Welcome back to TaraElla TV, where we examine cultural and political issues from a truth-orientated and constructive problem solving perspective. Today, I want to briefly respond to a few ignorant comments made by Candace Owens on the Rubin Report recently.
Firstly, she said that she hopes black people will be at the forefront of pushing against the 'trans stuff'. What 'trans stuff' is she refering to? I mean, trans people have in common certain medical needs, and probably also have in common the problem of facing discrimination in some areas of life, and that's about it. Beyond that, trans people are a diverse bunch. We're pretty diverse in our politics, our values, our commitments, our lifestyles, and so on. So there's really no package deal of 'trans stuff' like she was talking about, because there really can't be. I mean, she should know better, having debated Blaire White on the same show three years ago. You know, how Blaire's opinions are taken controversially among trans people, some love her, others really dislike her. It's the same for Contrapoints, who gets cancelled by other trans people every now and then. And it's similar for most other prominent trans people too.
Secondly, she said that gay people should expel the 'trans stuff', like drop the T or something. So that would mean telling gay people to not welcome trans people into their circles, which would break with decades of tradition since Stonewall, not to mention being like really bigoted. Horrible idea indeed.
I think the problem is that Candace Owens appears to be confused. In case she still doesn't get it, here it is: trans people are people with shared medical needs and social issues. Get this into your head: we are not a political party, we're not a political movement. We can't be, because we are too diverse. Among trans people, there are conservatives, moderates, liberals, and socialists, just like among non-trans people. We don't think like a hive mind, and we aren't a 'thing' in a collective sense. I mean, what would it take for people to just understand these very basic facts?
Welcome back to TaraElla TV, where we examine cultural and political issues from a truth-orientated and constructive problem solving perspective. Today, I want to do some thinking on the divergent opinions on JK Rowling within the trans community. Specifically, I want to hypothesize about why some trans people, like myself, are more accommodating, and why other trans people are less accommodating, to our disagreements with Rowling and other people with similar opinions. As I said before, I don't actually agree with some of Rowling's views on trans issues, but I am granting her the good faith of being constructive, and I am open to continued conversation with her, and other people with views similar to hers. On the other hand, other trans people, especially trans activists, have been quite hard on Rowling, often calling her transphobic, which I don't believe is justified at all. I explained why I didn't think Rowling is transphobic in previous videos, and I still stand by those views. Anyway, today's theme is a deeper philosophical exploration of our divergent views, where I will talk about different models of social change.
Let's start with this suggestion from a friend: perhaps it's my wish to avoid conflict. I guess that's part of my upbringing, a big part of Asian culture in general too. I've heard several other Asian LGBT people say that they don't feel entirely comfortable with LGBT activist circles as they currently exist. I mean, there are many of us who would prefer a more bringing people across, a more consensus approach to social reform and change. And then, on the other side of the spectrum, are people who believe that it is conflict that drives change. Right now, LGBT activist circles in the Western world are quite heavily influenced by critical theory, which in turn borrows heavily from Marxian philosophical concepts. One such inheritance is the idea that conflict between groups or classes is what drives social change. Now, that's one view, but that's a view that I certainly don't agree with. Instead, I believe the opposite, that conflict often derails meaningful conversation and the development of balanced and satisfactory change. It's certainly a very different theory of change, but I think the historical evidence is on my side. Many meaningful reforms, from women's suffrage, to the civil rights movement, to gay marriage most recently, were ultimately won by people who sought to bring people together, including to reach out in good faith to those who have strong disagreements with us at the beginning. This is why I'm strongly against pushing people like Rowling away. And there's really nothing wrong with preferring a less conflict-driven approach to change. In fact, that's been the more traditional way people conceived of change, before critical theory became dominant in certain sections of academia, which was only due to certain circumstances of 20th century politics anyway. I mean, Asian culture has long held that it's best to bring people together in harmony to resolve issues, and Western Enlightenment has generally seen sound ideas, ideas that are consistent with the science and the facts, as the driver of productive progress, and such ideas will generally prevail in rational debates. Between these two strands of my cultural inspiration, I think there's a very valid model to achieve the needed social change, without tearing the social fabric apart, without feeling like one group is overpowering another, or that it is a zero-sum game of any kind. Thinking of culture as a zero-sum game is especially stupid, because unlike in economics, where a lot of these zero-sum ideas emerged, there is no problem of scarcity of resources in culture, and our 'interests' are not necessarily at odds with each other as a result. I mean, frankly I believe that the basic reason critical theory is unsound, is because it attempts to borrow a model that Marx applied to political economy, and force-fit it to cultural issues. I think there's really no logically reasonable justification for that at all. Instead, cultural change is better served with a more humanitarian attitude, one that focuses on our common humanity, our common needs, and our common aspirations.
Preferring a non-conflict approach to change also doesn't mean we cannot achieve the meaningful change that would be required to bring about justice. There's nothing really to justify the claim that conflict-driven methods produce more profound social change. Rather, I believe conflict often leads to less adaptive social change, which also means it's less durable, and I think there are plenty of historical examples to justify my view. The reason why a high level of conflict leads to maladaptive change is because people often don't think rationally in the moment of conflict. People focus too much on the specific circumstances at the height of the conflict, and don't think enough about what is needed in the longer term. There's also an irrational dislike of those on the opposite side of the conflict, which is never good for rational thinking. I think these two reasons explain why so-called solutions that emerge during times of high conflict are often not conducive to the well functioning of society in the longer term. And I think this could be the best case we can make, to justify a more conflict-averse approach to social progress.
