Why It's Important to Stand Up for Caitlyn Jenner | An Asian Trans View

Today, I want to talk about something very important: why it's very important that we stand up for Caitlyn Jenner this year, if we want trans people to have dignity and equality in the real world. Now, I know this is a divisive topic, but please listen to my perspective with an open mind. Also, let me know in the comments if you agree with me, and if you agree with me and want more people to hear this perspective, please share this video around.

Now, let me restate my argument. It's very important that we stand up for Caitlyn Jenner this year, if we want to advance trans acceptance, dignity and equality in the real world, or at least stop things from backsliding even further. Now, I'm not saying that you have to support Jenner or vote for her. Regarding the question on whether Governor Newsom has been doing a good job, or whether Caitlyn Jenner should replace him, I don't currently have any opinion, and I don't think I will ever be well informed enough to have an opinion, because I don't live in California, and state races are generally focused on local issues. What I'm arguing for, however, is that Caitlyn Jenner should be given a fair and dignified run at this, like any other candidate. Jenner should be allowed to succeed or fail on her policies alone, just like any other candidate, with her trans status not coming into the equation at all. It is important that we insist on this happening, and do as much as possible to make this happen, if trans equality and dignity is to have any chance in the near future.

The socially conservative part of the Right knows the stakes in this very well, and they are open about why they must oppose Jenner's run. It's not about Jenner for them. It's about us. By marginalizing Caitlyn, they get to marginalize us all. And they know that a high profile race for the Governor of California will set a precedent for a long time either way. And they want to set a precedent where trans people are unconditionally rejected from normal polite society. Make no mistake, if Jenner is not given dignity in her run this year, there will be serious implications and consequences for trans people in every part of life, from jobs to housing, to just being taken seriously as a person!

Imagine if someone suggested that a candidate is undeserving of a fair run simply because they are black, Asian, or even gay. We are talking about the equivalent of this extreme level of bigotry, and they aren't even trying to hide it! Take Charlie Kirk of Turning Point USA, who justified his opposition to Jenner by saying that 'biological standards matter', adding that he believes that roughly half of America shares his view. The idea that 'biological standards matter' for any job recalls dark pre-WWII times, and should send shivers down the spine of any sane person. Or take Matt Walsh, who actually said that if Jenner's run was embraced solely in the spirit of trolling, he could almost support it, but when people, including high profile Republicans like Nikki Haley, actually take her seriously? This he just can't accept, apparently. You know, there was a time when trans people only appeared on Jerry Springer, and I know just how many people want things to go back to that. Finally, Michael Knowles, who has consistently opposed multiple forms of trans acceptance, makes his view clear, stating that 'sometimes there's just got to be a line in the sand'. Apparently, trans people are so bad for society that we must be firmly excluded from a society that already otherwise accepts many other forms of diversity.

Make no mistake. Transphobic social conservatives are seeing an opportunity here. They are emboldened by the recent trans backlash, and want to ride that wave all the way to putting us back in a place where we are routinely excluded from polite society, where we are never taken seriously by anybody, and where we can justifiably be discriminated in terms of jobs, housing, and other areas of life. The only way to fight back is to make sure they don't get what they want. I'm not saying that Caitlyn Jenner needs to win, I'm just saying that we need to make sure she has a fair and dignified run, just like any other candidate. This will cement the idea that trans people are a normal part of society, and will certainly open doors to acceptance in important ways down the road. Our opponents know the very real stakes of this fight, and it's time we recognized it too.

Before we go, there's something else we need to talk about: the amount of left-leaning trans people who have taken to twitter to proudly announce that they don't support Caitlyn Jenner despite being trans. I mean, you are free to not support her, regardless of your trans status. You can simply say that you love the work Governor Newsom is doing and won't support Jenner to replace him, and I can respect that. But I feel extremely uneasy over these statements, which clearly tie being opposed to Jenner with being trans. Firstly, it's really a more subtle form of transphobia. As if Jenner needs other trans people to approve of her before she can have a fair run at political office. As if, because Jenner's politics don't align with the trans activist establishment, they feel like they have a right to sink her campaign before it even begins. You know, this is not equality. This is not equality at all. Neither Donald Trump nor Joe Biden required the approval of all other straight men to run for office, you know. Many straight men disliked Trump and/or Biden, but nobody felt they need to talk about it in that way, you know.

