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.