Trans Issues, Radical Feminism and Critical Theory | TaraElla Report LvCT

Why critical theory inspired radical feminism is bad for trans people

Welcome back to TaraElla Report LvCT, Liberalism vs Critical Theory. In this new series, we will explore the differences between the critical theory worldview and the liberal worldview.

Today, I am going to take a look at why radical feminism has had so much difficulty with the acceptance of trans people. As we've examined before, radical feminists are currently deeply divided on their attitude towards trans people and trans issues, but neither side of the radical feminism coin has really come to terms with trans people as we actually exist in this world. Therefore, my view is that radical feminism as a whole is actually not quite accepting of trans people.

Let's start by defining 'radical feminism'. Different people define the term differently, but here, I will use a broad definition. That is, 'radical feminism' here will include all major branches of feminism that are not liberal or reformism orientated, including the second wave, third wave and postmodern influenced varieties alike. Since the middle of the 20th century, feminism has been generally divided into liberal feminism and radical feminism. In general, liberal feminists essentially extend the the liberal commitment to equal opportunity, equal treatment and universalist civil rights into the field of sex and gender. Thus, liberal feminism believes in ending all barriers and unequal access to opportunities and choices in life based on sex and gender. On the other hand, radical feminism doesn't believe in the liberal feminist vision. Instead, their view of gender relations is strongly colored by the common critical theory worldview of power dynamics between oppressor vs oppressed groups. Radical feminism essentially sees the world as fundamentally defined by unequal power dynamics between men, as a class, vs women, as a class. Furthermore, just like other critical theory type worldviews, radical feminism believes that the current system is unreformable, revolutionary change must occur if there is to be justice, and such change can only come with strengthening awareness of the power dynamics, which makes it essentially opposed to liberal feminism to a great extent.

As you can see, the difference between liberal feminism and radical feminism has strong parallels with the difference between liberal colorblind anti-racism and critical race theory. It is essentially a parallel that can be observed across a variety of progressive movements, with one side being rooted in liberalism, and the other side essentially rooted in critical theory thinking. It is what this series is all about. But let's return to radical feminism.

I believe the difficulty radical feminists have had with trans people is fundamentally rooted in their binary two-class worldview, seeing men and women primarily as two antagonistic classes rather than as individuals. The liberal model has had a much easier time accommodating trans people because it sees people as individuals rather than members of a group. Thus, it doesn't have as much difficulty in dealing with people who don't neatly fit into a group all the time. After all, the liberal demand for treating people equally regardless of sex or gender, which is basically sex-blindness and gender-blindness, is equally applicable even where the sex and gender of the person is mismatched, or otherwise unconventional. On the other hand, radical feminism requires first classifying people as 100% belonging to one class or another, and it is easy to see why it would have difficulty with trans people. The core divide within radical feminism is basically one of agreeing vs refusing to classify trans people with the gender they identify as. The bitterness of the divide, as it currently stands, demonstrates why the liberal model is better, in my opinion.

I think another reason why radical feminism has had difficulty with trans people is its a-priori ideological commitment of seeing gender as a social construct. As I've said before, gender critical feminists can't accept trans people because they believe that gender is a social construct, which essentially means that all non-physical differences between men and women are socially constructed. In this worldview, trans people can't logically exist naturally. On the other hand, while postmodernism-inspired radical feminists (sometimes called intersectionalists) might support trans rights superficially, they too can't truly accept most biological explanations of trans identity, because they too believe that gender is a social construct. This means that postmodernized feminism essentially sees trans identity as no more than a 'performance', or an aspect of personality at most. This actually amounts to a refusal to understand gender dysphoria properly, and is ultimately bad for trans acceptance because it perpetuates misunderstanding in the wider world. This is why I say that neither side of the radical feminist divide actually fully accepts trans people.

Radical feminism is committed to the idea that gender is a social construct, not because of clear empirical evidence proving so, but because of the strong influence of the critical theory worldview, which includes the view that the dominant cultural ideas of society are the ideas that uphold the dominance of the oppressor groups. In the radical feminist worldview, gender, i.e. any differences between men and women that are not physical, must be a product of the patriarchal system that benefits men and oppresses women, and hence must be abolished or at least revolutionized in some way. There is not much room for compromise here, because any compromise would essentially mean accepting oppression and giving up on revolutionary consciousness. This is why, if the theory of gender being a social construct comes up against the reality of trans people, radical feminism would essentially demand that reality yield to their theory. However, since trans people are real people, and trans lives are real lives, this is simply not morally acceptable!

So this, I think, explains why radical feminism has had so much difficulty with trans people and trans issues. It is also an example that demonstrates why, compared to the critical theory model, the liberal model of social progress is much more adaptive, flexible and hence more useful for resolving many social justice issues.

Trans People Are Not An Ideology! | Trans Sandwiched #13

We need to talk about the dangerous trend of lumping trans people in with 'wokeness'.

Welcome back to Trans Sandwiched by TaraElla. Today, I want to talk about a worrying trend: some people are increasingly using trans people and trans issues to signal a rejection of the 'woke' or the postmodern agenda. And it often takes the form of a general rejection of the 'trans phenomenon' or the 'trans ideology', as if the existence or validity of trans people are inherently tied to excessive 'wokeness' or postmodern theory.

Let me say this: trans people have always existed in this world. We are simply a natural occurrence, we don't need justification from any academic theory. Indeed, many trans people like myself believe that the academic theories around gender are a distraction at best, and are harmful to proper understanding of trans people at worst. Needless to say, we are not fans of the academic theory at all. Which makes it all the more painful for us to hear descriptions of the 'trans phenomenon' or the 'trans ideology' lumped in, almost reflexively, with things like critical race theory, postmodernism, the 'oppression olympics', and so on, a practice that is increasingly common especially among conservative commentators.

I understand that there is a lot of frustration with postmodernism and critical theory driven cultural activism out there. However, please don't take it out on trans people. Please understand that many of us are also very frustrated about the cultural discourse around gender. Contrary to popular belief, not all of us agree with every radical idea around gendered language and norms out there, and we certainly don't have a collective agenda of imposing such ideas on the rest of society. The truth is, we are sick and tired of being used as a political football by people on all sides. All we want is to live our lives in peace. All we want from society is an understanding that we are human too. Like many other people, we have our own issues, and we transition and live the way we do because it is required for us to find peace in our everyday lives. Being trans is not inherently a political thing, and painting it as so is very unfair.

Some people say that they are able to separate what they call the 'trans ideology' (which is really gender theories invented by postmodern academics) from trans people. However, the problem with calling it the 'trans ideology' is that it creates the widespread impression that trans people are transitioning for ideological purposes. This idea has led some people to believe that they must 'stop' the so-called 'trans phenomenon', by opposing trans rights, and slowing down trans acceptance as much as possible. This means we don't even get a fair hearing from society. People are essentially conditioned to be biased against what we have to say even before they hear it.

I guess the best policy is, if you have an issue with something, just say what it is, directly and unambiguously. I understand that postmodernism often has controversial things to say about trans people, but that is not what trans people are, and not what trans lives are about. If you have a problem with postmodernism, just say so. If you have a problem with certain 'new norms' around gender proposed by activists, just say what you're concerned about. Perhaps you'll be surprised at the number of trans people whom you'll find common ground with.

And whenever you hear someone referring vaguely to something called the 'trans phenomenon' or the 'trans ideology', the best thing to do is to ask for a clarification. Because trans people are not a political phenomenon, and we are certainly not an ideology.

Why Trans and Queer Theory is Skewed and Unrealistic | Trans Sandwiched #12

A deep dive into why academic theories are biased because of the structure that produced them.

Welcome back to Trans Sandwiched by TaraElla. Today, I want to talk about what I think is the most important reason why a lot of the theory about trans and LGBT people, the theory used by the activists, is often skewed and unrealistic. I think it's a problem we need to remedy, because the trans conversation is currently being driven to a significant extent by theory that is not well grounded in reality, and this is not helpful for improving understanding about trans people and trans issues.

So why is this happening? I think it is actually rooted in the environment in which these theories originated. Many popular theories about LGBT people, the nature of gender and so on ultimately have their origins in the academic humanities, particularly philosophy, gender studies, and other related fields. As I have often said before, I believe there is some kind of imbalance in many of these fields, in that certain worldviews and assumptions are currently too dominant, to the exclusion of other useful perspectives. I am not saying that the currently dominant views are always wrong or worthless, but more diversity would be needed to produce a more complete and balanced picture of the truth.

