BreadTube Faux-Intellectualism & Bias | TE Report Trans S3 E6

TaraElla: Hi everyone, welcome again to the special LGBT season of the TaraElla Report. From now on, we'll be doing something different: I'll be having a chat with some of my LGBT friends who have a different view of LGBT matters to what the activists promote as being representative of us. What I want to do is to showcase the diversity of views in this community, to show that diverse views do exist, to encourage the creation of solutions that will work for everyone and not just the activist establishment. Today, we have Ashley, who is, above all, skeptical of the new dogmas surrounding the trans experience and the concept of gender identity. She is here to respond to my recent talk about why BreadTube hates transmedicalism, in Episode 24 of BreadBusting. For those who are new to this discussion, BreadTube hates transmedicalism, the idea that the trans experience is defined by the medical condition of gender dysphoria. This discussion has blown up again, due to the latest ContraPoints video featuring Buck Angel, a trans male icon with transmedicalist views. This led to Natalie being accused of platforming transmedicalist ideas, even though she's not transmed herself. Apparently, transmed views are now so taboo in BreadTube that even including a transmed's voice in a video is a sin.

Ashley: I've always had a skeptical personality. However, my skepticism towards everything grew further from my political experience, having gone from the so-called SJW crowd, to the so-called anti-SJW crowd, and then distancing myself from both of these crowds, having finally seen the flaws in all of them. The problem is, they all have certain dogma, a certain party line that you have to toe, if you want to be part of the group. This means they are not committed enough to the truth. What I'm seeing recently in the LGBT community, including on BreadTube, is, unfortunately, something similar. There are certain views about gender identity, what being trans is, and how a trans person should relate to the wider world that one now has to have if one wants to be cool in many LGBT circles. And these views are, in my opinion, often explicitly anti-science. Like you said last week, there is a general prioritization of ideas from the sociology and philosophy departments over ideas from the medical science department. And frankly, I think this bias stinks of faux-intellectualism.

TaraElla: My point was that, BreadTubers have more educational capital in the humanities, and they often have little educational capital in the medical sciences, therefore, they favor sociological explainations to make them sound smarter. But the fact is, medical explainations have usually turned out to be correct more often than sociological explainations, if you look at the history of humans asking the big questions of our existence.

Ashley: That's exactly what I'm worried about. For example, Dr Benjamin is out, and Foucault and Butler are in. I'm a pretty science-based person, and I don't like that. There's little interest in all the medical scienfitic hypotheses like genetic imprinting, hormone receptor mutations, or partial androgen insensitivity, all of which may lead us down the path towards more knowledge about the condition of gender dysphoria and its endocrine origins. Instead, there's an over-focus on how gender is socially constructed, and a misguided attempt at trying to deconstruct it all. I am pro-science because, frankly, I think science leads us to the truth, and philosophy often makes us more confused. Of course, what I mean by science is not the simplistic eighth-grade science that doesn't acknowledge any possibility of deviation from the usual sexual norms of the 98%. At more advanced levels of medical science, there are plenty of plausible theories about the origins of gender identity and gender dysphoria, and I'm angry that too little attention is being payed to those theories.

TaraElla: I think what you're saying is that we shouldn't let the social overshadow or overtake the scientific. And I totally agree. The scientific method exists for a reason: it's the best way to lead us to the truth. Many activists say that transmedicalism is about putting down non-binary people, which is nonsense. For many of us, transmedicalism is basically about sticking to scientific methods as the principle way of learning about the trans condition. And as you said, there's much to learn, and much truth to uncover here, something that's being ignored by both cultural conservatives who stick to the eighth-grade version of 'science', and Foucauldian cultural radicals who essentially believe that the scientific method is a tool of oppression and control. I think that's a sad situation indeed.

Why is Transmedicalism Taboo in BreadTube | Re ContraPoints Opulence | BreadBusting #24

NOTE: The transmed view is that the root cause of transness is the condition of gender dysphoria, as defined in DSM-V. It does not however mean that it is a mental illness. Being trans is NOT a mental illness!


Welcome to BreadBusting by TaraElla, where we attempt to examine the problematic ideas that come out of BreadTube, and also LeftTube in general. Subscribe if you're interested.

Today, I am going to continue to respond to the latest ContraPoints video, titled Opulence. This is part three of three, and my focus today will be on how some observations from the video can be applied to BreadTube culture, as I have observed it as an outsider.

