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.