What is Bigotry Anyway? | An Asian Trans View

This is the second part of my response to the ContraPoints video on JK Rowling. This time, I will focus on Natalie's arguments about what bigotry is, and why I disagree with her views here. In case anyone is confused, I want to make it clear that I am not accusing Rowling of bigotry at all, rather, I am responding to the video's arguments about bigotry.

From what I understand, Natalie was making an argument that the way most people understand bigotry, i.e. as intolerance and hate, is too narrow. She even referenced Taylor Swift's video You Need To Calm Down and its focus on haters to make the point. Instead, Natalie made the case that people engage in bigotry because they feel threatened by changing power dynamics, rather than because they are haters.

Now, I don't deny that is sometimes true. During the civil rights movement, for example, racist people became even more racist in reaction to civil rights. However, broadly reducing the cause of bigotry to discomfort around changing power dynamics is very ideological. It is ideological because it reduces complex emotions and behavior to be all about power and privilege. The problem with ideological paradigms is that they detract from understandings based on empirical reality, and all its nuances. They hence make us less able to effectively deal with the issue at hand. In the worst case scenario, the wrong ideology can cause a wrong perspective on things, leading to maladaptive solutions that only exacerbate the problem.

Another argument Natalie made was that sometimes people engage in indirect bigotry by disguising political conflict over people's civil rights as intellectual conflicts. Again, I don't deny that actually happens sometimes. For example, in a last ditch attempt to stop gay marriage, some people argued that gay marriage was not needed because everybody only had the right to marry a person of the opposite sex; that gay people didn't want to marry a person of the opposite sex didn't make the status quo unfair. Sounds very intellectual, but clearly argued in bad faith. However, not every situation is like this one. More commonly, even when people argue against civil rights reforms, they do come from a place of genuine concern, whether we like it or not.

The problem with holding the aforementioned view about intellectual debates surrounding civil rights is that it would lead to treating other people's arguments in bad faith by default. That is, if they do not agree with a civil rights reform you support, there would logically be no reason to see them as anything but bigots out to prevent people from getting their rights. By extension, there would be no point in reasoning with these people. I think this attitude is really unhelpful; it is indeed the reason why the trans debate has gotten so toxic. For example, it is true that JK Rowling doesn't agree with us about certain trans rights reforms, at least at the moment. However, if you take her arguments in good faith, I think it's clear that she is coming from a place of misunderstanding rather than hostility. And given the lack of understanding of trans issues in the general community, I think there would be more people in Rowling's position than many people realize. Therefore, what is need is dialogue, education, and a sincere attempt to resolve the concerns people have. After all, this was how gay marriage was won, so there's a pretty good case for following this playbook.

Finally, I also want to talk about the point Natalie made about how bigotry is often embedded in tropes, like the so-called TERF talking points that come up again and again in trans debates. I don't disagree that those talking points have been quite harmful for trans people. However, the problem is, if you assume that everyone who raises those talking points are anti-trans, you would end up assuming hostility when there is none. Again, this relates to the lack of understanding of trans issues in the general public. People who understand trans issues, like you and me, would of course strongly disagree with those ideas. However, many other people may have picked up TERF arguments from somewhere, and found them reasonable on the surface. If the trans community automatically turned these people away, they would only be driven further and further into the arms of anti-trans forces. Indeed, I'm worried that this might be what is happening with Rowling. As I said repeatedly before, when you are a misunderstood minority, the most dangerous thing you can do is to turn otherwise neutral people against you.

Is 'Gender Ideology' Imaginary? | Re ContraPoints | An Asian Trans View

This is Part 1 of 2 of my response to the latest Contrapoints video about JK Rowling and her controversial comments about trans issues last year. I have talking about Rowling many times already, so here I will only focus on new things raised by Natalie in her video. In this first part, I will focus on the competing claims around the idea of 'gender ideology'. In the second part, which will logically follow on from the first part, I will discuss what I think 'bigotry' is, an area where I have some disagreements with Natalie.

In the video, Natalie talked about how anti-trans commentators often use terms like 'gender ideology' or 'LGBT ideology' to describe trans issues or even trans people, which I understand she sees as a form of 'indirect bigotry' against trans people. She then asserted that trans people are people, not an ideology, something I think everyone in these debates would do well to remember. We are indeed talking about issues that impact real individuals and real lives, not just theory or ideology. However, is there really such a thing as 'gender ideology'? And how can we prevent this idea of 'gender ideology' from derailing the discussion on trans rights? I actually wish Natalie could have explored this point more.