I think this imbalance of perspectives, the superficial cause of the skew in the theories, can be traced to an even more fundamental cause. That would be the split of science away from philosophy. Historically, the roots of what we would consider science today was part of philosophy, called 'natural philosophy'. But by the 19th century, the scientific method had become very well developed, which meant that scientific inquiry became a specialized pursuit, with its own epistemology, its own defined methods of acquiring knowledge and its own standards of required proof for validation of hypotheses. This meant that it no longer fitted well within the broader and more open field of philosophy, therefore the split.

Don't get me wrong, I have always been a big fan of the scientific method, and its arrival had been responsible for many key advancements that we now take for granted. However, the divorce of science and philosophy has gradually produced a skew within philosophy, in that it has moved further and further away from empiricism, objectivity and logical reasoning with each generation. It looks like philosophy is missing a particular perspective because it has been taken away by the split with science. As one might expect, the continued absence of an important perspective has led philosophy to grow further and further skewed in the opposite direction. The split has had many important downstream effects. For example, one might lament the lack of great liberal (as opposed to criticalist, structuralist or postmodernist) political philosophers in recent decades. However, if you look at the historical cannon of liberal philosophers, many of them were actually committed empirical thinkers. The same kind of thinker would be more likely to be found in the sciences, or even in economics departments, than in philosophy today. In other words, the kind of minds who came up with the classical liberal cannon probably wouldn't be doing philosophy at all today, because their interests would have brought them to other fields of study in the first place.

Which brings me onto the next problem. In the age we live in, academia is highly specialized, and knowledge is highly compartmentalized. This is actually a relatively new development if we look at it in the timeframe of the entirety of Western history. And I think its downsides are just beginning to be realized. One major problem with this specialization is that those who work with one perspective are often missing another. Therefore, not only has philosophy grown to put less and less emphasis on empiricism and objectivity, those working in philosophy are also unlikely to interact too much with ideas from the sciences, the new home of empiricism and objectivity.

There has been much talk about the need for 'multidisciplinary' intellectual work, but the real 'multidisciplinary' intellectual, i.e. one that is well versed in all the subjects that used to be considered part of the unified category of philosophy in classical European culture, is a rare thing today. There is at least a good reason that such an intellectual would be rare: to specialize in one field of study itself would already take about a decade (if we count undergraduate plus postgraduate study). To then study the other fields probably wouldn't take as long, because the common foundations of academic training would already be there, but I would estimate that it would still take until at least 35, even for a very dedicated and very talented individual. And most people probably couldn't afford to stay at school full time until 35 or older, even if they wanted to! I actually have a proposed solution for this problem: the few individuals with the talent and interest to do this should be identified early on (perhaps in high school), and they should be given the opportunity to undergo this kind of training, like how there are scholarships for doctors who want to pursue an MD/PhD combined course of study, which is very costly in both time and monetary terms, but very useful for society. I think society would benefit much from having an adequate number of truly 'multidisciplinary' intellectuals, because it would prevent individual fields of study from skewing further and further away from each other.

Anyway, let's return to theories about trans and LGBT people. In the current highly specialized academic landscape, these topics mostly belong with philosophy, sociology and other parts of the humanities. The sciences (physics, chemistry etc.) usually don't find this a relevant topic, so there isn't even much in terms of 'counter-argument' theories to what is being offered in the humanities. The exception is clinical medicine, but even there, the amount of attention devoted to trans and LGBT issues is less than what is available in the humanities. This, I think, explains why much of the theory currently out there about trans people is not really empirical, that is, not really based in observable, objective reality. This really frustrates me, as someone who believes in moving towards a more empirical understanding of trans people and trans issues.

How Trans Activism Limits our Models of Possibility | Trans Sandwiched #11

Today, I want to talk about the concept of 'possibility models', popular among some parts of the trans community, and use it to examine how the current dominant discourse of trans activism limits the models of possibility available for trans people, and hence are actually harming the trans community.

First, let's look at the idea of 'possibility models'. This term was popularized by trans actress Laverne Cox (from Orange is the New Black), who used it in an interview back in 2014. "I hate the term 'role model'. I think it's presumptuous to think anyone should model their life after me, but I do like the term 'possibility model' and thinking about what's possible," Cox said. Hence, a 'possibility model' is basically a trans person living out a model of life that can inspire other trans people to realize the possibilities about how their life can be like. In the case of Cox, the 'possibility' is that a trans person can aspire to be a popular actress, for example.

I think the idea of 'possibility models' is important, because it encourages trans people towards self-actualization, which would also be important for our mental wellbeing. In a world where trans representation remains limited, the availability of a wide variety of 'possibility models' is especially important for trans people who are at the stage of life where they need to figure out where to take their lives.

In my view, individual 'possibility models' (embodied by specific people) can be further grouped into what I would call 'models of possibility' (more generalized forms). For example, Cox showed trans people who wanted to get into acting that they can be successful too. Nowadays, there are many more successful trans actresses. Together, they show that being a successful actress can be a 'model of possibility', a general goal to aspire towards, for trans people who are interested in acting. Other common 'models of possibility' for trans people include being successful in fields like academia, journalism, computer science, or even being a successful YouTuber, just to mention a few areas where prominent trans people have found success in.

I also think that 'models of possibility' are not necessarily limited to careers, because careers are not the only thing people define their lives by. For example, there are plenty of trans women who are very feminine, and plenty of trans women who have a more tomboyish or gender-neutral presentation and lifestyle. These 'styles' represent a spectrum of 'models of possibility' for newly out trans women still discovering their style.

This brings me onto the most important point I want to make here. In recent years, the dominant trans narrative, heavily shaped by the actions of certain activists, paints a 'picture' of a typical trans person as being constantly in intense conflict with various parts of wider society. To be fair, this is not entirely the fault of the activists, because trans issues have indeed (unfortunately) become a culture war football. However, activists have often sought to highlight and heighten those conflicts, contributing to the 'picture'. One thing we need to understand is that it doesn't have to be this way, and it hasn't always been this way. For example, when I first came out as trans, back when I was in college, the common 'picture' of a trans person was someone who was singularly focused on their transition, to the point where they often didn't care about much else happening in the wider world. I'm not saying that this was better, it's just that the 'picture' changes depending on the times.

The problem with the current 'picture' is that it is effectively suppressing certain 'models of possibility' for trans people. For example, there are many people who are inherently conflict-averse, who prefer to use more peaceful and diplomatic means to resolve our differences. Given the random distribution of gender dysphoria in the population, logically speaking there must be plenty of trans people who are like that. Yet, given that almost all of our community representatives and icons tend to be on the loud and argumentative side, the 'model of possibility' of being a diplomatically inclined trans person is effectively suppressed and not readily available to those who would find it relatable. This is why many diplomatically inclined trans people have said that they don't feel like part of the community. Something really needs to change here.

I also want to briefly talk about what we discussed in the last episode, the strong influence of the ideas of the mid-20th century critical theorist Herbert Marcuse, and the resulting conflation of liberation from oppression with liberation from repression. The problem is that, while everyone of us would like to be treated fairly in society, not everyone of us would like to be 'liberated' from all forms of Freudian repression. By upholding the Marcusean anti-repression ideal as an integral part of their version of trans liberation, the activist establishment is effectively suppressing other 'models of possibility' that many trans people would find more relatable. These include, but are not limited to, the possibility of being a traditionally modest trans woman, the possibility of living a community-oriented life in the suburbs, and the possibility of being a religious trans person. These 'models of possibility' might not be for everyone, but true trans justice and liberation would require that they be readily available for those who want them.

I guess, just by using my voice to provide my perspective, an alternative trans perspective to the dominant 'picture' out there these days, I am also providing a 'model of possibility' in the process. I am trying to demonstrate that it is possible to be committed to trans rights and still embrace a more diplomatically inclined method of resolving differences. I am also trying to demonstrate that, if you reach out to people who might not be entirely in agreement with you, you might still find plenty of common ground and even some friendship. Above all, I am trying to demonstrate that the world doesn't have to feel like a hostile place for trans people, if that's not how you want to see the world. I hope my work can inspire more trans people to embrace the complete picture of who they really are, rather than just accepting what the activist establishment and some parts of society think we ought to be like.

Are Trans Activists Confusing Oppression and Repression? | Trans Sandwiched #10

Today, I want to talk about an idea I have been thinking about quite a lot lately: the confusion resulting from the conflation of oppression, i.e. unfair treatment, and repression in a Freudian sense, which includes things like emotional restraint. Previously, I argued that this idea, originating in the works of critical theorist Herbert Marcuse in the 1950s and 60s, has since become the unconscious wisdom among a wide range of left-wing activists, often leading them to misguided actions. Today, I will specifically look at the effects of the conflation of oppression and repression on trans and LGBT activism.