But even more importantly, all this talk about trans people not supporting Jenner despite being trans, is actually providing fuel for those who want her to not have a fair and dignified run. They are helping to make sure that Jenner's run is seen as part of the larger culture war over trans issues, which would very certainly prevent her from having a fair and dignified run. In this way, these twitter leftists are actually doing the work of the likes of Kirk, Walsh and Knowles. This is why we must call this harmful behavior out.

The Key To Trans Civil Rights is Compromise? | Re Andrew Sullivan | An Asian Trans View

Welcome back to the TaraElla Report. Today, I want continue responding to a recent article by Andrew Sullivan on Substack, titled 'A Truce Proposal In The Trans Wars'. In this second part, we will be looking at what Sullivan considers to be good discourse and good compromise, and see if I have anything to add, from my perspective and experience as a trans woman.

Sullivan states that 'trans activists dreamed for years of civil rights protection; now they have it', referring to the Bostock decision that banned employment discrimination across the US last year. However, the truth is that we still have a long way to go, both in the US and in other countries. The objective fact is that the trans unemployment rate remains very high, and trans people are still subject to frequent discrimination in things like housing and service provision. As I often say, I don't care too much about things like pronouns. We need to focus on employment and housing, because equality in these areas is key to our dignity as people. As a gay man who fought for gay civil rights over many years, I believe Sullivan would understand what I am talking about. Just like how the lack of marriage rights made life difficult for gay people in many areas of life, trans people in many places currently lack adequately accessible and consistent mechanisms to update their documentation. This, in turn, often causes both a lack of confidence in seeking employment and associated services, and sometimes outright discrimination from being outed before they even get in the door for an interview. There's also a major problem around trans people being able to access the health care they need, with waiting lists being as long as 4 years or more in the UK, for example.

Now we get to the main sticking point of the whole debate. Sullivan states it plainly. "Defend the rights of both women and trans women. In the overwhelming majority of cases, there is no conflict. In the few where there are, compromise." I couldn't agree more. While I certainly have a problem with people who essentially propose to exclude trans women from the category of women as a blanket rule, I don't have a problem with the idea that there could be clearly defined and well justified cases, where the difference between trans women and genetic women are recognized and dealt with accordingly. Sullivan went on to provide several examples where trans women might be treated differently from other women, and I think these are broadly reasonable in spirit, even if I may not agree entirely in the details. I guess an important point that needs to be made is that, even where trans women need to be treated differently from other women, their needs regarding safety and gender dysphoria should still be upheld. For example, even though it might not be appropriate to house trans women prisoners with other female prisoners, it still won't justify throwing them into the general male population, or denying them the right to present as a woman. Sullivan appears to get this, so good on him, but too many people out there don't.

Sullivan also states that 'most of the "problems" associated with trans people — a non-existent threat of sexual assaults in restrooms, for example — dissipate on inspection. Thanks, Andrew! The gender critical movement has been able to get away with making outrageous claims about the supposed effects of certain simple reforms, that don't stand up to basic scrutiny. For example, a UK proposal to allow trans people an easier process to change their documents, which would help in things like housing and employment, was scuttled by claims that it would lead to predatory men being able to enter female bathrooms. As if bathrooms actually decide who can get in based in their ID! Another similarly groundless claim is that if the government allowed trans women to be identified as women, statistics of all kinds would be distorted by the supposed contamination of data about women. Given that women account for about 50% of the population and trans people account for only about 0.2% of the population, mathematically the inclusion of trans women can't make a meaningful difference in any case! Let's face it: claims like these are fundamentally rooted in a desire to exclude trans women from the category of 'women' as a principle, based on ideological commitments, nevermind that doing so would cause a lot of pain and trouble in the lives of trans women. I mean, I recognize that trans women are not exactly equivalent to genetic women, and where there are conflicts in rights claims I am more than willing to compromise. However, it is simply transphobic to have an ideology that is fundamentally committed to excluding trans women from the category of women as a rule, even when it is not justifiable to do so, and it makes no practical sense to do so.

