The TRUTH About Anti-Asian Racism & Its Neglect | An Asian Trans View

Today, I want to speak briefly on the recently hot topic of anti-asian racism. As an asian person living in the West, I am certainly happy that people are starting to pay attention to this topic. What I'm going to say is perhaps a bit controversial, but please listen with an open mind, and hear the whole story before you make any judgements.

The topic of Anti-Asian racism is now getting attention because, for certain reasons, the past year has been especially difficult for Asian people. On the other hand, the fact that anti-asian racism has been allowed to build up for so long reflects the fact that traditional movements against racism have often neglected asians. I think we need to understand what these reasons are, so that asians aren't neglected in the racial equality conversation going forward.

I think the first reason why asians are often ignored in anti-racism is related to how we 'integrate' into Western societies. Asian culture emphasizes hard work and personal merit, and indeed asian families and parents are known to be especially demanding. Trust me, the stereotypes are actually mostly true when it comes to this. Many of us are trained to be competitive people. We don't generally think of ourselves as 'oppressed people', because that would be self-defeating in terms of being competitive. Meanwhile, a lot of contemporary anti-racism is influenced by critical race theory, which emphasizes an oppressor vs oppressed dynamic. It is a narrative that asians often can't identify with. This, in turn, means that asian voices and stories are often excluded from the discourse on racism.

Other characteristics of critical race theory thinking also work to exclude asians from the conversation. For example, critical theory emphasizes historical circumstances. Asian people, or their ancestors, are generally voluntary migrants to the West, which means there often isn't a big element of historical oppression in the story, unlike, for example, African Americans, or the first nations people of North America or Australia. Critical theory's roots in Marxism and its emphasis on material disadvantage also means it effectively sees asians as 'less oppressed', simply because many of us have college degrees. That we are disadvantaged in other ways can't be so readily measured. Now, I am not understating the significance of historical oppression or material disadvantage in shaping the circumstances of other ethnic groups. I'm just saying that asians are often erased by critical race theory influenced narratives because of our lack of these things, and this has to change.

Another reason why asians are excluded from the conversation on racial equality, is because we are severely underrepresented in the cultural industries. Proportionally, fewer of us are journalists, actors, musicians, social media influencers, you know, the people who drive the cultural conversation. This probably has to do with the traditional asian focus on technical fields. As someone with an academic background in a technical field, but also doing a lot of cultural work, I know how these two worlds can seem very different, and distant from one another. The underrepresentation of asians in cultural fields is also a vicious cycle. The underrepresentation of asians mean that those in the establishment are less comfortable having more asian voices on board, and the fear of being sidelined means that many asians don't dare to go into cultural work. I think there needs to be a very conscious attempt to tackle this underrepresentation, if there is any hope of seriously addressing anti-asian racism in the longer run.

Exposing The TRUTH About the Anti Trans Alliance | TaraElla & Friends #3

TE: Welcome back to TaraElla and friends. This is perhaps the most important video I have ever made, and it could hold the key to the future of trans acceptance and trans rights, so pay attention, and listen with an open mind to the very end, before you come to any conclusions. Also, if you agree with me, and want to help improve trans understanding and acceptance, please pass this onto other people who may be interested.

Today, I need to talk about a situation I am very frustrated about: bad ideas rooted in ideological positions from various sides are preventing an honest discussion of trans issues, one that is rooted in real evidence and observation. This means a productive conversation is not taking place, and ideas are not being developed to advance the social acceptance and accomodation of trans people. To systematically explore this complicated situation, I will be interviewed by my friend The Clarifier, who is really good at clarfying confusing and entangled concepts.

TC: Let's start with this. What do you see as an honest discussion of trans issues?

