Trans Woman Defends Pete Buttigieg From The "Marcusean Left" of the LGBT Community | LGBT News

With the recent increase in popularity of 2020 presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg, there has been renewed criticism of his candidacy's effects on the LGBT community from some sections of the community. These criticisms come in a few forms: firstly, that as a white gay man he can't understand or represent non-white trans women; secondly, that his candidacy as a family friendly married gay man serves to marginalize those with alternative lifestyles; and finally, that his refusal to be militant on certain LGBT matters means that he is the 'wrong kind of gay representative'. As I will show, all these criticisms are totally invalid. Furthermore, they tell us how much LGBT activist circles continue to be influenced by Marcusean ideas, passed down from the 1960s and 70s, and why this has an unhealthy effect on us all.

Let's begin with the idea that Mayor Pete, as a white gay man, can't represent non-white trans woman. This really is peak identity politics. Moreover, this assumes that people are primarily defined by their status in the so-called hierarchy of oppression, an idea with roots in critical theory as well as postmodernism. However, this hierarchy doesn't exist in a solid form in real life. Furthermore, people's preferences are informed by many other factors. For example, as a trans woman with a more traditional lifestyle, I tend to identify more with those icons of our community who share this with me. I feel like I can relate much more to Mayor Pete than say, a trans woman who is like the Tabby character in the ContraPoints videos. In fact, I can relate much more to most straight people than someone like Tabby. I think we are ultimately more united by things like personal values, lifestyles and social circles, than by sexual orientation or gender identity.

Which brings me onto my next point. Some LGBT activists who have chosen to live an alternative lifestyle feel like the candidacy of Mayor Pete and the spotlight on his religious and pro-family lifestyle serves to marginalize them. Of course, this is silly. In a free society, we all have the right to choose our lifestyle based on our own values and preferences, and nobody is marginalized by another's choice. This is what makes it a free society. The problem is, there is a faction of the left that is strongly influenced by the ideas of 20th century critical theorist Herbert Marcuse, and this faction is quite prominent within LGBT activism, probably because Marcuse specifically told his readers that the outcasts of society are where his revolution could be started, causing his followers to infiltrate the LGBT community back in the 1970s. Marcuse believed that people were sexually repressed in advanced industrial societies, that the then-dominance of family values were the cause of this, and this so-called repression could lead to bad political consequences. Furthermore, he also believed in advancing his own brand of radical beliefs by the suppression of traditional beliefs, as outlined in his famous essay on 'repressive tolerance' written in the mid-1960s, which showed that he essentially believed the cultural space to be a zero-sum game. Therefore, it is unsurprising that the Marcusean left would be suspicious of someone like Mayor Pete, who they probably fear would take away the so-called 'revolutionary potential' of the LGBT community. Of course, none of Marcuse's theories are proven or well grounded, and therefore Marcusean views are basically no more than subjective thoughts. The LGBT community would do well to avoid such divisive nonsense.

Finally, several LGBT activists have taken issue with Mayor Pete's lack of militancy on LGBT issues in general, including his refusal to boycott a certain fast food chain. This is, of course, the polar opposite of my own view that Mayor Pete's refusal to be divisive is a strength in that it brings people together and allows problems to be solved in a better way. However, those who subscribe to the conflict theory of sociology take the opposite view, that conflict and associated struggle is good for resolving cultural contradictions. The conflict theory of sociology is closely associated with critical theory, which is why the Macusean left generally holds this view. The fact is, this view is clearly disproven by history. History shows that intense conflict rarely resolves problems satisfactorily, and even risks prolonging mutual animosity for generations. On the other hand, the best way to resolve difficult issues has always been to bring people with all sorts of views together, and this is why it's important for a leader to be able to do that.

Conversation With a TradTrans: Shared Concerns About BreadTube & LGBT Culture | TE Report Trans S3 E7

TaraElla: Hi everyone, welcome again to the special LGBT season of the TaraElla Report. This is where we showcase the diversity of views in the community, to show that diverse views do exist, despite what the activists may have people believe. Now, I don't endorse all the views presented on this show, but I think it's important to showcase diversity. Today, we have Louise, who is a self-identified traditionalist trans woman, or a Trad-Trans, as she calls it. She has some controversial views regarding where the LGBT community is going. And she's worried about the effect BreadTube and its associated culture may be having on the LGBT community.

Louise: Lately, I've observed that BreadTube has a particularly high proportion of LGBT followers. I've also seen people talk about BreadTube or its creators from time to time, in general trans discussion spaces. BreadTube really seems to have become a part of LGBT culture nowadays. What I'm most concerned about is how BreadTube seems to be bundling the trans experience, or LGBT identity more generally, with some very ideological, and in my opinion misguided, worldviews.

For example, the idea that marriage and family is somehow tied to the origins of homophobia and transphobia is commonly accepted as fact in BreadTube and culturally adjacent circles. But not only is this untrue, it turns LGBT people against marriage and family, two things that are valued by most people, for no good reason. We really don't need to do that, now that we have marriage equality. BreadTube seems to have its own views about justice, which is rooted in certain academic theory. However, for me, the biggest justice LGBT people can get is to be able to integrate into mainstream society with dignity, and thanks to movements like marriage equality, we have become more able to do just that. I'm worried that the BreadTube aligned LGBT community seems to be turning its back on all that.

TaraElla: Yeah, BreadTube style 'justice' is very narrowly defined, and we need a broader notion of justice that is rooted in what people actually want. Different people want different things, and that should be respected. As a communitarian minded person, I definitely see the importance of integration to many LGBT people. Also, as somebody who helped fight for gay marriage for over a decade, I'm honestly confused and frustrated by this change too. It's as if there's been a change of guard at the top of the LGBT activist establishment, and the 1960s style conflict theory based activists are in charge again. As I've often said, our gains over the past two decades were hard won, and I'm worried that this return to conflict theory would only lead to our estrangement from mainstream society. Of course, people who believe in conflict theory don't care about that. They probably enjoy being rejected by mainstream society, to a degree. But the important thing is, the rest of us shouldn't have to suffer the very real and very material consequences of their actions.

Louise: I mean, there's no reason to teach LGBT people to be anti-marriage and family, unless the goal is to make us miserable, lonely, and hated by mainstream society. I personally believe that things like marriage, faithfulness, getting along with the community, and the like are good for everyone. Now that the historical wrong of excluding LGBT people from traditional institutions has been righted, I think we should relish our opportunity to live in these institutions, and reap the benefits of the good life they bring. Of course, that's just my personal view, and I'm not forcing it on anybody. But of course, some activists believe that the personal is political, and even my personal lifestyle choices as a Trad-Trans can offend them for some reason. It's just unbelievable. One thing I certainly don't like about BreadTube is that they politicize everything, and seem to appreciate nothing. I think LGBT people already have a hard enough life; we certainly don't need the extra anger.

TaraElla: This I can certainly agree with. Not everything is political. What I had for breakfast this morning isn't political, and nobody should pretend otherwise. In believing that almost everything is political, radical activists submit everything to their critical theory analysis, and leave us no room to enjoy freedom over anything. This is why, sometimes, it just helps to be less critical, and more appreciative, in life. Apperciation of life as it is, is something the BreadTube community could probably have more of.