While the oppression-repression conflation seems to have impacted almost all sectors of leftist activism, the LGBT context is particularly prone to its influence, because injustice regarding sexual orientation is inherently related to repression. For example, allowing straight people to marry, but prohibiting gay relationships, is not only unfair in a social sense, it also causes an unequal burden of repression, because gay people would be expected to restrain their natural desires to a much greater extent than straight people. Thus, in the example of the criminalization of gay relationships, we see that unequal repression is indeed a form of oppression, by definition. However, the key word here is unequal. The problem is that, LGBT activism, which ultimately has its roots in the 20th century campaign to legalize gay relationships, has often forgotten to make a clear distinction between repression itself, and the unequal repression the community was suffering from, the distinction being 'unequal'. Hence, certain factions of LGBT activism have long swallowed the idea that repression equals oppression, and have long idealized a world without repression and restraint of any kind.

I have actually come to believe that this is what is ultimately behind the long-standing divide between so-called 'assimilationists' and radical 'liberationists' (i.e. non-assimilationists) in LGBT activist circles. After all, the labels on their own are a bit meaningless. For example, as someone who championed gay marriage for 15 years, and put this issue at the heart of my politics for quite a while, I was seen by many in the community as an 'assimilationist'. More recently, for prioritizing trans rights that would allow trans people to live better in society, above what I see as pointless philosophy wars, I am again branded as an 'assimilationist' by the same people. However, I don't actually see why my politics is inherently more 'assimilationist' than theirs. If you think about it, being willing to forego gay marriage, and being willing to stay outside mainstream society as a trans person, would definitely reduce the potential of upsetting the ultra-conservative elements of society. So, in a way, we are actually the unapologetically pro-LGBT ones, and they are the conformist ones. It wouldn't make sense to call us the 'assimilationists'!

However, if 'assimilationist' is interepreted as being okay with Freudian repression (as long as it's equal and fair), and 'liberationist' is interepreted as liberation from all repression and restrain, then it suddenly makes sense. After all, marriage is repressive in a Freudian sense, and so is being part of mainstream society, and it makes sense that these anti-repression 'liberationists' wouldn't want those things. Therefore, the self-proclaimed 'liberationists' are basically people who base their whole politics around anti-repression, like Marcuse did, and the people they decry as 'assimilationists' are basically people who reject the Marcusean approach.

The problem with an 'anti-repressive' LGBT politics is that it doesn't actually make life better for LGBT people. The anti-repressive radicals of the 20th century weren't successful with decriminalizing homosexuality in most places. Their very public displays of 'righteous anger' and their deliberate offence against polite society arguably slowed down the progress. Instead, it was the people they decried as 'assimilationists', who tirelessly made their case in a calm and rational manner, who got the job done in the following decades. The same kind of people went on to win marriage equality, by getting the public on their side.

Just as things were getting better, the 'anti-repressive' side of the movement gained an upper hand again, and started using their 'righteous anger' to de-platform people who disagree with them, while accusing those of us who don't support these actions as playing 'respectability politics'. The same 'anti-repressive' activists also support including displays many are uncomfortable with in Pride parades, because that's supposedly liberation from repression. Meanwhile, these activists continue to ignore the rising backlash resulting from their actions among the general public, especially towards the trans community. You know, there really is nothing liberating about antics that alienate the public and make LGBT lives harder in the real world. In fact, I think this approach to 'LGBT liberation' is basically self-defeating.

It's time that we take the question of oppression vs repression in LGBT activism more seriously. Given the moment of backlash but also potential progress on trans acceptance we find ourselves in, this topic is more important than ever. Rather than just accepting the Marcuseans' framing of the question as about 'assimilation vs liberation', we should cut to the actual reason behind our differences. We need to sincerely talk about this question: is an anti-repressive LGBT politics actually productive? Or it is counterproductive? Could appropriate restraint be a good thing, if we want to build a successful movement to make LGBT lives better in the real world?

Trans Woman Explains Her Gender Identity | Diary of a Trans Popstar

People sometimes ask me, what do you mean by 'identifying as a woman'? After all, most people say they don't think about gender much, so they can't really understand what strongly identifying as a gender is like.

I can't speak for everyone else, but for me, I guess it's simple. It goes back all the way to early childhood, as early as I was taught that there were boys and girls. It was clear that I wanted to dress like the girls, do what they do, and so on. As a kid, most of my friends were girls, and my favorite books were stories about girls. I guess that was the beginning of me 'identifying as female'. After all, it's just natural for people to identify with others they find similar.

Now, some of you may say, you can be a boy and still do all these things. Well, in the environment I grew up in, it wasn't very socially acceptable. You might then say, now that you've grown up, you should know better. But again, it's not that simple. Even if I could be a feminine man, I wouldn't be happy. You see, I also had gender dysphoria, in that I didn't like to be physically male, I felt uncomfortable about the idea of being in a relationship as a man, and so on. And these feelings increased as a I grew up, reaching a crisis when I was in my teens.

So this is what being trans is like. At least for me. I hope my story will help more people understand us.

Pronouns and Free Speech: A Trans Woman's View | Trans Sandwiched #9

Today, I want to talk about the issue of pronouns, which has, in recent years, gained an unusual amount of prominence in the trans discourse. In fact, there is a view that the issue of pronouns has taken attention away from more bread and butter issues, like housing and employment for trans people, and this is a view that I certainly agree with to some extent. After all, even if everyone used the correct pronouns, it would be no good if trans people were still highly disadvantaged in employment, for example. The issue of pronouns is also a controversial one, especially since it has been linked to the wider issue of free speech in the broader (non-trans) political landscape. I will spend some time talking about this controversy later in this episode.

But first, let's get back to the basics. It is clear that almost all trans people have a strong wish, to be referred to by the pronouns of the gender we identify with. Surely, non-trans people generally like to be referred to by the pronouns of their gender too, but the issue is particularly intense for many trans people. There are various reasons for this, including social convenience, assimilation, and simply not wanting to be abruptly outed when one is already passing to other people. However, perhaps the most important reason is rooted in gender dysphoria itself. Being referred to by our preferred pronouns essentially means not being called the other set of pronouns, which means not getting yet another reminder of the mismatch that is at the core of our gender dysphoria. And most of us would certainly appreciate not getting our gender dysphoria reinforced again and again in conversations. Therefore, I have tried to describe using a trans person's preferred pronouns as an exercise in compassion. And most people do accept this, in my experience.

In recent years, there has been a push by some to make a very big deal out of the use of pronouns in relation to trans people. This has turned the whole thing into a culture war battleground, linked to the wider debate around free speech outside the trans community. I personally think this is a regrettable development: I mean, as I have said, if we explain that using our preferred pronouns is a compassionate thing that helps us experience less dysphoria, most people out there do accept it. However, now that it's been turned into part of the free speech wars, some people are now deliberately resisting it. And so, the activists who are supposed to represent us have made a mess of the whole thing, and effectively made life harder for many of us.

For those who think that not using a trans person's preferred pronouns is 'standing for free speech' or something like that, please hear me out: the reason why we support free speech is that it is essential for free thought and free debate. Free speech means that you are free to articulate any idea, in the free market of ideas. If you have read my other writing, you would know that I am a big defender of free speech. The way we take a stand for free speech is to be unafraid to voice our own beliefs, and hence take a meaningful stance, in the debate of ideas, even if unpopular. Deliberately refusing to use a trans person's preferred pronouns is not this, however, because pronouns are not a debate of ideas, and no meaningful stance is actually being taken here. (Nor should pronouns be used as a 'proxy' for debate about ideas around gender, because that would just dumb down the debate so much as to make it a meaningless shouting match.) Conversely, by calling a trans woman 'she', you are not actually endorsing any idea, because as described above, it is simply an act of compassion.

Now, let's turn to the activists. It is clear that the culture wars over pronouns are not doing us trans people any good. Therefore, things need to change. Not only are the pronoun wars distracting from bread and butter issues like housing and employment, they are now likely to be stalling trans acceptance among the general public, due to association with the wider culture wars out there. Furthermore, the pronoun wars are even dividing the trans community itself. The best example of this is perhaps the 2019 online 'cancellation' of ContraPoints, which started when she made a comment about pronouns on twitter. When a disagreement about the use of pronoun rounds has led to intra-trans community cancel culture drama, you know that something has gone wrong, and we must start rethinking things.

Perhaps we should start by thinking about what would actually be good for trans people, in practice, and not just in theory. We need to think about solutions that would practically work, not philosophically driven schemes that most people simply wouldn't adopt in real life, or could even bring us backlash. And finally, let me say this: when thinking about the way we approach pronouns, we should stay away from postmodern critical theories about discourse and power, because that stuff would only serve to detract from being grounded in the reality of real life. Which is what trans people need most, right now.

