JK Rowling, Trans People, Free Speech and Truth | TaraElla Report S6 E16

Welcome back to TaraElla TV, where we examine cultural and political issues from a truth-orientated, non-factional, and constructive problem solving perspective. Subscribe if you're interested. Today, I'm going to revisit my views on the JK Rowling trans issues controversy. Given that this is a complex and sensitive topic, please listen to what I have to say with an open mind, and don't jump to conclusions right away.

Last month, when the issue was dominating social media, around the time Rowling published her controversial essay, I put out a video saying that, as a trans person, I don't think she's transphobic. Since then, I've been accused by some of agreeing with what she wrote. What I want to clarify is that I don't, actually. There were certainly quite a few things I didn't agree with in that essay. What I actually said was that Rowling isn't transphobic, and has even shown a basic level of sympathy to trans people, points which I still stand by. All this doesn't necessarily mean I agree with her. It just means that I have taken her concerns from a good faith point of view, I don't believe she has acted in hostility towards trans people, and she shouldn't be just labelled a bigot and pushed away.

The fact is, there's disagreement, and then there's bigotry, and the two are very different things. For example, someone who actively wants trans people to not exist in mainstream society would definitely be transphobic. On a lower level, I think someone who mercilessly makes fun of trans people could also be said to be transphobic, because there is a malicious intent to harm trans people there. But having views that many trans people find disappointing is another thing altogether. It may not be what some people want to hear, but it's not the same as bigotry. The problem with treating disagreements as bigotry is that it essentially hampers free debate. This extends even into debates within the trans community. Even trans people sometimes feel like we aren't able to freely voice what we think on some trans issues, or what solutions or compromises we would be willing to accept to improve our lives, just because other trans people may not like what we have to say. I know that there are many trans people who feel like we're under the boot of some orthodoxy upheld by certain activists, and that this orthodoxy may not end up serving the needs of trans people well either.

The problem of treating disagreement on certain issues as bigotry is not limited to the trans community, it's actually part of a wider problem. It really didn't use to be this way, and it really shouldn't be this way. For example, if you oppose gay marriage, I certainly strongly disagree with your position, but I wouldn't label you a homophobe just for that. Instead, I may invite you for a discussion or debate. As an active supporter of the marriage equality movement for over 10 years, this had always been my position, and I think this respectful attitude won us a lot of support over the years. However, this method has been supplanted by a much more militant form of activism, one that takes people who disagree in bad faith right away, and sees those in the way of desired progress as enemies and oppressors. The logical conclusion of this attitude would be essentially, agree with me right now or you're the enemy. I think last year's cancelling Contrapoints drama is the fullest manifestation of this attitude, and if things don't change, more of this kind of madness will be coming in the future.

As I often say, free speech works to resolve social issues and bring much needed progress, and there's a historical track record to prove that. Naysayers to free speech often take the position of Herbert Marcuse's 1965 essay Repressive Tolerance, in which he argued that universal tolerance of all ideas is repressive, because the status quo always wins out. However, if that is the case, we wouldn't have women's suffrage, the civil rights movement, gay marriage, and more. In particular, the whole gay marriage movement, from start to finish, has occured during my own lifetime, and I've seen how quickly attitudes can evolve when there is good faith and respectful discussion. Yes, the world is still imperfect, and there is still more to do for justice. But things have indeed come a long way, and rational discussion will certainly take us much further. This is because justice cannot exist without truth, and rational discussion will bring us further to the truth. This is the big idea behind the Enlightenment after all.

To foster rational discussion, we need to stop seeing each other as the enemy. The critical theory inspired attitude of oppressor vs oppressed needs to go. The postmodern idea that speech and discourse are devices of power needs to go. Instead, we all need to work on a mutual commitment to finding the truth, and finding the best solutions for every problem.

Co-Opting Trans People to Attack Free Speech? | Skeptic TaraElla 2020

Welcome back to Skeptic TaraElla. Today, I'm going to talk about a disturbing trend that has been developing in the past few years: the attempt by some in the radical critical theory faction of the Left to co-opt the struggles of trans people to justify their attacks on free speech. Needless to say, as a trans woman who is also a big free speech advocate, I really don't enjoy being used as a political football for a cause I'm also resolutely against.

The issue reared its head again recently, with the publication of an open letter on the Harper's Magazine website drawing attention to the erosion of free speech and the rise of cancel culture, that was co-signed by more than 100 public intellectuals, mostly on the progressive side of the political spectrum. Noam Chomsky, a thinker who is almost universally held in high regard in progressive circles, was perhaps the most famous name on there of all.

I would have thought that the statement, which supported both social justice and the need for free speech, would be generally uncontroversial. But I was wrong. Within a day of publication, there was backlash against this very simple statement in all corners of the internet. While a reasonable person probably can't find fault with the message expressed, the backlash was focused on the alleged past behavior of about a dozen, or less than 10 percent, of signatories. There were charges of racism, controversial actions, and you guessed it, transphobia. I really don't know when transphobia became such an overused word among people who aren't even trans themselves, who don't even understand what gender dysphoria really is. I'm starting to see transphobia becoming a standard component of articles that discuss social justice issues in a superficial and virtue signalling way, often written by non-trans people who don't even have a basic understanding of what gender dysphoria actually is.

Anyway, with transphobia being a very popular insult nowadays in some circles, and with the JK Rowling controversy still fresh in the minds of many, it was not entirely surprising to see Rowling singled out as perhaps the most controversial signatory of them all. And with that 'association', the whole letter came to be interpreted by some people, trans and non-trans alike, as justifying transphobia. This has led to a negative reaction from parts of the trans community, which has unfortunately taken in the radical critical theory worldview entirely in recent years. This worldview, which sees everything through the lens of power and oppression, has fostered a strong victim mentality and an aversion to conversation with those who hold a different opinion. I guess it's how a letter for free speech, signed by more than a hundred progressives, one that has nothing to do with trans issues at all, came to be seen as transphobic.

And I think this is all a mistake, and a tragedy. You see, I believe the only way people will come to understand and accept trans people is via a discussion rooted in medical science, and the only way society will come to accomodate trans people's needs properly is via a rational, taboo-free discussion. The atmosphere created by the radical critical theory crowd has led to the silencing of many voices, including trans supportive people who want to discuss ideas and solutions that are not in line with the current consensus of activists. By reducing everything to power, oppression and struggle, the whole debate has become poisoned, and there appears to be no way out of this any time soon. The real victims of all this is trans people and trans rights.

I believe that, until conditions for free speech are fully restored, the prospect of truly improving trans acceptance and achieving a consensus for trans rights is very bleak indeed. As a trans person, I fully applaud the Open Letter in Harper's Magazine, because a restoration of free speech is the only way trans acceptance and trans rights will ever be able to be advanced.