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.