On the hot button issue of giving puberty blockers to minors who identify as trans, Sullivan says that he doesn't support a blanket ban like many Republicans are now proposing, but 'it seems to me you need a very good reason to use them'. Again, I think this is a very reasonable stance. What Sullivan may not know is that a substantial part of the trans community share his concern about young people potentially wrongly believing that they are trans, and coming to regret it in the future. Still, many trans people are wary of excessive gatekeeping, because gender dysphoria is a crippling condition, and one that many people don't seem to have enough sympathy for. It is already hard enough to get medical treatment for gender dysphoria as it is. That's why any suggestion centered on increasing gatekeeping is bound to get a lot of resistance. Any workable solution would need to take this into account. Comprehensive solutions need to be developed that has the support of both the trans community and the broader general population, and is acceptable to people across the political spectrum. We need to remember this is a serious issue where the welfare of children must come first, and society cannot afford to let it be turned into another culture war political football.

Finally, Sullivan remains pessimistic that compromise solutions, like the one he proposed, will be taken seriously. 'I doubt these recommendations will have any appeal to the trans rights radicals or the Fox News right,' he says. And I have to agree, reality being reality. However, I don't share his general pessimism, because society isn't made up solely of the far-left and the far-right. There are many reasonable people in the middle, and we need to engage them in the discussion. After all, it was the reasonable people in the middle who decided that gay marriage was okay after all, after a rational discussion and consideration of the evidence. A similar discussion is yet to take place regarding trans issues.

What I believe needs to happen is that we need to improve the understanding of trans issues among the general public. We need more trans media representation, but more importantly, it needs to reflect the full spectrum of experiences and opinions in the trans community, not just the activist voices that shout the loudest. Many people would be positively surprised by what diversity there actually is in the trans community!

What also needs to happen is that we need to stop people from getting away with being intellectually lazy, or worse, being bad faith bigots. We need to stop accepting arguments from people who are simply against what another group supposedly wants, while not offering anything concrete or constructive of their own. For example, you can be against the position of certain trans activists. But you need to state what you are for instead, like Sullivan has done here. This is crucial to the development of good dialogue, and the prevention of the formation of bad faith coalitions that are internally contradictory, but simply exist to demonize common perceived enemies, which would just turn everything into an us-vs-them battle with no rational dialogue possible. For example, an alliance of skeptical atheists, the religious right, and gender critical feminists against trans rights is simply transphobic and completely bad faith, and should be called out for that. We need to contrast their bad faith position with the good faith position of people like Sullivan.

Separating Gender Ideology From Trans Lives | Re Andrew Sullivan | An Asian Trans View

Today, I want to respond to a recent article by Andrew Sullivan on Substack, titled 'A Truce Proposal In The Trans Wars'. I want to respond to this article because it at least contains suggestions on how we can move forward in good faith. Far too often, people attack the position of their opponents without offering reasonable solutions of their own, which is generally a bad faith move, because it allows one to galvanize opposition to a particular movement or group of people. It is the very definition of negative thinking, and in some cases, it can even be literally hateful and bigoted. This is why, I believe, whenever someone says they are against something, we must demand to know what exactly they are for instead, and where they have done so, we should aim to continue the dialogue in good faith. In this first part, we will be looking at Sullivan's statements about the ideology of both gender critical feminists, otherwise known as TERFs, and postmodern gender ideology. As I often say, these ideologies have nothing to do with the actual lived reality of trans people, and the reality of gender dysphoria. So let us untangle this mess.

