Cringe vs Cope? On ContraPoints vs Rose of Dawn | Trad Trans Rants

Welcome back to Trad Trans Rants by TaraElla. Today, we have some interesting trans personality drama. As I understand it, it all began when Natalie of ContraPoints talked about the work of Rose Of Dawn, characterising it as posting cringe about trans people, and questioning her motives in posting a whole series of videos on a particularly obnoxious Canadian. Rose then replied, essentially saying that it is an unfair mischaracterization, that she was talking about important issues that need to be discussed, and that Natalie was avoiding that conversation, if I understood the point correctly.

As somebody who is subscribed to both of them, I think the problem is that they are essentially talking past each other. This problem is unfortunately common in our current landscape of cultural and political polarization. I actually think both Natalie and Rose have a point. I think Natalie is right to question the purpose of focusing on the most obnoxious and weird characters of the trans community, and I think Rose is right to question the set of beliefs about gender that Natalie appears to have. Don't get me wrong, as a trans person I of course support trans rights, and I very much appreciate Natalie's commitment to improving trans acceptance. However, where I disagree with her is that I really don't think the unscientific idea that gender is a social construct is good for trans acceptance or social justice at all.

I think the problem is that, both sides currently have an attitude that prevents constructive dialogue. Rose and others on her side often see themselves as defenders of every day common sense. They use particularly obnoxious and weird characters, the trans 'cringe' that Natalie was talking about, as examples of people who are outside the common sense, and use them to show how rejecting the common sense leads to social harms. While I'm sure that Rose and others mean well, and they do have a point as I will discuss later, I think this attitude can come off as both simplistic and judgemental to those on the opposite side. This is because, Natalie and others on her side, who come from a more philosophical tradition, tend to see the questioning of common sense as inherently enlightened and liberating. This can largely be traced to the tradition of critical theory, which holds that common sense is often a device to hold structures of oppression in place, and that the 'ruthless criticism of everything' is always justified. I, of course, have my own problems with the whole critical theory tradition and its impact on LGBT discourse, having written a short book on the subject recently. But let's leave that wider discussion to another video, and focus on the gender-related aspect here.

In her video, Rose called Natalie a 'gender radical'. Rose provided a definition for her use of the term, which, if I understand correctly, mostly fits with Natalie's beliefs. However, because that term is both vague and derogatory, I would instead refer to it as 'social constructionist' from here onwards. Rose essentially accused Natalie of refusing to deal with criticism of her social constructionist views on gender and the real world consequences of those beliefs, which are seen in people like that particular Canadian. However, given that these obnoxious characters aren't obviously motivated by social constructionism, I honestly don't think arguing this way is convincing for many people. After all, it's a bit of a leap to use the obnoxious behavior of one particular person to generalize that social constructionism is bad for society.

On the other hand, that doesn't mean social constructionism is OK either. My problem with social constructionism is that it is not grounded in commitment to objective reality, and often provides an illusion of escape from reality itself. Social constructionist theories, particularly when combined with postmodernism, often give the illusion of unlimited possibilities of social arrangements, which sounds fine as long as you don't have to face objective reality. It's like you can say the sky is green, as long as you stay indoors all the time. This is what I think of when some people say there could be a whole universe of genders. While I agree that there may not just be two genders, because there is some preliminary biological evidence for that, there certainly cannot be a whole universe of genders, because that wouldn't be compatible with the objective reality of evolutionary biology.

The fact is, conventional common sense may have its flaws, but it is at least tried and tested by centuries of living reality. Therefore, the wholesale rejection of common sense as 'social constructs' amounts to a wholesale denial of reality, and its real world consequence tends to be social chaos. Furthermore, society only works when everyone is committed to the same objective reality; if everyone lived only by their own subjective reality, the social contract would break down, and there would be chaos. Therefore, any modification to the shared common sense needs to be both rooted in objective reality and hence also acceptable to the general population. Within this framework, there can great potential for constructive social change. A good example would be how the finding that gay people are 'born this way' led to the widespread support for gay marriage. This is why any case for trans rights must be rooted in scientific reality. It must be based on objective reality rather than subjective feelings, and it must also adequately satisfy the competing needs of different parties. If we base the case for trans acceptance on subjectivity, it would never work, because nobody else is morally obliged to accept subjective or self-constructed identities. If we force trans acceptance while basing it on subjectivity, people could rightly classify that as tyranny, because it would be using the threat of social punishment to enforce something that most people wouldn't otherwise accept.

To build a workable consensus for trans acceptance going forward, a commitment to science above all else is needed. An openness to considering perspectives from all sides, and a constructive dialogue between different stakeholders is also needed. All this is, unfortunately, sorely lacking from both sides of the ideological divide right now. To get out of this pointless bickering, we need to stop shouting past each other, and start talking to each other effectively. This is the process I'm trying to facilitate here. I hope that more people can become just as committed to this ideal as myself.

The TRUTH About Intra Trans Cringe | Re ContraPoints | Trad Trans Rants

Welcome back to Trad Trans Rants by TaraElla. Today, I'm going to present the first installment of my response to the new ContraPoints video titled 'Cringe'. As usual, my response will be delivered in three parts, with this installment focusing on the trans aspect, and the next two focusing on the adverse effects of cringe culture on our political landscape, and how to counter its effects.

A major part of the Cringe video was focused on the intra-group cringe culture that has become a large part of the internet trans culture in recent years. The video used examples from three very popular trans personalities, who are known for producing trans cringe content. To be honest, I actually don't fully understand the appeal of that kind of content myself, that's why I'm setting out to explore it here. However, I also think that Natalie's take on this phenomenon may perhaps be missing something important.