Exit the Trans Culture War? | Diary of a Trans Popstar

You may have noticed that the conversation around trans issues has been plagued with conflict, accusations and anger in recent years. You may have noticed that there is a lot of shouting and name-calling, but not much actually gets resolved. What you may not have thought about is, does it have to be this way? What happened to make it this way? Is there another, better, way?

I think the degredation of the once polite conversation around trans issues into a culture war bonfire has a lot to do with the entry of things that have nothing to do with the everyday lives of trans people. Like activists with their own agendas from both extremes. And very academic philosophical debates. And, of course, a good dose of blue vs red style partisan politics. That, in particular, always poisons everything.

The truth is, nobody really benefits from this culture war type conversation. Trans people in particular suffer the most because of it. Next time the trans culture wars are on show again, ask these questions: isn't there a better way? Can't we do more mutual understanding, and less us-vs-them? Can't we try to find some common ground, and not heighten the conflict further? Can't we do better?

Most Trans People Probably Don't Care About Dave Chappelle or JK Rowling | Trans Sandwiched #8

Today, I want to talk about the way the media is covering debates over trans issues, and why there is a major problem there. In the past two episodes, we looked at the reaction to the Dave Chappelle Netflix special this year, and the controversy over comments by JK Rowling last year, respectively. In both cases, the 'trans community' as a whole supposedly reacted very negatively. But was that really the case?

I think a major problem with how the mainstream media covers controversial issues, is that it assumes there are two, and only two, sides to the debate. This is probably a mental reflex many people have, a result of living in a left-vs-right two party style political system, and knowing no other alternative. However, in reality, most debates really can't be simplified into just 'two sides'. The fallacy of simplifying every disagreement into 'two sides' is that you usually end up picking the two most extreme groups to amplify, because they stand in sharp contrast to each other. Everyone else is then force fitted into one group or the other. I believe this is actually one of the most important ways the media contributes to the polarization.

In fact, the trans community has always been quite diverse. There have always been arguments between trans people with different views. This was true even well before trans issues received mainstream attention, and recent developments have served to increase the diversity and the internal disagreements even more. The trouble is, the media likes to pretend that the diversity doesn't exist, as if we were a monolith, essentially represented by the loudest activists. This ultimately means that trans people, as a whole, are misrepresented to a great extent. I mean, I have encountered people who had a hard time understanding that I did not see gender as a social construct. Somehow, they must have thought that all trans people believed that gender is a social construct. In truth, there are also many trans people who are vehemently opposed to that idea!

The truth is, trans people come from all cultural backgrounds. Trans people are found in both big cities and rural communities alike, and are represented in all age brackets and demographic groups. They are also represented across the political spectrum. Hence, it isn't surprising that there are plenty of trans people who didn't care too much about the Chappelle or Rowling controversy. In fact, there are plenty of trans people who disagree in one way or another with the activists who supposedly represent us in the mainstream media. For example, there are plenty of trans people who continue to stand against cancel culture, and believe that free speech is the key to understanding, acceptance and rights. And of course, many trans people also want to see a stronger focus on the experience of gender dysphoria, in media coverage of trans issues, because that could contribute to much improved understanding among the general public. All this continues to be ignored by much of the mainstream media. The result is that many people have a stereotype of what a trans person is, and how a trans person thinks, which does not fit the reality of many trans lives.

From JK Rowling to Detrans: How Trans Activists Are Doing It Wrong | Trans Sandwiched #7

Dear fellow trans people: in this episode, I am going to talk about issues that have provoked strong feelings from some in our community. Please approach what I say with an open mind, and feel free to disagree. And remember that, ultimately, what we all want is to progress trans acceptance and make trans lives better. It is because of this goal, and concerns that we are not getting there, that I feel I have to say what I'm saying today.

Welcome back to Trans Sandwiched by TaraElla, where we talk about how trans people are now sandwiched between political forces with their own agenda on all sides, and what it means for us. Today, I want to talk about how trans activists are doing it wrong, by revisiting two topics: JK Rowling and the Detrans, or detransition, phenomenon.

Let's talk about JK Rowling first. The trans activist community has essentially defined JK Rowling as a transphobic enemy, and has put up a strong wall of resistance towards her. When this was first developing about two years ago, I cautioned against this approach, and I still stand by my views today. Let me explain. Let's start by analyzing this situation rationally. Right now, Rowling stands in opposition to some of the trans rights reforms many of us support. However, this does not automatically mean that she is transphobic. Being involved in gay marriage politics for over a decade has taught me that, sometimes, good people can and do disagree. And while it is natural to be disappointed when people take a stand against something you passionately support, such disagreements and disappointments are an inevitable part of a liberal democracy. As to whether Rowling is transphobic or not, I think we need to remember that disagreeing with, and disappointing, most trans people does not equal transphobic. I believe the question of whether someone is transphobic or not should be answered with reference to the commonly accepted standards in liberal democracy, not feelings-based responses, and certainly not justifications rooted in postmodern criticalism. And based on standards that are commonly applicable in liberal democracy, I do not believe that Rowling is 'transphobic', even though she disagrees with reforms we want. It's like how many people oppose gay marriage but are still not 'homophobic'.

The problem with the trans community's overreaction to people like Rowling is that, it doesn't do us any favors. Firstly, as many have observed, the trans community's overreaction has only pushed Rowling further into the other side, and she might have actually brought many people with her. Therefore, the whole exercise has only served to decrease trans acceptance. Secondly, perhaps even more importantly, in a liberal democracy, the undecided people generally make their minds up by observing the debate, and seeing which side makes more rational sense. Therefore, keeping calm and cool, arguing rationally, and being charitable to those who disagree with you are always good strategies to adopt. Sadly, the trans activist community is taking a maladaptive stance, a stance that would lose us support, and delay acceptance of trans people in the general community. It really is the opposite of how gay marriage was done, and this is why I'm so concerned.

Now, let's talk about the Detrans, or detransition community, people who once identified as trans but have gone back to their original gender. This has always been a sensitive issue in the trans community, but lately, I have been seeing a severe reluctance to even acknowledge the issue. As a result, Detrans people are often pushed into the arms of gender critical feminism, a movement that is eager to bring them on board and provide support and meaning for their suffering. This is why I have seen at least a few cases of Detrans people ending up completely anti-trans. I have argued in the past, and I will argue here again, that the trans community should provide acceptance and empathy towards Detrans people, and take their concerns on board where appropriate. Failing to do this adequately will almost certainly harm the credibility of the trans community in the long run.

Having examined these two examples, I think there is a common trend: the trans activist community is treating everything like a zero-sum game, where those who 'disagree' with the dominant trans narrative in any way are seen as threats or enemies. I think the recent rise of postmodernism and critical theory has a lot to do with this. During the gay marriage movement, there wasn't nearly as much influence from postmodern criticalism, but just in the past few years, the balance of forces among the activist community has drastically changed. The postmodern criticalism worldview is that all knowledge and discourse is shaped by power, which essentially has the effect of encouraging an attitude of zero-sum struggle against people who promote an alternative view of things. As a result, LGBT activism has become much more antagonistic to those who disagree, and this has caused a level of backlash that has not been seen for many years. This just shows how the rise of postmodernism and criticalism has made the LGBT community less effective in its pursuit of acceptance and accommodation from the general community. I really hope we can turn the ship around before it's too late.

Think You Really Understand Trans People? | Diary of a Trans Popstar

Do you think you really understand trans people? Do you think you already know everything there is to know about trans people, because the media already told you, or because you've heard it all from some source? Think again.

Being trans is not a fashion statement. Being trans is not a political movement. Being trans is not a product of some academic ideology. And being trans is certainly nothing like the sensational stories you hear too often in the media.

The truth is, much of the conversation around trans people these days is strongly colored by people with an agenda. Their agenda comes from both extremes of the political spectrum, but what they have in common is they want to paint trans people in a certain way, to justify their doctrines. As a result, there's a lot of misinformation around trans people and trans lives out there right now. You might think trans people have come a long way in terms of visibility, but unfortunately, much of it is tied with misinformation, which is actually worse than no visibility at all.

Being trans is an inborn immutable characteristic, like race or sexual orientation. However, it comes with its own set of experiences, needs and challenges. What we ask for is understanding, fair treatment, and compassionate accommodation from society. This is what we want you, society, to see.

Dave Chappelle, Trans Issues and Free Speech | Trans Sandwiched #6

Today, I want to talk about the recent uproar over the new Dave Chappelle Netflix special that some people have described as transphobic. I then want to expand the discussion into the wider issue of trans issues and free speech, something that is close to my heart.

I actually don't want to go into the content of the Dave Chappelle special. I personally find most of Dave Chappelle's stuff to be in bad taste, and I'm definitely not a fan. However, I think, as a society, we have been overly focused on finding racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia and so on in what people say. The problem is, this has not only not been effective in reducing discrimination and bigotry in society in general, it probably contributed to a substantial backlash towards the concept of social justice. Given that I believe the practice could be harmful, I'm not going to engage in it.