So where should we start? I guess we can start with the controversy around the inclusion of the voice of trans male icon Buck Angel in the video. Buck was one of the voices who read out the quotes in the video. However, some people have criticized Natalie for including Buck, because he holds some transmedicalist views. Transmedicalism is the idea that being trans is a medical condition; or in other words, having the medical condition of gender dysphoria defines being trans. And as we all know, transmedicalism is essentially taboo in BreadTube world. Also, given that Buck didn't even talk about any of his views in the video, apparently it's now transmedicalist people who are taboo, and not just trasmedicalist ideas. But why are transmedicalist views taboo in BreadTube? Some may say such views are harmful, because they think transmedicalism is against non-binary people. But then, from my experience, most transmedicalists actually accept non-binary people, and they don't tend to force their beliefs onto others either. So what's the real reason for transmedicalist views being taboo in BreadTube? And what does that have to say about BreadTube as a whole? As I will explore today, I think the answer can ironically be found in some of the concepts that were mentioned in the Opulence video.

BreadTube's culture is quite an exclusive one, and may I say, an arbitrary one too. I think it's like how Natalie described the relationship between art and the museum, that sometimes whatever is in the museum is deemed to be art because it's in the museum. Likewise, it seems that whatever is accepted by the BreadTube community is BreadTube, and what is excluded is simply content that the community doesn't like for some reason. Now, to prove this point, let's consider whether BreadTube indeed has objective criteria. Firstly, it's nominally a community of left-wing YouTubers, so I guess Republicans and Trump supporters are automatically excluded. That's a reasonably objective rule, I guess. But then, it's not just all left-leaning content. For example, 2020 Democratic candidates Andrew Yang and Tulsi Gabbard have gained substantial followings online, and there are plenty of channels dedicated to these two people on YouTube. However, I never see them shared on the BreadTube subreddit, or otherwise mentioned as part of BreadTube. Apparently, Yang Gang can't be part of BreadTube for some reason, even though Yang is generally considered left-wing. It appears that only a certain kind of left is included in BreadTube. And on top of all this, there are certain taboo views that one must not hold in order to remain in good standing with the BreadTube community. Transmedicalism is one of them. Again, this appears to be quite arbitrary. I think this proves the point that BreadTube is like a museum that is curated by certain people according to their tastes. BreadTube, then, is ultimately a brand based on taste and cultural preference.

So why must the BreadTube community render certain ideas cool, and other ideas taboo? I guess one reason is simply because they can, and they want to. But another reason could be about portraying a certain kind of cultural classiness. Now, remember that opulence, wealth, and the trappings of class are not necessarily always linked. As Natalie said, President Trump seems to have opulence, wealth, but not the trappings of class, and this gives him a self-made man image that is popular with some people. While Natalie talked a lot about how one may deliberately portray opulence to imply having a lavish lifestyle, I guess one may also deliberately portray some trappings of class to imply a certain eliteness. I know it's unpopular to say this, but I feel like some BreadTubers are keen to portray the trappings of being highly educated, knowing more than the average person, and perhaps belonging to an exclusive sub-culture where only those who are appropriately learned can enter. BreadTubers often come across as just the opposite of Trump: they don't have opulence, they are generally not wealthy, but they portray the trappings of the elite intelligensia.

In turn, I think this explains many of the preferences of the BreadTube subculture. They like complex theories, especially by obscure theorists. They like to tell people to read this author or that author. They like to use big, uncommon words like 'praxis' when they can just say 'practice', for example. And they don't like simple, practical stuff. I guess that's why they don't have much interest in the Yang Gang and their fixation on 'securing the bag'. There's no grand theory or praxis there. I guess if you're an economist there are indeed a lot of technical things you could say about the UBI. However, your average BreadTuber doesn't have the necessary educational capital in the area of economics to make those sophisticated comments. For your average BreadTuber, there's not much there that one can use to show off their elite educated status, to show that one is different from the average person in the street. Now, let me make it clear that I'm not against higher education. I personally have multiple postgraduate degrees, so I can't be against higher education. But it's one thing to cherish education, and it's another thing to be elitist and exclusive, almost for the sake of it.