Sullivan says he supports trans people and trans rights, but has some reservations. He then goes on to say that he does not 'believe that a trans woman or a trans man is in every way indistinguishable from a woman or a man, and that he does not 'buy the idea that biological sex is socially constructed, or a function of "white supremacist" thought'. Guess what? I'm sure that the majority of trans people are with him on these points. As some trans people put it, if biological sex weren't real, they wouldn't be trans, right? If biological sex weren't real, then we wouldn't have gender dysphoria, which would be wonderful. But the reality is, biological sex is real, and hence gender dysphoria is real, and no amount of escapist postmodern theory would change this. Acknowledging the reality is helpful both for encouraging public understanding of trans lives, and for the needed discussions to take place, regarding how to best accomodate trans people while taking into account the concerns of other stakeholders. More on that later.

Sullivan then says that 'for some radical feminists, my empathy for trans women, and concern for their welfare, is regarded as a function of my misogyny and hatred of women'. I think that may not be technically correct actually, but it captures very well the sheer hatred some gender critical radical feminists have towards trans people. It's an ideologically rooted thing. As I often explain, gender critical thinking is basically one way to apply the pseudo-Marxist critical theory framework onto sex and gender. In gender criticalism, biological sex is real but gender is a social construct. Following this, the only valid difference between men and women would be in their anatomical and reproductive difference. Any other difference, including social and psychological difference, is due to social conditioning, and hence a form of 'false consciousness' designed to oppress women as a class, in a parallel to Gramsci's theory that capitalist 'cultural hegemony' is designed to keep workers satisfied with their oppression. Hence, any non-physically apprent differences between men and women must be streneously denied, despite all the empirical evidence, and despite our knowledge of Darwinian evolution. In other words, gender criticalism is as anti-science as critical theories come. Gender criticalism has no empathy towards trans women, because we are an inconvenient evidence that their theory is wrong, that there is a biological basis to gender (as well as sex). This is why gender criticalism must completely deny the validity of trans women, at all times, in all cases. It's like how the religious right completely denies the validity of gay people and gay relationships, and is just as rooted in ideological reasons.

Sullivan later says that the 'trans ideology' which seeks 'to abolish the idea of biological sex altogether and to teach kids they have a choice over whether to be a boy or girl, should be kept out of the classroom'. I totally, wholeheartedly agree with this. Except please don't call it 'trans ideology'. This ideology is part of the postmodern critical theory umbrella, and it originated in the academic humanities, rather than the trans community. It belongs to the radical feminist tradition (yes, the same tradition as transphobic gender critical feminism, and they do share many views too). Old-school trans people never accepted this ideology, but there have been attempts to brainwash the younger parts of the trans community with the ideology. In real life, trans people transition not because we 'have a choice' over our gender. It's because we don't. As trans people sometimes put it, our crippling gender dysphoria means that we don't have the luxury of seeing gender as a social construct. The postmodern radicals are silencing this basic truth of trans lives. Understand that the trans community is as much a victim of this anti-scientific ideology as the rest of society, and that many of us are very frustrated that it is getting in the way of productive conversations about trans issues based on actual scientific and clinical evidence.

I believe that there is a fundamental problem in how we are discussing trans issues in the mainstream media right now. It boils down to the fact that we do not center the condition of 'gender dysphoria' enough in those discussions. The fact is, trans people transition to relieve their gender dysphoria. Without gender dysphoria there wouldn't be trans people or trans issues. So understanding, and being empathetic towards, the very real condition of gender dysphoria, should be the first step in the development of any views towards, or solutions for, trans issues. Indeed, this was how historical pioneers of medical research into trans people, like Dr. Harry Benjamin, approached the issue. I am worried that we are losing sight of this. I am worried that the intrusion of radical feminist theories, of both the gender critical kind and the postmodern kind, is derailing the proper approach to understanding trans issues, and essentially turning a health issue into a culture war issue. This, in turn, leads to a conversation based not around understanding, empathy and science, but around academic theories, worldviews and tribalism.