Having said that, I'm going to make just one comment: I believe we shouldn't throw the term 'TERF' around carelessly. Of course, it probably began with activists who like to inappropriately describe people like JK Rowling as 'TERFs'. Anyway, we should all stop doing it. TERF refers to gender critical feminism, a very specific left-wing ideology with a very specific form of anti-trans politics, and its meaning shouldn't be diluted. There is already enough misunderstanding as it is.

Anyway, what I found most important about this episode is that, once again, some people are out to pit free speech and trans people against each other. It really feels like last year's Harper's Free Speech letter drama is being replayed all over again. It appears that, the people behind the cause of 'cancel culture' are finding trans people to be good fuel for their cause. And I am indeed describing 'cancel culture' as a political cause: its roots go all the way back to the logic found in Herbert Marcuse's infamous 1965 essay Repressive Tolerance. Its objective is to change the way we think about free speech, free debate and freedom of conscience. Indeed, I believe that cancel culture is ultimately about cancelling liberalism itself, something in line with the objectives of radical critical theory.

Most people are passionately opposed to cancel culture, and with very good reason. My concern here is, if trans people are seen as supporters of cancel culture, we will bear the brunt of the backlash. While I am certain that the majority of trans people don't support cancel culture, I am concerned that we are being portrayed that way by the actions of certain activists. I don't think it's fair to us that this is being done to us.

As a trans person, I believe that free speech is the key to resolving issues and improving society in general. I also believe that free speech has been instrumental to the advancement of LGBT acceptance in particular, you just need to look at the gay marriage experience to see that. Free speech and the LGBT community have always been great friends, and they should remain great friends. It really pains me to see the inability of some trans activists to deal with speech they don't agree with. The point is, debate happens by people alternately agreeing and disagreeing with each other, and ultimately finding common ground where they can. We should all participate in this process in good faith. We should meet people where they are, and work out our disagreements. When we encounter ideas we disagree with, we raise our alternative viewpoint. What we should never do is to go around and demand that people be de-platformed, because that would disable the debate entirely, and lock everything in a permanent stalemate.

Revisiting Trans Empiricism | Trans Sandwiched #5

Today, I want to talk about the idea of 'trans empiricism', which I first raised earlier this year. Back then, I outlined how a 'trans empiricist' approach could put the focus of the trans conversation back on the experiences and needs of people who suffer from gender dysphoria, and end the dominance of academic debates of gender philosophy that have nothing to do with the everyday lives of trans people. Today, I will clearly explain what a trans empiricist approach looks like, and how it can help us put the conversation around trans issues back on track.

So what is trans empiricism? Basically, it's taking an empirical approach to the phenomenon of transgenderism, for lack of a better term. To be empirical is simply to be committed to the objective truth, and base our claims on observable evidence. In the empirical approach, observable evidence is taken to be the best representation of the truth. Empiricism is useful because it grounds our thinking in objective reality, and arguably protects us from sophistry. Using an empiricist lens, we can observe the following facts, regarding the trans phenomenon:

Firstly, trans people exist, and they comprise less than 1% of the population.
Secondly, the vast majority of trans people suffer from gender dysphoria, and transition because they want to alleviate their gender dysphoria.
Finally, gender is correlated with genetic sex in more than 99% of cases in the general population.
An extension to this point is that, there is a clear difference between trans people, and non-trans people, therefore the experiences of one group cannot be generalized to the other. This is a very important point I will come back to.

The aforementioned empirical observations form the foundation of the trans empiricist argument. This is a strong foundation for effectively untangling some of the most heated debates around gender and trans people today. This will help us move on from such arguments, so we can focus on more constructive discussions.

In the past three episodes, I discussed how certain radical feminists and postmodern activists have been pushing the idea that 'gender is a social construct', and tying this idea to their support or rejection of trans people. As a result, the trans discourse has been needlessly tied into this pointless philosophical question. A trans empiricist approach would overcome this in multiple ways. Firstly, the validity of trans people can be established simply by their continued existence in a similar pattern across time (at least several generations) and culture (trans people are present in every part of the world). Therefore, trans people are valid regardless of whether gender is a social construct. Secondly, the empirical fact that gender is correlated with genetic sex in more than 99% of the general population provides strong evidence against gender being a social construct.

Perhaps most importantly, the fact that gender is correlated with genetic sex in the vast majority of people, but not in trans individuals, mean that there is a very significant difference between the two groups. This, in turn, means that the experiences of trans people cannot be generalized to the general population; that trans people must be understood as a minority group with special accommodation needs. Recognition of this fact is good in two ways: firstly, it stops the postmodernist agenda of using trans people to demonstrate that gender is a social construct, or to deconstruct gender in general society. Secondly, by preventing trans people from being used like this, we can reassure the general public that trans rights do not amount to a radical change for the rest of the population, rather it is aimed at making life easier for a small minority of the population. This move would be analogous to when the gay marriage movement pointed out that legalizing gay marriage would only allow gay couples to get married, and not 'destroy marriage as we know it'. This realization, I believe, led to high levels of support for gay marriage in the general public.

Another thing is, postmodernists have been preventing a focus on gender dysphoria by participating in the long-standing 'transmed vs tucute' debate, and marginalizing voices in favor of centering dysphoria. Basically, transmedicalists believe that being trans is rooted in gender dysphoria, and that you need gender dysphoria to be trans. Tucutes believe that this view is judgemental, and amounts to gatekeeping. Postmodernists have made centering gender dysphoria impossible, by encouraging this divide, taking the side of the tucutes, and sometimes even resorting to baseless accusations of the transmed camp, e.g. that they are discriminating towards non-binary people, which most of them clearly aren't.

Trans empiricism overcomes this situation, by eliminating the need for this argument in the first place. An empiricist approach is agnostic about whether one 'needs gender dysphoria' to be 'validly trans', because it always accepts people as they are. However, the empirical evidence does clearly point to gender dysphoria being the main driver of trans identity and gender transition. Therefore, even without establishing whether gender dysphoria is a necessary feature of being trans, we can still establish that gender dysphoria is the most important feature of trans lives in general. This way, a trans empiricist can justifiably argue for much more attention to be placed on gender dysphoria, and the needs of people struggling with gender dysphoria, without being entangled in other philosophical questions.

In conclusion, a trans empiricist approach, one rooted in the observed objective reality, can help end the entanglement of trans issues with pointless philosophical debates that have little to do with trans people. It can help prevent trans issues from being taken advantage by those with an agenda, and restore the struggles of gender dysphoria back to the center of the conversation. I believe this would greatly help to advance the understanding and acceptance of trans people among the general public.

The Philosophy Wars Over Trans Lives and Truth | Trans Sandwiched #4

Today, I want to talk about the philosophy wars that are confusing the public discussion over trans issues, how it harms trans people, and the broader implications for society.

Right now, there are several different factions involved in the debate over trans issues, all with their own rationale for supporting or opposing trans rights to certain degrees. However, two of the loudest are the gender critical feminists, sometimes known as trans-exclusionary radical feminists, and the postmodern feminists. The former are staunchly against trans rights, while the latter are theoretically for them. Note that when I say 'gender critical', I mean the activist movement that is committed to that particular ideology, not just anyone who may be questioning certain trans issues.

What makes these two factions so important is that their views of trans people have become disproportionally influential in the general public, probably because they have the most dedicated activists. What I'm most concerned about is that, this essentially philosophical war over trans people, one that is not fought on scientific grounds but rather on philosophical grounds, is confusing the important issues, and leading to unwarranted backlash against trans people.

What may surprise many people is that, the gender criticalists and the postmodernists actually share a fundamental worldview, that is, gender is a social construct created by the patriarchy to oppress women. In turn, this is a particular expression of the general critical theory worldview: that the ideas held to be true by most people are often a social construct to serve the oppressors of society. Now, this might make sense if we were talking about laws or political systems. But to apply the idea to the realm of biological science is, I believe, basically no different from religious fundamentalism. As I previously pointed out, even if we separate gender out from genetic sex, there is still plenty of evidence that gender, defined as the social and psychological aspects, is mostly rooted in biology, and therefore not a social construct. Indeed, this biology based understanding of gender had been the basis of how many understood trans people for many decades. There is also no scientific reason as to why it should be abandoned.