TE: Basically, I am a trans empiricist. My ideas are similar to what is often called transmedicalism, but the emphasis is a bit different: the traditional transmedicalist view is often stated as 'you need dysphoria to be trans'. On the other hand, I arrived at my conclusions through empirical observation, drawing conclusions from the actual way trans people exist, and their lived experiences. And any honest empirical observation of trans people would yield the conclusion that the vast majority of trans people transition because they have severe gender dysphoria. The reason they need to transition is because they need to get the heavy burden of gender dysphoria off their lives, at least as much as possible, so that life becomes somewhat liveable. Therefore, understanding gender dysphoria and its effects is central to understanding the vast majority of trans lives.

THE MOST IMPORTANT FUNDAMENTAL POINT...

Any discussion of trans issues that doesn't center gender dysphoria simply isn't operating in reality, and won't solve any problems effectively. Gender dysphoria isn't the most pleasant thing to discuss, but any honest discussion of trans issues should be firmly centered on how to allieviate dysphoria, and accomodate people with dysphoria.

TC: And how do you see people with 'ideological positions from various sides', as you put it, affecting this discussion?

TE: As a trans empiricist, I base all my conclusions and solutions on the observable reality of trans people alone. Basically, I focus on what simply is there. On the other hand, the ideological people start with their ideological framework, and force fit the reality of trans people into their framework. There are three main groups here.

THE 3 IDEOLOGICAL GROUPS

Firstly there are people whose worldview doesn't allow for trans people to exist at all. These include religious fundamentalists, for whom 'God never makes mistakes' so trans people can't exist. This is why they resort to explaining transness as a mental illness, even though this view is no longer accepted scientifically.

Secondly there are the 'gender critical feminists', otherwise known as TERFs, but I prefer calling them 'gender critical', because this term accurately describes their ideology. As the name plainly says, it is a form of 'critical theory', i.e. Marxian or pseudo-Marxist theory, that is applied to the concept of gender, that is, everything related to biological sex that is cultural or behavioral rather than physical. Gender critical feminists believe all of gender, is a social construct that serves the patriarchal system, and should be abolished. This ideology leaves no room to acknowledge the lived reality of gender dysphoria in trans people, which is variously dismissed as a mental illness or the result of societal stereotyping. In this worldview, trans people are essentially making a lifestyle choice, and one that is not conducive to the radical feminist program of 'liberation', so trans people are the enemy.

Thirdly, there are the postmodern feminists, who basically share the same criticalist influences and fundamental worldview as gender critical feminists, including that gender is a social construct that should be abolished in its current form. However, the difference is that they aim to deconstruct gender by destablizing the binary, drawing from the ideas of the postmodern thinker Derrida. They see trans people as helpful to this process. Therefore, they appear to be friendly towards trans people and trans rights. However, their worldview still ignores gender dysphoria, and their dominance means that the trans narrative can't focus on gender dysphoria at all, so it still ends up hindering rather than helping trans people.

THE 2 UNHOLY ALLIANCES

Finally, these three highly ideological forces combine to derail the trans discussion, in what I call the 'two unholy alliances'. The first unholy alliance is between the transphobes, including the religious right, and the gender critical feminists. Their worldview is otherwise diametrically opposed to each other, but some of them appear to be joining forces just to prevent trans rights from happening. The second unholy alliance is not a conscious alliance, but rather a dynamic between postmodern feminism and the first unholy alliance, that means trans people are made to keep losing every argument needlessly.

TC: There's a lot to unpack here, but I would like to go into detail about the 'two unholy alliances'. Let's start with the first alliance. Who is involved in that alliance, and what effect does it have on the trans discussion?

TE: I think that, basically, the first unholy alliance is ultimately built and maintained by people with a political agenda. These are often political conservatives looking for a culture war program that could boost the electoral fortunes of conservative parties like the US Republican Party. Given their absolute hostility on issues like abortion, the religious right and gender critical feminists wouldn't naturally come together to work out an anti-trans program. The glue to this alliance is thus conservative political operatives with an eye on the next election, hoping to replicate the anti-gay marriage wave of the 2004 US elections. They even draw in some rational atheists who normally have no symapathy for religion or radical feminism at all!