I guess, given the intentionally vague terminology, 'gender ideology' can really mean anything. Every time I see this phrase being used, and I see it a lot, given the mix of media I choose to consume, my heart sinks a bit. Firstly, it's so vague that the reader may not get what is intended by the author, which is always bad from an intellectual communication point of view. Secondly, some people do use it as a bigoted way against trans people as a whole, seeing trans people as the real life representatives of the so-called 'gender ideology'. As a trans person, I see this as an attack on my own humanity. It really is reminescent of the way some people used to rail on and on about the 'gay agenda', and see gay people who simply wanted to get married as real life representatives of the so-called 'gay agenda', when they only wanted to get married, like many straight people. I think this kind of behavior would have to fit the definition of bigotry, no ifs ands or buts.

However, there are other times when people complain about 'gender ideology', they mean something real and concrete. For example, the idea that gender is a social construct is certainly an ideology, and so is the idea that gender is performative. And so is critical gender theory, a way of seeing gender using a perspective that is ultimately rooted in Marxian and postmodernist ideology. Furthermore, gender critical feminism, or TERFism, is also clearly an ideology that is related to gender. Given that all the ideas above have something to do with gender, and they are all rooted in some kind of philosophical ideology rather than empirical science, they could rightly be seen as 'gender ideologies'. And as a scientific-minded person, I reject all of them. Of course, I still hope that people stop using vague terms like 'gender ideology' and be more specific about what they are referring to, but on the whole, I am very sympathetic to criticisms of the aforementioned unscientific ideologies.

From this vagueness of terminology, my worry is that, opposition to certain ideologies could become conflated with opposition to trans people or trans rights. This is further compounded by the fact that most people still don't have even a basic understanding of many trans issues. Last year, I saw two different polls in the UK describring the same reform with different terminology, and they yielded results of 28% and 55% support respectively. This kind of disparity usually means that there is a lack of understanding of the issues in the general public. You certainly don't see it in well-understood issues like gay marriage, where polling by different organizations in most Western countries generally yield results of around two thirds support. These figures also line up with actual referendum results as demonstrated in Ireland and Australia. What all this means is that, the public understanding about gay marriage is mature enough for most people to understand and take a consistent stance on the issue. The same cannot be said of trans issues. There is still probably one or two decades to go before that gap is bridged.

This is why I emphasize so much on educating people on the basic issues, talking about the science, and not pushing away people who aren't immediately accepting. What we need is more understanding, not more witch hunts. Indeed, at the time of the so-called trans tipping point, many trans people were worried that the new visibility was too much, too soon, and in hindsight, I can see that they were probably right. But there's no going back now, once that can of worms have been opened. Which only means it's even more important to have level-headed and respectful discussions aimed at fostering understanding now. People are understandably hesistant to support things that they don't fully understand. That is why, back when I was in college, only a third of people supported gay marriage, and more than 30 US states successfully voted to ban gay marriage. From those defeats, the marriage movement didn't become embittered. Instead, they set out to connect with people, and advance the discussion. Once people understood that gay marriage wasn't going to destroy the traditional family, they started to get on board. The whole 'gay agenda' playbook ceased to work, because people now understood exactly what marriage equality meant.

With trans issues, there is still a lot of misunderstanding and confusion. Add to that the recent popularization of certain gender theories that both challenge people's own sense of identity, and are also inherently scientific questionable, that mix can certainly make some people very anxious. Those opposed to trans rights can then make every proposed reform about 'gender ideology', and sink them one by one. This is why I have long argued that we need to focus on the science, the fact that trans people are 'born this way', indeed the traditional narrative of the trans community, and completely separate the real lives and needs of trans people from any sort of gender theory. Just like gay people deserved marriage because it was simply the fair thing to do, and this needed no appeal to any postmodern theory, the case for trans rights will not be helped by gender theories. Indeed, trans rights can only be hindered by scientifically invalid ideas like how gender is performative. This is why we should try out best to cut through the noise that is the gender theory coming out from certain thinkers of non-scientific background, and present the scientific facts about trans people. It is in establishing an understanding of trans people, trans lives, and by extension the social issues trans people face, that we will gain support for much needed reforms.