For many decades, gender critical feminists, who believed that gender is a social construct, and therefore could be abolished, had been at odds with trans people, who believed that gender is innate and rooted in the biology of the brain. After all, if the gender critical feminists were right, then trans people would be basically invalid. If trans people were right, then the gender criticalist goal of abolishing gender would be impossible. This has always been the root reason of why gender critical feminism opposed trans rights. More recently, a third faction emerged, the postmodern feminists. The postmodernists hold that gender is a social construct, and the best way to essentially abolish it is to disrupt and deconstruct it. Therefore, they welcome trans people as disruptors of the gender binary. As you can see, the postmodernists' view is much closer to the gender critical than to old-school trans people, but their different theory of how to disrupt gender has led them to support trans rights.

I believe the rise of the postmodernist narrative is not because it is valid or logical. Like everything else postmodern, it is clearly not very logical. However, it is convenient. Especially by the 2010s, feminism was enjoying a resurgence, and trans rights had become a prominent issue, because of the rise of LGBT civil rights. If there were a conflict between the two, the progressive side of politics could descend into deep crisis. The conflict could have been resolved by adopting liberal feminism, but many people on the Left refused to do that because they connect liberal feminism to capitalism, which they see as inherently evil. Instead, they adopted postmodernism, which meant that they could continue the work of social constructionist radical feminism while also supporting trans rights. Very convenient, but not scientific or even logically consistent.

Ultimately, relying on postmodern philosophical sophistry to build the New Left's latest coalition has served to harm trans people and trans rights. People on the Right in particular love to constantly point out the multiple logical inconsistencies. There's a glaring inconsistency between the idea of gender being a social construct, and the idea of gender identity being innate to trans individuals. There's also the question of, if it is valid to be transgender, why is it not valid to be transracial, which would after all be no different under the postmodern worldview. All this time, our supposed community leaders have not been able to provide a response to these very valid points, as they have become beholden to the nonsense that is postmodernism. In turn, this has allowed both the anti-trans conservatives and the gender critical feminists to look more reasonable than us, which has meant increased support for their worldviews, and increased resistance to trans rights.

I believe, to get anything resolved, the most important thing is to uphold the truth. To deny fundamental facts using philosophical sophistry, like postmodernism essentially seeks to do, or to build shaky coalitions of political convenience, like so-called intersectionality seeks to do, can only create confusion. Ultimately, the truth trumps all philosophical sophistry. As trans people, we should return to the truth we have always known: that we are living proof that gender is not a social construct. The fact that so many trans people suffer from such intense gender dysphoria is the best proof that gender is biological, that it is in the brain rather than constructed by society. We need to uphold this truth, and tell it loud and clear to the world. The truth we know about ourselves will gain us respect, understanding and acceptance. Allying with one side in a philosophical war that doesn't even authentically respect our existence will not do us any good.

The Pointless, Dangerous Alliance of the Transphobic | Trans Sandwiched #3

Today, I want to talk about the unprincipled and pointless alliance of two groups: the gender critical feminists on the Left, and the reactionary anti-LGBT faction of the Right. Note that when I say 'gender critical', I mean the activist movement that is committed to that particular ideology, not just anyone who may be questioning certain trans issues.

First of all, let me make it clear: this alliance clearly doesn't make sense at all, except to oppose trans people and trans rights. Gender critical feminism is a very Left-wing revolutionary ideology that seeks to radically change society, while the reactionary faction of the Right are opposed to LGBT rights as part of their broad resistance to all social change. They literally belong on the extreme opposite ends of the political spectrum! On one hand, if the gender critical feminists win, there will be social changes much more radical than the longest and wildest trans rights wishlist. On the other hand, if the reactionary Right wins, they will turn the clock back so far for women that trans people would be the least of any feminist's worry. In other words, gender critical feminists and the reactionary Right are essentially willing to enter a de-facto alliance with their worst enemies, the people who would destroy everything they hold dear, just to oppose 0.3% of the population!

Now, before you say that there is no alliance, I will acknowledge that there is no formal alliance. But it is clear that there is substantial cooperation going on, and it is clearly not accidental or subconscious either. For example, intellectuals on the Right who otherwise consistently oppose critical theory somehow often make an exception for gender criticalism. The same people who go on and on about why critical race theory and queer theory are so problematic and even dangerous often won't speak a bad word about gender critical feminism, even though they clearly share the same roots. Some of them might even try to paint the gender criticalists in a sympathetic light, saying that they are more 'reasonable' than trans activists because they 'acknowledge biology'. What they forget is that the fundamental worldview of gender critical feminism is the idea that 'gender is a social construct', which wouldn't be 'acknowledging biology' at all if we stick to the standards of empirical and evolutionary science. Opposing all other forms of critical theory while being sympathetic to one specific form of it, just to oppose trans rights, is the height of hypocrisy! Many gender critical feminists have also actively supported anti-trans rights campaigns that are clearly started by, and funded by, the Right. Some of them have even spoken at events held by famous Right-wing organizations! It's really a good example of 'cutting off one's nose to spite one's face'.

As to why a clearly unprincipled alliance like this can exist, without much challenge to it, I think it's due to several reasons. Firstly, most people don't really expect or require others to act in good faith anymore. Perhaps we are all jaded by the dishonesty of our politicians and leaders. However, we must not let our disappointment turn into justification of the unjustifiable. No matter how bad the reality is, we must not give up on demanding that people act honestly and in good faith. Secondly, the rise of critical theory and postmodernism has put a major dent in the need to be righteous and truthful in public life. After all, if even some of the most respected philosophers and academics think that sometimes the ends justify the means, maybe there are times when the ends do justify the means, even if they are unscrupulous means? That's the problem with postmodern morality. For those of us who don't want to go down that rabbit hole, we must remember that, no ends can be justified by dishonest means. Finally, perhaps people are just too busy to think deeply anymore. Thinking deeply and clearly is required to expose the hypocrisy. I'm really worried that the world of social media, the world of 15 second videos and 280 character statuses, is making people superficial and dumb.

So what can we do about this? I think that, as people who are awake to this hypocrisy, and especially as trans people who are caught up by this hypocrisy, we have a unique opportunity to expose it, and hence to help restore the expectation of honesty and good faith. We just need to speak up. Be brave enough to speak the truth loud and clear. Speak the truth loud and clear until they hear us. There is no other way, really.

How Theory Harms Trans People and the LGBT Community | Trans Sandwiched #2

Welcome back to Trans Sandwiched by TaraElla, where we talk about how trans people are now sandwiched between political forces with their own agenda on all sides, and what it means for us. Today, I want to talk about how theory, specifically the various theories that can be largely grouped under the umbrella of postmodern critical theory, is harming trans people and the LGBT community, in more ways than one. I believe theory is the biggest obstacle we have in front of us right now, which is why we must discuss it.

Let's start here. In recent years, I have noticed a decline in the level of psychological wellbeing in the LGBT community. Despite things having objectively improved throughout the Western world for LGBT people in the past 20 years, I have never seen so much anger, frustration and pessimism among my fellow LGBT people. During the time I was in college, conservatives in most US states and several other countries like Australia actively moved to ban gay marriage, but even then LGBT people weren't so angry and frustrated. From my high school days to the present, gay marriage went from being legal in zero countries to being legal in most of the West; anti-discrimination laws have been gradually extended, you can no longer be fired for being LGBT, but LGBT people seem to be getting angrier all the time. And this doesn't make sense to me. Digging deeper, I came to the conclusion that postmodern theory was the culprit of this change.

Back in the 1950s, the psychologist Julian B. Rotter developed the idea that people could be placed on a spectrum of having an internal locus of control on one end, vs an external locus of control on the other end. People with an internal locus of control believed that they were in control of, and responsible for, the successes or failures in their lives, and Rotter observed that they had high achievement motivation. This, of course, is an essential ingredient for success in life, as well as a key factor in psychological health. On the other hand, postmodern critical theories teach women and various minorities, including ethnic minorities and LGBT people alike, that our fate is being determined by an oppressive system that won't let us succeed, and this doesn't really change even with the various aforementioned legal reforms, which I think is nonsense, but it's what they would have us believe. Postmodern criticalism is effectively encouraging us to develop an external locus of control, which is both bad for our mental health and make us less successful in our own lives. I therefore like to argue that these theories are actually more effective at oppressing minorities and keeping us down, than whatever the most bigoted reactionaries out there can dream of.

Similarly, another 20th century psychologist Abraham Maslow, most famous for his 'Maslow's hierarchy of needs', observed that self-actualizing individuals, people who were able to reach the highest level on his pyramid model of development, shared several important characteristics. Among them was being grounded in reality and being committed to the truth, things that are actively discouraged by postmodernism. Self-actualizing people were also spontaneous, creative, and not rigidly bound by social conventions, the opposite of what postmodern criticalism would impose on us in the form of making everything problematic, telling us to 'check our privilege' all the time, and forcing a whole new and unnatural way of speaking and relating onto all of us because they believe that language shapes reality. In other words, postmodern criticalism actively prevents us from reaching our full development according to the Maslow's hierarchy of needs, which means that it is literally regressive!