The result is an internally inconsistent argument against trans people that looks rational on the surface. I mean, the coalition includes rational atheists who simply have an inadequate understanding of the science behind sex and gender, as well as religious fundamentalists who wouldn't care what the science says anyway. It includes religious conservatives who uphold traditional gender roles, as well as radical feminists who want to completely abolish gender roles. As a result, their argument against trans people looks like a mix of over-simplified eighth-grade level biology, plus radical arguments supporting gender abolition, as well as conservative arguments against gender abolition, essentially both sides of the 1970s culture war at the same time. The internal contradictions are easily exposed if one simply tries.

TC: If it is so easy to discredit the arguments of this unholy alliance, then why has it not happened effectively yet? I mean, conservative operatives promoted the idea that gay marriage would be the end of family values, but that was easily debunked, and gay marriage support increased quickly after that. Can't the same happen now in the trans debate?

TE: Of course debunking the first unholy alliance is the way forward. But we need to get past the second unholy alliance first! I would even go so far to argue that, the only reason the anti-trans alliance hasn't crumbled under its own contradictions yet, is because postmodern feminism is essentially holding it up. Therefore, postmodernism is basically the biggest barrier to trans acceptance, even as it pretends to be trans friendly. The only reason why the anti-trans alliance makes sense in the first place is because they all see trans people as the representation of an illogical and reality-denying postmodern phenomenon. If you replace the postmodern gender ideology narrative, and replace it with a scientific narrative centered on gender dysphoria, their whole alliance would crumble. For example, rational atheists are mainly skeptical of trans people because they see it as an illogical postmodern thing, a scientific perspective would convince many of them to stop being anti-trans. The discussion of this science would also drive a big wedge between the rationalists committed to science on one hand, and the religious right plus the gender critical feminists on the other hand, who aren't that big on science in the first place. Similarly, using the existence of gender dysphoria to argue against gender being a social construct would effectively put a wedge between the conservatives, who uphold the idea of gender being biological, and the gender critical feminists, whose whole ideology is to deny this fact.

In other words, if a trans narrative that centers gender dysphoria, as well as the clinical evidence and scientific theory that supports it, is allowed to take center stage in the trans debates, it would blast the anti-trans alliance wide open, probably resulting in its various factions fighting each other instead. However, postmodern feminism and its associated postmodern 'gender ideology' would not allow this to happen, simply because it is protecting its own ideological doctrine. Remember that postmodern feminism basically shares a lot of the gender critical worldview too. It's why it wouldn't allow the gender critical worldview to be effectively challenged by trans empiricists. It simply cannot allow liberal scientific empiricism to discredit the criticalist worldview in the first place. Postmodernists may say they are trans friendly, but in reality they are also effectively shielding gender critical feminism from the most effective attacks. This is why some transmedicalist people like to say that postmodernists are effectively TERFs. Because they are effectively very similar. And they would also rather the TERFs win than allow trans empiricism to prevail, even if it means delaying trans acceptance.

TC: So what do you think should be the way forward from here? How can trans people win this?

TE: I think the answer is simple, but not easy. Firstly, we need to return to a trans discourse that centers gender dysphoria. The justification is simple: it is clear from simple observation that most trans people transition because of gender dysphoria, so it is the root cause of the vast majority of transness in this world. Therefore, only a trans discussion that centers dysphoria would be effective in helping trans people. Any debate that occurs on the level of ideology and not reality can only detract from the goal at hand.

Secondly, we need to have a seat at the table to present our view. We need to have a voice in mainstream media, there is simply no alternative to that. The reason why trans people keep losing right now is because all of the three components of the unholy alliance have much more mainstream media representation than us. We need to demand change, and try every way to change that. Remember, attitudes to gay people and gay marriage only started to change with media representation. It's time we demand that trans voices that represent the real lived experiences of trans people be heard. While there seems to be some media representation of trans people in recent years, almost none of them focus enough on dysphoria. This is ridiculous, and really needs to change.