I think one important double-edge sword strength as well as weakness of Natalie's analyses is that she often resorts to explaining things using theories that were previously established by other people, often academics. I guess it's a mindset that many people who have trained to be academics have. But as I sometimes like to say, adherence to theory is akin to thought slavery, because theory is dead and the world is alive. It's probably not a good idea to force fit academic theories into complex and organic developments, because doing so would be awkward, and so very cringe indeed.

So why do many trans people like to watch trans cringe content? As I said, I don't have all the answers. But I am subscribed to two out of the three personalities Natalie showcased, and I know that some of my own subscribers also like to watch those two people. Furthermore, Vanessa, as Natalie calls her, is the most popular political YouTuber right now, and the vast majority of her fans seem to be LGBT people too. It really isn't an exaggeration to call Vanessa a trans community icon, I mean, almost every trans person knows who she is, right? But why do trans people watch Vanessa and people like her? Let's start with why I watch them, because that's really the only perspective I fully understand. I guess, for me, the appeal of watching people like Vanessa is that it provides an alternative perspective on trans issues.

To be honest, I really miss the days when nobody paid attention to trans issues. In those days, if you came out as trans, people don't have a pre-conceived idea of who you are. For this reason, I'm glad that I came out back in the days when many people didn't even know trans people existed. At least I was always given a fair chance to explain my own trans perspective, without popular cultural references and media tropes getting in the way. Ever since the trans tipping point in 2015 or so, however, I've found it awkward to discuss trans issues in everyday life, so much so that I generally avoid talking about the topic altogether, because people often already come with preconceived notions of what trans people are like. For example, I've come across plenty of people who think that all trans people believe that gender is a social construct, an idea which I actually strongly disagree with, as I explained in my other videos. The problem is, when such expectation are so dominant, it's almost like you have to come out again and again to everyone you meet, just to be honest with yourself and with others. It's really frustrating. For me, the cringe isn't about embarrassment; it's about the misrepresentation and the resulting wrong expectations that many of us find really frustrating. Like how I'm supposed to be super sensitive about people misgendering me, when I don't actually care that much, to be honest.

Which is why I'm sometimes glad that people like Vanessa not only exist, but are outspoken about themselves being almost the opposite of the public stereotype of a trans person. The fact is, and I have said this in numerous other videos before but it bears repeating, Vanessa isn't even special in any way. Regular trans people are the silent majority, and we are nothing like the stereotype. But because the media likes sensational stuff, they tend to give a disproportionate platform to the noisy minority of trans people who have extreme lifestyles or extreme political views. Just think back to last year, when many relatievly mainstream media outlets carried the story of a particularly obnoxious Canadian who identified as trans, who I shall not name again here. That particular Canadian was newsworthy precisely because of the obnoxious behavior. Ever since the trans tipping point five years ago, the media has kept on carrying sensational examples of trans people, distorting our public image, and creating a stereotype that many of us feel extremely uncomfortable with. I guess for some of us, channels like Vanessa's are valuable in that they provide a strong rebuttal to the stereotype. My channel here is something similar, although I have a different style and focus. Again, it's not something you could explain using any existing academic theory, it's just how real life is playing out. When I was younger, I thought that trans people could never go mainstream because we are less than 1% of the population; I just never imagined that we would instead go mainstream in a bad way like this. Real life is unpredictable and often rougher than you can imagine.

I want to come back to the way Vanessa and others kept making videos of that particular Canadian, even after the Canadian ceased to be newsworthy. As I've said in previous videos, I think the approach of Vanessa is often ultimately self-defeating. Sometimes, it appears to me that she is so keen to prove that she is normal, that she keeps platforming the small minority of extremely cringe-worthy trans characters, and in doing so ultimately reinforce the media stereotype of trans people. While to be fair she has recently taken care to showcase more regular trans people, and stated the fact that the silent majority of trans people aren't like the cringe ones, her disproportionate focus on the cringe characters still contributes to the problem of disproportionate platforming of cringe trans people that we are supposed to be combatting. This is why I'm taking a very different approach here on this channel. I'm not going to focus on the cringe-worthy minority at all, except for one or two videos when I believe that it is morally necessary for every trans person with a platform to provide a rebuttal, like with the Canadian last year. Instead, I'm just going to present my own thoughts on news, current affairs, and a variety of topics, which will hopefully be more than enough to show you that I'm nothing like the stereotype. It's a good approach because we're adding more regular voices rather than platforming cringe people looking for attention.

Finally, let's go back to the big question: why are people like Vanessa so popular within the trans community? I guess one reason why Vanessa is popular is because she bucks the stereotype, and does so in a very spectacular way. In fact, not only does she keep going against the media stereotype of trans people, she also has a politics that is very opposite of what most people expect of trans people, like how she is anti-feminist, anti-SJW and supports President Trump. Now, I'm not suggesting that it's a good idea to take up those positions just to stick it to the stereotype, and I'm not suggesting that Vanessa is doing that at all, but I guess it could be part of her appeal to trans people who are sick of other people having the wrong expectation of who they are. I mean, actually supporting Trump is probably not on the agenda of most trans people, but using the current US Presidential election cycle as an example, I know that there are trans people who avoided supporting candidates that fit the stereotype of someone trans people would support, like Elizabeth Warren, and instead go for candidates like Bernie Sanders or Joe Biden, precisely because they don't talk about LGBT issues anywhere as much. As far as I'm aware, no Democrat in this cycle completely avoided LGBT issues, but if there was one, I suspect many trans people would actually flock to them. The fact is, with the media stereotype bearing down on us all, many trans people are almost desperate to escape that expectation, and some are even perhaps going to the extent of bending their politics to prove a point.