Besides acting to harm our psychological health, theory also exerts a negative effect on the conversation around trans issues in the wider world, leading to fewer successes and more backlash when it comes to trans rights. This also happens in multiple ways. Firstly, postmodern theory essentially teaches us that we don't have to work with reality. As if reality itself is simply a social construct that can be altered at will, simply by changing our language, or forcing other people to change their language. However, human beings are just like any other living being on this planet, and are completely subject to the basic rules of biology, especially evolutionary biology. Certain things, like our sense of gender both in ourselves and in the outside world, or whether one is attracted to another person or not, are hardwired into all of us, because it would be evolutionarily adaptive to do so. No language games can change that. This is why, when it comes to nature vs nurture, I come down strongly on the nature side, and I believe there is plenty of empirical evidence supporting my stance. Anyway, the important thing to know is, life is full of inherent limitations, and effective solutions need to take these limitations into account. We need to take empirical reality as it is, and compromise with reality's limitations to reach effective solutions. The trans community of 10 years ago understood this, but today's trans activists seem not to.

Secondly, the very presence of theory, much of it unscientific, has served to confuse the fundamentals of the conversation on trans issues. For example, there has been a fixation on the question of whether gender is a social construct, which is a core belief of the postmodern criticalist worldview. I personally strongly disagree with the idea of gender being a social construct, because I think the empirical science says otherwise. However, that is not the important point. The important point is that, we shouldn't be focusing on these pointless philosophical debates. We should be focusing on the reality of trans lives, and what could be done to make those lives better. We should be focusing on the actual difficulties faced by people who are suffering from gender dysphoria, rather than the philosophy of what gender is. Trans lives are real lives, not some hypothetical academic question. We want practical solutions that work, not philosophy or theory that only works on paper.

What It's Like To Be Trans and Awake in 2021 | Trans Sandwiched #1

Welcome to the first ever episode of Trans Sandwiched by TaraElla. Today, I want to introduce what this thing is going to be about. Let's start here: why did I name it 'Trans Sandwiched'? It's because the fundamental experience of being trans right now, in 2021, is being eternally sandwiched between forces bigger than yourself. Forces with their own agendas, who use trans people for their own purposes, who shout louder than we ever can, because they have access to the mainstream media and other levers of power and influence. Their narratives drown out that of real trans people and their experiences struggling with gender dysphoria, and ultimately serve to confuse the conversation around trans issues among the general public. This, in turn, paralyzes any hope of progress, and even causes backlash, a backlash that is keenly felt by trans people around the world.

Let's not sugarcoat it. Being sandwiched like this is hard, sad, and frustrating. However, it has also given me some insight. This includes, most importantly, insight on why certain groups or political factions act the way they do, and what ultimately drives their agenda. My experience of being sandwiched has taught me that, often, all sides are hypocrites, who ultimately only want that one thing they are obsessed with in their mind, and they are willing to trample on other people to achieve it. What Nietzsche called 'Will To Power' is not only alive and well in the 21st century West, it is also very scary. Being trans, in our current context, has awakened me to the huge problem of agenda driven discourses and so-called movements plaguing the world around us.

My journey to understand the forces confusing the trans conversation led me to unexpected places: revolutionaries who essentially want to do the equivalent of changing the color of the sky. Reactionaries who essentially want to go back not to the 1950s, but all the way back to before the Enlightenment happened. People who believe that free speech simply isn't important at all. Other people who claim to defend free speech, but only when it's speech they like. People who think that divisive identity politics would somehow lead to liberation for all. Other people who claim to oppose identity politics but are really practicing it in stealth. This show is, to a great extent, all about these forces, their hypocrisy and logical inconsistency, and the harms they are doing to both the trans community and the wider world.

Indeed, my aim in starting this show was twofold: firstly, I wanted to improve the quality of the trans discourse, so that we get to better understanding, which is essential for progress on trans issues. I wanted to dispel the myths that are being injected into the conversation by people with their own agendas on all sides. I wanted to prevent, as much as possible, people on all sides from playing trans people like a political football. I don't know if one small project, started by one person, can really do all this. But I decided that, failing this, there would still be another reason for this show: when life gives you lemons, you make lemonade. Now that I am awake to all the toxic forces trying to shape our society, culture and politics, even if I can't stop them, maybe I could at least expose them, so more people can be awaken, like myself. That would at least make what we, as trans people in the early 21st century, are going through meaningful and productive, in some way.

A Trans Popstar's Story: Being Trans and Chasing Dreams During Quarterlife

It all began with the dream. Ever since I was young, I had wanted to be somebody who participated in the cultural conversation, rather than just observe it. I was determine to be one of those who made the culture. I didn't know what I wanted to make, I didn't know what I wanted to say, but I knew I wanted to 'join the conversation', and help shape the culture.

However, there were a few problems. Firstly, I didn't know how to get into those exclusive places where they make the culture, i.e. TV studios, Hollywood, established record labels, or at least your local radio station. I knew nobody who had any connection to that world, and it seemed like most people in that world were connected with each other. In other words, it seemed that you had to 'know the right people' to 'get the entry ticket'. Secondly, well, I'm trans. And back in the 1990s and 2000s, there certainly weren't any trans people I knew of, in those exclusive places where they made the culture. 

Available at:
Amazon
Smashwords (free)
Open Library

Difference | Diary of a Trans Popstar

Each of us is unique and different from each other, and I think that's actually a great thing. After all, if we were all the same, life would be very boring indeed. As the saying goes, variety is the spice of life.

Having people with different views to debate, or even argue with, gives our lives meaning. Making friends with people from different cultures allows us to understand how big and diverse and wonderful the world really is. And having a group of friends with different personalities makes life and friendships interesting.

Difference is great. Let's embrace it.

Let's Talk | Diary of a Trans Popstar

To all the people out there who don't like me, who don't like what I represent, who don't like what I say, I say, let's talk. Let's talk to see if we can resolve our differences. After all, disagreements often turn out to be misunderstandings, and opposing viewpoints can often be combined to form a new whole.

Besides, it's often interesting and productive to talk with people who fundamentally disagree with you. You learn how to argue your own views, you learn new things, and you get to see a problem from different angles. Moreover, sometimes you get to make lifelong memories this way.

So, I guess, let's talk!

Tribalism | Diary of a Trans Popstar

Anywhere you go, there's just too much tribalism out there these days. It turns everything into an us-vs-them fight, and makes people unable to rationally discuss anything. This means, ultimately, nothing gets resolved, and nothing gets done.

I think the best antidote to tribalism is a healthy dose of independent thinking. Don't just believe what your peers say, or your supposed heroes tell you to believe. Follow your own conscience, and think about every issue carefully. You might come to some surprising conclusions.

Haters | Diary of a Trans Popstar

As the saying goes, the haters are going to hate. And I really don't care, to be honest. Life is too short to care about them, you know.

The thing is, people have different opinions about things all the time, and there are always going to be people who don't like you. The important thing is, to cherish the people who love you, and the people who might one day come to be your friends.

Instead of caring about the haters, I think we should win over as many friends and supporters as possible. For every person who has decided that they don't like you, there are many other people out there that you can potentially win over as new friends. Why dwell on the haters, when you can focus on potential friends?

The Key to Winning Trans Rights | An Asian Trans View

Today, I want to talk about an ugly truth: there is a trans moral panic out there. People are scared that trans people and trans issues are going to upset the order of society. It's like how there was a major moral panic around gay marriage back when I was in college, which saw the majority of US states, as well as other Western countries like Australia, moving swiftly to ban gay marriage. Luckily, the gay marriage movement was able to overcome this moral panic relatively quickly, which ultimately led to the vast majority of Western countries legalizing gay marriage over the next 15 years.

So how do we deal with the trans moral panic? I think it's important to look at what causes moral panics. I believe that, at a basic level, all moral panics are caused by a fear about damage to social institutions, commonly held values, and ultimately what keeps the social consensus going. In sociology, the theories that examine social consensus are called 'consensus theory'. They used to be dominant, before the rise of conflict theory in the 1970s. I believe the neglect of consensus theory in Western sociology in recent decades has contributed to an inability to examine and overcome moral panics.

There are many forms of consensus theory, but the most famous and influential school of consensus theory has to be Talcott Parsons's functionalism. Indeed, back in the post-war era, sociology and Parsonian functionalism were almost synonymous. Parsonian functionalism examines society using a functional lens. It is based on the idea that society needs to fulfill certain functions, namely adaptation, goal attainment, integration, and pattern maintenance. Parsons showed how institutions and social norms allowed society to fulfill these functions. Although Parson's analyses were criticized for being too focused on the 1950s middle class, I think we can apply a similar analysis to today's problems and learn a lot from it. The thing I like most about functionalism is how it understands that every society needs to fulfill certain functions, how complex systems are required to make it all work, and how important it is to appreciate things when they work well.