From Transmedicalist to Trans Empiricist | TaraElla & Friends #2

TE: It's so hard being a transmed sometimes. We are so misunderstood. This is for several reasons. Firstly, there are just too many myths against transmeds out there. If you say you are a transmed, some people may assume things that are simply not true of you. They are going to be biased towards you from the start. You know, like how transmeds don't support non-binary people. How transmeds like to judge others as not trans enough. How transmeds are gatekeepers who invalidate others. Some even call trans rights reforms 'demedicalization', with the implication that the transmedicalism worldview is against trans rights. Which is stupid, because I totally support reforms that would allow trans people an easier time with employment, housing and so on.

AT: It seems like many people don't understand the point of transmedicalism at all. From there, they naturally think, like, why have this worldview when it wouldn't necessarily gain you any acceptance, validation or rights. From here, some start to speculate bad things about transmeds, which loops back into the first point. To resolve this, I think we need to go back to the basics. What's the point of the transmedicalist model in the first place? Why do you believe in it?

TE: I'm certainly not interested in any of the gatekeeping stuff. In fact, I don't even think in terms of do you need gender dysphoria to be trans. For me, I guess the transmedicalist model is the only logical choice for a trans person who is opposed to postmodern philosophy. Basically, there are two main ways people use to explain the world these days. There's the empirical, scientific way, in which we are committed to the objective truth, and base our claims on observable evidence. And then there's postmodern philosophy and its associated 'no objective truth', 'everything is a social construct' way. I guess I'm too committed to empirical science to have any room for postmodernism in my thinking.

Now, let's apply this to models of transness. There are four main models of how 'sex', as in genetic or reproductive sex, and 'gender', as in the social and behavioral aspects, are related. The first is the traditional model, where sex and gender are both biological reality and are strongly bound together, with gendered behavior explained by neurological differences.  This model can be split into where sex and gender are always correlated, which is how many religious conservatives believe, for example, and where there could very occasionally be a mismatch between sex and gender, which is the transmedicalist model. The next model is the second wave feminism model, where sex is a biological reality but gender is a social construct, i.e. gender behavior is entirely due to social expectation and modelling. The final model is the postmodern model, where both sex and gender are seen as social constructs or at least linguistic constructs, and neither is inherently natural or biological. Hence people should be free to redefine sex and gender as they see fit, and anything less would be oppression.

If you examine these models, two of them are incompatible with trans identities being valid at all. The model where sex is always consistent with gender is self-explanatory in this regard. The model where sex is real but gender is a social construct also leaves no room for trans people being a natural occurrence, and would suggest that it is a mere lifestyle choice. Indeed, this is the model of gender critical feminists who are trans-exclusionary. There is no way I would accept these two models, because they go against my own lived experience, as well as that of the many, many trans people who have ever existed. An honest scientific empiricism would have to reject these models.

So we are left with two models: one where both sex and gender are biological but there is allowance for mismatch, and another where sex and gender are both social constructs and people should be liberated from all of it. However, the second only makes sense if you accept postmodern philosophy, and all its metaphysical consequences. Which means an anti-postmodernist trans person, or a facts over feelings, science over philosophy type trans person, can only believe in the first model, that is, the transmedicalist model.

There is also another good reason to choose one model over the other: the transmedicalist model provides a very plausible explanation about why there are trans people, and justifies the reasonable societal accommodation of trans people. The postmodernist model is much weaker here, in that it ultimately does not explain transness, does not differentiate it from a pure lifestyle choice at all, and merely demands societal accommodation in the name of liberation. It is no different from demanding societal accommodation for any lifestyle choice, whether reasonable or not, and is therefore rather weak in terms of arguing for trans acceptance, unless the whole world also adopts postmodernist philosophy.

In conclusion, we can see that, at least in my case, I identify with the transmed model simply because it is the only one that makes sense to me, and because it provides a firm reasoning for transness, which would also be an argument for trans acceptance and reasonable accommodation.