So where does the taboo against transmedicalism fit into all this? I guess transmedicalism is hated because it excludes your average BreadTuber from the 'elite' conversation. At a higher level, transmedicalism is associated with many different medical hypotheses, but you would probably need a medical sciences background to understand, study and explain those hypotheses. Most BreadTubers don't even understand basic stuff like hormone receptors, genetic imprinting and basic neuroanatomy, so it's not something they can delve into. In the transmedicalist world, your average BreadTuber would be stuck at the basic, high school level, and they don't like that very much. Furthermore, the transmedicalist hypothesis also has no implications beyond trans people, and can't be linked up with the grand social theorizing that BreadTube is all about. If transness is simply a medical condition, there's no implications for the rest of society, and transness also can't be linked in any way to the social theories. On the other hand, the alternative, that is the social constructionist model of gender, can be used to theorize about all sorts of things, and can also be linked to all sorts of social theory. By embracing social constructionism, the BreadTuber can thus show off their knowledge and education in various areas of the humanities. While your average BreadTuber doesn't have the educational capital to sound elite in the medical sciences, they do have the educational capital to sound elite when it comes to philosophy and sociology. In fact, I guess this could explain why the contemporary humanities is often a bit hostile to the sciences.

What's With Trans Women and Glamour? | Re ContraPoints Opulence | BreadBusting #23

Welcome to BreadBusting by TaraElla, where we attempt to examine the problematic ideas that come out of BreadTube, and also LeftTube in general. Subscribe if you're interested.

Today, I am going to continue to respond to the latest ContraPoints video, titled Opulence. This is part two of three, and my focus today will be on her point about trans women and glamour. As I understand it, Natalie seems to be seeing glamour through the lens that it is the portrayal of the fantasy of a lavish lifestyle. And to be fair, she has a point. But I think it's more complex, and therefore we should take a closer examination of this idea, as I often like to do.

Let's start with the fact that some trans women love glamour, even if some don't. In fact, according to my observations, proportionally more trans women love glamour, compared to non-trans women, something I will discuss again later. Natalie is a good example of a trans woman who loves glamour, as is Gigi Gorgeous, who Natalie often likes to mention. Natalie then discussed the political dimensions of it, hypothesizing that far-left trans women could be getting frustrated at her love of glamour for political or ideological reasons, drawing on quotes from DJ Sprinkles, as read out by Theryn's voice in the video. However, I think we should note that many trans women with a wide range of politics are of the glamour type, ranging from the moderate Republican Blaire White, to staunch progressives like Natalie, even to Stef Sanjati, who as I understand it holds very far-left political views. Therefore, the love of glamour does not represent a political type among trans women, and I guess among women in general.

However, I think that glamour could be associated with certain cultural ideas or idealized social types. For example, when I see a fully glammed up person, no matter what their gender is, I often think of them as having a Hollywood style mindset, and it turns out they often do. Larger than life, and bold in experimenting. My other instinctive feeling about glamorous people is that they tend to have less traditional views on a wide variety of things compared to myself. And 99% of the time I would be right. Natalie, Gigi Gorgeous, and Stef Sanjati are all clearly culturally not very traditional. And then, there's also the fact that the glamour style is less common in more conservative areas, for example rural America. On the other hand, I think it's interesting that Natalie raised the fact that far-left trans women are most often not interested in glamour either. DJ Sprinkles, whose quotes were used by Natalie in the video, has very radical cultural ideas. While she shares the traditionalist's aversion to excessive glamour, she doesn't share any of the traditionalist worldview. In fact, her negative views about families and family values scare me. In the quotes used in the video, she justified her disinterest in glamouros LGBT icons using social class theory, but I suspect for many far-left trans women rejecting glamour could also be a cultural thing. Throughout history, those who see themselves as revolutionaries generally don't embrace glamour. Being a revolutionary is a pretty gritty thing in general, and roughness is often part of that culture. For the traditionalist, rejecting glamour is about being down to Earth and family orientated; for the revolutionary, rejecting glamour is about being rough and facing up to the toughness of the world.

My point is, the embrace of glamour or lack thereof is often a function of internalized cultural image, that is, the ideal of how a person sees themselves. This could be related to politics in some, but probably not most, circumstances. For trans women, this association between style and self-image may become particularly intense, which I think could explain why the full expression of the Hollywood glamour style is overrepresented among trans women. As we grew up, many of us built up our image of what we want to be like, but were unable to actually portray that image. Therefore, when we actually can do so, it feels like reclaiming what has been denied to us. As Natalie said, portraying glamour can be part of this reclamation for some people. But equally, for those of us who don't see ourselves in the images of the glamouros Hollywood types for whatever reason, this reclaimation would occur without embracing glamour, or even explicitly rejecting glamour. As someone whose idealistic image is that of a family person, perhaps one day a successful small business owner, and an outspoken independent thinker, Hollywood style glamour is clearly outside of my self image. Glamour doesn't suit my identity. However, I respect that other trans women embrace glamour because they have a different ideal identity, and portraying glamour could be part of their self actualization. Again, this is also valid. I think we just need to learn to respect each other.