I know it's unfair that we have to face this current moment of backlash, but if we want to advance trans acceptance and trans rights, it's up to us to find a way out. I think if we want to overcome the trans moral panic, we need to show that we are able to work with society, and the complex components that maintain it. We need to show that trans rights will not damage things people hold dear. And it's true: trans rights do not pose a threat at all to these things. Postmodern ideology might pose a threat to these things, but it's actually completely separate from trans issues, and we need to make that clear. At the end of the day, the marriage equality movement was able to convince the public that gay marriage wouldn't harm families and marriages. I guess, now, it's up to us to show that trans rights, similarly, wouldn't harm things people hold dear. And learning a bit of consensus theory could help us a lot in this regard.

Why The Trans Echo Chamber is Unhealthy | An Asian Trans View

Today, I want to talk about why the trans echo chamber is so unhealthy for trans people. I think it comes down to the fact that the trans echo chamber is saturated with ideas from the trans activist establishment, and their thinking can cause a pattern of negativity, especially when combined with our inherent cognitive biases.

Let's start with this. One thing I often criticize the trans activist establishment about is that their thinking is full of critical theory, particularly postmodern critical theory. If you study the history of critical theory, you will know that it is heavily influenced by the old-school psychoanalysis of Freud, and perhaps others like Lacan. That's why there is so much emphasis on unconscious thoughts and beliefs. It's why people can be said to be unconsciously transphobic even when they don't mean to be transphobic at all. It's why even well meaning compliments could be seen as a 'microaggression' instead. This deeply negative attitude towards everything, is not helpful for anyone.

The problem with the Freudian influence is, old-school psychoanalysis was very much not evidence-based. It is therefore considered questionable in modern psychology. Instead, we may want to draw on a more modern approach to psychology, one that has a much more empirical, evidence-based, and hence scientifically sound, approach. And from modern psychology, particularly from cognitive psychology and cognitive science, we know that our brains are prone to particular cognitive biases. That is, we are all prone to seeing things in biased ways, due to the ways our brains are programmed. The cognitive biases I'm talking about are many, and they can often interact with each other too.

The trans echo chamber amplifies our inherent cognitive biases because it encourages us to see transphobia everywhere, and because it reinforces the idea that transphobia is everywhere. And from what we know about cognitive biases like congruence bias, confirmation bias, the framing effect, and the bizarreness effect, this can certainly lead us to seeing transphobia where there is none. And this is not helpful for anyone. Most of all, it is not helpful for trans people, who end up with lots of negative thought patterns, which they seek, and shall surely find, confirmation of in the world around them. We all know that positive thinking breeds success, and negative thinking does the opposite. This is why the trans echo chamber is so harmful for trans people and the trans community.

Why Gender Performativity Is Wrong and Anti Trans | An Asian Trans View

Today, I want to talk about why the idea of 'gender performativity', the idea that gender is a performance, is wrong, and also transphobic. Gender performativity is part of the wider set of ideas that consider gender to be a social construct, and I have, in the past, repeatedly argued that the idea of gender being a social construct is wrong. But today, I will specifically focus on gender performativity.

Firstly, there is no evidence to support the idea that gender is a performance. In other words, this idea is not evidence-based, it has no observable evidence in the real world to clearly support it, and it is therefore incompatible with the spirit of empiricism. This is the problem with the 'academic left' in the late 20th and early 21st century West: a lot of their theories simply lack a solid foundation of observable evidence to back it up. This, in turn, reflects a rejection of the importance of empiricism, which is partly caused by the rise of unempirical philosophical schools like critical theory and postmodernism.

Secondly, I think it is reasonable to argue that a 'performance' is only a 'performance' if it is being deliberately 'performed', which implies that there must be a personal choice in it. The fact that trans people suffer from gender dysphoria is proof that we cannot choose the 'gender' that we 'perform'. Therefore, the very existence of trans people basically disproves gender performativity.

Finally, I believe the idea of gender performativity is inherently transphobic, at least to some extent. Firstly, it is simply incompatible with the trans community's long standing belief that gender identity is innate. Under gender performativity, a person is always, simply the gender that they are performing. Therefore, a trans person, before their social transition, is of their birth gender. Furthermore, there is nothing more to social transition than to take on another performance. Given that it is all a performance, there is nothing 'authentic' about either gender performance. Hence this could also imply that transition is no more than a lifestyle choice. This is why I believe that gender performativity is inherently transphobic, even if the people promoting this idea may not be transphobic themselves.

How This Trans Person Sees Trans Jokes | An Asian Trans View

Today, I want to talk about a controversial topic: trans jokes. Let's get some background first. People have been saying trans jokes, like, forever. I mean, stand up comedians essentially recycle the same jokes again and again until they aren't even funny anymore, that's just what they do, right? Based on this, I thought that trans jokes were just going to eventually die out simply because they're not funny for anyone anymore.

But somehow, trans jokes have become a big controversy, in the stand up comedy scene, in a way I honestly never expected. Just like I never expected we would have two consecutive US Presidents older than the one before. And just like I never expected that one day people would become addicted to their phones. And honestly, it's not what I wanted to see, either. I mean, there are enough controversies around trans issues, I don't think we need this too. I'm sick and tired of being a political football. Or should I say, political basketball, because we are thrown around quite a lot these days.

Another thing is, some things are like, the least said the better. There's this old saying that you shouldn't rub salt into a wound, or something like that, right? Perhaps those people, who aren't trans themselves but make a big deal out of every perceived trans injustice, should take note of that.

So, how does this trans person see trans jokes? Well, as long as they are not intentionally bigoted or harmful, I personally don't have an issue with them. The bigger problem is that, I don't find them funny at all. But then again, I don't find most stand up type jokes funny. Maybe I'm just a no fun person after all. But maybe, just maybe, there really ain't anything funny about being trans, especially after you get used to it. Like there's nothing funny about the sun, the sky, or the rain. Trans people are just as natural as those things after all.

On Trans Rights, Let's Not Get Distracted By Philosophical Questions | TaraElla & Friends #10

TE: Welcome back to TaraElla and Friends. Today, I want to revisit my thoughts on the topic 'are trans women women', which I first talked about briefly around two years ago. With the help of my friend The Clarifier, let's see if we can untangle the many aspects of this question.

TC: So let's start here. Do you believe that trans women are women?

TE: Of course I do. Well, I am a trans woman, and I identify as a woman, so logically I would have to believe that trans women are women. There's also the fact that I live my life in society as a woman, and is seen as such, so there's a bit of life experience to support my view that trans women are women. However, let's make this clear. I don't believe we need to make everyone agree that trans women are women. I have nothing against people who don't believe that trans women are women.

TC: So you believe that trans women are women, but you don't want to make others believe the same?

TE: Yes. For two very good reasons. Firstly, you can't make the whole world agree with you anyway. It's authoritarian to do so. As a Moral Libertarian, my political goal is that everyone has equal and maximum moral agency, and that of course includes every individual making their own minds up about things, using their own independent thinking. So of course I'm going to accept that there are naturally going to be differences in views.

Secondly, and this is perhaps the more important point, I don't think people necessarily need to agree that trans women are women, before they can support the idea that society can and should accomodate trans people and our needs. Sometimes, I even think that the whole argument over whether trans women are women is a distraction from the more important conversations we need to have. It needlessly creates an us-vs-them dynamic, which is bad when what we need to do is to come to a better understanding about certain issues.

TC: When some people oppose the idea that trans women are women, they do so on the grounds that trans women are biologically different to genetic women. How would you answer this?

TE: Well, firstly, as I always say, I don't deny the biological differences. I believe any argument we make must be consistent with objective empirical science. That's why we shouldn't deny the biological differences, and their importance in some areas of life.

When I say trans women are women, it isn't an absolutist statement or anything like that. It simply means trans women identify as women, we live our lives as women socially, and we would like to be treated as women socially, wherever possible. Now, that doesn't mean we need to deny any biological differences, or the need to take into account and accommodate those differences in certain areas of life.

If you say that, okay, we will treat trans women just like other women in most areas of life, but there needs to be a few exceptions, then I'm fine with that idea, as long as the exceptions are reasonable and the gender dysphoria and safety needs of trans people are still accommodated. What I have a problem with is some forms of extreme gender critical ideology, where there is a firm commitment to place trans women in the category of 'men', at all times, at all costs. This is not science, but rather, neo-Marxist or pseudo-Marxist ideology, and the application of this ideology can harm trans women in many areas of life. We must not let ideology come before humanity and compassion.