I also think that, given the stage of the conversation we find ourselves in, and the objective we want to pursue, it would be counterproductive to treat people's words harshly and call them out for bigotry on the basis of that, as the trans community has done to Rowling. I mean, I certainly don't agree with a lot of what Rowling has said, but I also think there is so much misunderstanding that you can't conclude that people are being bigoted, even when they say hurtful things. If someone is still saying that gay marriage is part of a subversive 'gay agenda' in this day and age, I think its fair to say that that's bigoted, but you really can't treat the trans conversation with the same standard, given the lack of a mature public understanding at this stage. In other words, more patience and allowance is needed.

The Problem with Trans / LGBT Culture | An Asian Trans View

Welcome back to the TaraElla Report. Today, I want to talk about the main problem I see with trans culture and LGBT culture in general, especially the direction in which it has evolved in the past few years. I will also look at where it all came from, and hence how we can shake it all off. And before you jump to conclusions, please listen to what I have to say in full, because there are a lot of things to talk about in this topic. It is a complicated topic, with twists and turns everywhere.

I have three main problems with LGBT culture as it stands. Firstly, it limits the life potential of LGBT people. Secondly, it encourages a hostile worldview about the rest of the world. And finally, it leads to an inability to rationally communicate our needs to the wider world, resulting in unnecessary conflict. As I will explain, a lot of these features can be explained by historical political influences, influences that I strongly believe we should shake off as soon as possible.

The thing is, LGBT culture, as it stands, tends to exaggerate how much the whole world is against LGBT people. I mean, there are indeed individuals with homophobic and transphobic attitudes, but things have much improved over the past 50 years, and there really isn't a conspiracy to keep LGBT people down. Ideas like how capitalist systems have to inherently oppress LGBT people also have no basis in reality, they are purely rooted in some of the critical theory that came out in the 1950s and 60s. Furthermore, it is unhealthy to think that the whole world is against you. It leads to people not pursuing their dreams and taking advantage of life's opportunities to the maximum. This is why any true friend of the LGBT community would want to get rid of the victim mentality from the culture.

Another important point is that, this attitude also leads to a degradation of the discourse around LGBT issues to an us vs them fight. After all, if one, by default, believes that the world is out to oppress them, they are not going to take other people's words in good faith. This is why, some LGBT activists in particular, have a habit of interpreting others' words and intentions in the worst light possible, which unfortunately tends to set the tone in the LGBT community, because of how well organized they are, and how loud their voices are. This, in turn, has paralyzed much needed debates and discussions, and has led to things often standing in a stalemate, with LGBT people being the ultimate losers.

To understand where all these unhelpful attitudes come from, I think we need to look back to the 1960s or 70s, when they began to influence the LGBT community. I think it all came from the long-68 mentality, in turn deeply rooted in critical theory, particularly the works of Herbert Marcuse. Of course, Marcuse himself wasn't responsible for all the so-called radical ideas of that era, because the student activists, who read a lot of his works, then went on to vastly expand his ideas into even more radical forms. In those ideas, one would find negative thinking, the conflict theory of change, the blaming of capitalism for anti-LGBT attitudes, the idea of the 'great refusal', and the celebration of being an outcast outside the so-called system. In other words, all the ingredients required to cook up the problematic attitudes I previously described.

So how can we shake it off? I guess just to be aware of this influence, and why it's ultimately bad for LGBT people, is the first step. The next step then is to think about LGBT progress from a more old-school liberal point of view. After all, classical liberal values are the best guarantor of liberty, especially for minorities. Indeed, the 1990s and 2000s saw a collapse in critical theory-based activism due to political circumstances, and the gay marriage movement that existed in that era was based largely on old-school liberalism instead. Instead of conflict, the marriage movement focused on liberty and equality, and won the hearts and minds of many people in a relatively short amount of time. It's certainly much better than anything the radical long-68 had ever offered to the world.