AT: Sometimes, if a label becomes a mental roadblock to understanding, then maybe we need to find another one. What would you think about that? Is there an alternative label for the 'transmed' model?

TE: Given that it is an argument that comes from a medical and scientific reasoning point of view, it rejects postmodernism in the name of upholding the principles of scientific empiricism, including a demand that all claims be based upon observable evidence, I think that we may as well call this model the Trans Empiricist model from now on. Therefore, perhaps from now on, I think I will say that I am a Trans Empiricist.

AT: Sounds like a good idea!

Is the Trans Community Really Going Over A Cliff? | TaraElla & Friends #1

TE: Welcome to the first episode of TaraElla and friends. Today, I'm going to examine in depth my view in recent years that the trans community is going over a cliff, and the reasons for that. My regular audience would know that it's something that I'm personally very worried about, as a trans woman. I'm increasingly worried about the misunderstanding and backlash that is developing, and frankly I sometimes feel at a lost about what we can do to change course. So today, I'm having a discussion with my friend, Alternative Thoughts, about this.

AT: Firstly, let's talk about your view that the trans community is going over a cliff. While I understand your concerns, I think the reality is more complicated. I mean, trans acceptance is also advancing in some ways too. For example, when the US House of Representatives passed the Equality Act again earlier this year, President Biden tweeted that transgender rights are human rights. He singled out trans rights to be mentioned, and this was also echoed by Taylor Swift. In a way, there has never been that much positive attention on trans people and trans rights.

TE: I'm a natural pessimist, and I tend to look on the pessimistic side of things. But even granting progress happening in some areas, there is also increasing backlash in many other areas. I feel that the whole trans discussion is becoming too divisive, and that isn't generally good news for any minority group looking for acceptance and accomodation. I am also worried about the way trans people are being linked to postmodern ideology in the minds of some people. That is both extremely unfair to anti-postmodern trans people like myself, and also creates a major roadblock for trans acceptance going forward.

AT: I guess these concerns represent real things that are happening, at least to some extent. However, have you thought about the fact that it may only be happening among a small segment of society, like the saying 'a storm in a teacup'? I mean, there are all sorts of discussions about trans people and trans issues, particularly in the 'extremely online' world, but if you look at the discussions people are having at their local bars and clubs, I doubt trans issues even feature there. And I doubt that they even know what postmodernism is, either.

TE: Thanks for the reality check. The 'extremely online' world doesn't really reflect the real world at all. Political events of the past few years have reminded us of this again and again. However, the divisive debate is already clearly affecting politics in many US states, and in the UK, and often not in a very good way. This is something that we really need to change.

AT: I get your concerns. However, political debates and even policy can be affected by noisy minorities on both sides beating their chests, even as everyday people don't actually understand the issues let alone take a strong stance. In situations like this, what we need to remember is that there are still many hearts and minds left to be won out there, so it's not too late to change the debate. Remember that most people out there have never been affected by the toxic debate in the 'extremely online' world, so a healthier discourse in the wider community is still possible. It is still something that could exist in the future, a future yet to be created.

TE: I agree wholeheartedly with that. The future is still to be created, and a healthy, rational discussion on trans issues is still very possible in the wider community. The future will all depend on what direction we take now. That's why I'm trying hard to be 'the change I want to see' in the trans community. To be honest, it's lonely and frustrating at times. But if nobody even tries, then we are truly doomed.

AT: So what change exactly do you want to see?

TE: I want a more constructive dialogue. I want us to consider all good faith viewpoints, from all stakeholders, in a good-faith and rational manner. I want people, from all sides, to actually come up with workable solutions, rather than just dismiss the voices that don't agree with you. I want everyone to have an attitude where we attempt to build workable solutions together, rather than to 'own' the enemy. While agreement may not come overnight, having the right attitude to everything is the first step. The first positive step to a brighter future.