists have real, material reasons to be assimilationist, and we choose this out of our own agency. Furthermore, many assimilationists have said that they regularly see this condescending attitude on display from radical anti-assimilationists, including when they speak to the media, pretending to speak for all LGBT but ignoring the assimilationist faction completely, or even making a comment about how sad it is that we even exist. It appears that they are all too willing to let their political radicalism stand in the way of mutual respect and allyship. As a Moral Libertarian, I believe the most important thing is for everyone to have equal and maximum moral agency, and that means I respect you being you, and I equally expect you to respect me being me. All healthy relationships have to have this equal respect built into them. Let's use another example. Interfaith cooperation among religions only work on the basis that they can put aside their differences and respect each other. Catholics and Hindus can and do work together, but only on the basis that Catholics don't force Hindus to agree with the Christian Bible, and vice versa. Similarly, radicals and assimilationists can work together, but only on the basis that you stop telling us to read Judith Butler or bell hooks.

That's all for today. I'll be back next time to discuss another big idea. Subscribe if you want to follow our story. The transcripts are available on my website. And remember to resist the hive mind and stay individualistic. The world depends on it.