The Transmedicalist Case for Non-Binary Acceptance | An Asian Trans View

Today, I want to talk about the actual transmedicalist view on non-binary people. This is in response to the rumor prevalent in some circles, like Breadtube for example, that transmeds don't accept non-binary people, or somehow think of them as invalid. In turn, this has made transmedicalism unpopular in these circles, even leading to hostility towards our ideas in some cases. As a transmed, I have been nothing but supportive of non-binary people, and this is fully consistent with my transmed beliefs. Therefore, those rumors are completely rubbish. In today's episode, I will fully explain everything, in detail.

Let's start with this: what are transmed views? Basically, taking the word literally, transmedicalism is a belief that the root cause of someone being trans lies in the medical, or biological science, realm. It's simply a belief that the trans phenomenon should be explained using medical science, and not postmodern philosophy or the radical feminist branch of critical theory. Now, I'm not denying that there are a few transmeds who judge other trans individuals' validity by how much dysphoria they experience, but that's not how scientific transmedicalism should actually be practiced. Nor is that attitude representative of transmeds at all!

So what's the medical science view we are talking about here, and what are its implications? Traditionally, a slightly over-simplified way to talk about it is the so-called mind-body mismatch, that is, female brains in male bodies, and vice versa. Of course, there's much more complexity to it, from genetics, to hormone receptors, and other aspects of molecular biology. But the picture is that, because of the complexity of genotype to phenotype translation, and the complexity of human development, especially in the fetal stage, there is a very real chance that one may end up with an incongruent set of gendered characteristics. This incongruency can cause gender dysphoria, including physical dysphoria and relational dysphoria, and it can be debilitating. The only way this dysphoria can be substantially relieved appears to be via gender transitioning in many cases.

Now, once you understand and accept this picture, there really is no reason to not accept non-binary people. Given that the whole medical science view of the cause of being trans is essentially rooted in the body being part-male and part-female to some extent, acceptance of the validity of non-binary people is a very logical extension. There's no reason why a transmedicalist view could lead to non-acceptance of non-binary people.

What transmeds refuse to accept are justifications of non-binaryness rooted in postmodernism or critical theory, for example the idea that gender is a social construct, or that gender is performative and that one can reconstruct gender simply by altering the performance of gender, or that gender is a class in a Marxian sense. However, this is not being applied specifically against non-binary people. Transmeds also cannot accept binary trans narratives, or even cisgender narratives, that are rooted in postmodernism or critical theory. Like elsewhere in life, science and postmodernism just aren't usually compatible. Those of us who value science must therefore oppose postmodernism. This does not mean we don't accept non-binary identity however. As we just saw, the science alone is enough to justify the acceptance of non-binary people, there's no need for postmodernism at all.

Michael Knowles Upset About Just Asking for Pronouns? | An Asian Trans View

Today, I want to talk about Michael Knowles, among other conservatives, being upset about President Biden's new White House website apparently asking for preferred pronouns on its contact form. Let's be clear here. They have very appropriately allowed people not to answer the question. It's just there for people who want it. There's no attack on free speech here. There's no compelled speech of any kind.

I have always been 100% pro free speech, and 100% against punishing people who refuse to use preferred pronouns. Remember, I was one of the minority of trans people who agreed with Jordan Peterson on this issue (about the compelled speech issue in general, not the effects of the Canadian law specifically), when it came out. I was also staunchly against social media banning people for using the wrong pronouns. However, this is not the issue here. Nobody is compelling Michael Knowles, or anybody else, to use anyone's preferred pronouns. Knowles is apparently offended by the question just being there at all! On top of this, he is essentially calling the Biden team divisive just because of this! So Knowles, apparently, doesn't think President Biden has the freedom to do things his own way. This is nothing but hypocrisy.

The movement for free speech must not allow itself to be made a mockery by this kind of hypocrisy. If we are for freedom, we are for freedom for everyone to do their own thing. Not just freedom for conservatives who don't like the idea of preferred pronouns. Freedom for everyone is the Moral Libertarian way, indeed, it's the Enlightenment way. Anything else is not!

And no, this is certainly not so-called 'radical gender theory'. It's just the way some people want to do things now, and they certainly have the right to do so. To call every such thing 'radical gender theory' is just lighting the flames for an us vs them culture war, the last thing people need in 2021. Indeed, this smells just like the anti-gay marriage culture wars some conservatives raised 20 years ago. I guess, just like back then, we need to call out the people who won't live and let live. It's time we make a stand for true liberty, not reactionism.