Not Asian Enough, Not Trans Enough? | An Asian Trans View

Today, I want to talk about that controversial 'oppression olympics' scene from the comedy series Ginny & Georgia, released earlier this year. I'm not going to discuss the concept of 'oppression olympics' itself, but rather I will be focusing on what was said. In that scene, Ginny, who has a white mother and a black father, said that her friend Hunter, who is half-Asian, was much closer to being 'white' than herself, and that's why their allegedly racist English teacher chose Hunter's essay to be the winner. In turn, Hunter recounted his own experiences of feeling like he fitted in nowhere, and concluded with something like 'sorry if I'm not Asian enough for you'. The discussion then turned towards if Ginny was 'black enough'.

Even though Hunter's being mixed-race contributed to his feeling of not fitting anywhere, I guess this feeling applies even to those of us who aren't mixed-race. For example, many Asians who grew up in the West could have similar experiences, like going to Asia only to find a reception along the lines of 'you don't belong here either'. I myself grew up in both the West and in Asia, going back and forth between the two worlds, so I know the feeling very well. I guess, having gone to school in Asia for quite a few years, learning the language and the culture, I don't think I'm most people's idea of being 'not Asian enough', at least by Western standards. However, people in Asia, including my teachers at school, used to say that I have a very Westernized way of seeing things, and they all thought it was because I spent my first years of school in the West. So, yeah, I was, and still am, 'not Asian enough' by Asian standards, I guess.

I guess we really shouldn't care about if we are 'not Asian enough', or things like that. I mean, I'm used to not entirely fitting anywhere all my life, so it could be easy for me to say this. But I think we are all unique individuals, and I think we should be proud of our uniqueness, including in our cultural influences. I guess that would make me quite individualistic, a thing which I'm proud of, but would definitely be seen as being 'not Asian enough' by many traditional Asians. I really don't care though, to be honest.

As with all things identity, just like how one could be 'not Asian enough' or 'not black enough', one could also now be 'not gay enough', and I guess 'not trans enough' nowadays, given the increasing importance some people are assigning to these identities. I remember someone describing then-US Presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg as 'not gay enough' for some reason, something that puzzled me, because from what I see, Pete was clearly a gay man. I suspect I may also be seen as 'not trans enough' by some people too. I mean, I don't have much connection to the LGBT community, I don't share the views of the activist establishment, and I don't do many stereotypical 'trans' things, if there are indeed such things. So yeah, I'm probably 'not trans enough' too. But I don't care, because I am an individual, not a stereotype.

Lady Gaga, Katy Perry & Taylor Swift - LGBT in the Top 40 Over Time | TaraElla & Friends #8

TE: Welcome back to TaraElla and Friends. Today, we have my friend Simply Happy again, who is a proud top 40 radio person. We are going to discuss LGBT attitudes and support in the top 40 scene, and see how attitudes have evolved over time.

I still remember that, back when I was in college and gay marriage was generally opposed by majorities across the world, not many top 40 artists and personalities dared to speak up about that topic either. Things began to change around the turn of the decade, around 2009 to 2012 or so. Suddenly, it was cool to be pro-marriage equality. I think several personalities who emerged around that time, like Lady Gaga and Katy Perry, were some of the first to be vocal about their support for gay marriage and other associated rights.

SH: I also remember the change around that time. Gay representation on TV also greatly increased at around the same time, with shows like Glee. I guess people just became aware of the issues around that time.

TE: Perhaps it's partly due to the gradual awareness. That said, gay marriage was already a big culture war issue around 2004, when it was politicized with the 2004 US elections. And Prop 8 in California in 2008 caused a big wave of discussion too. So it was somewhat disappointing that more celebrities didn't state their support for LGBT rights earlier. Perhaps that could have averted the Prop 8 result, for example. I guess most celebrities were afraid of receiving backlash from more conservative parts of society if they spoke out. I mean, even in 2010 or so, it was only personalities with a more 'edgy' image, so to speak, who were comfortable voicing their support for LGBT issues. While Lady Gaga and Katy Perry were outspoken, Taylor Swift was quiet on these issues, for example.

SH: You know, I was a big fan of Taylor Swift, and I was quite disappointed with her lack of public support for LGBT issues back then. But I forgave her, and I still do, especially since she is now very vocal about supporting things like the Equality Act. I think you've got to remember that it was a different time. You've got to remember that this was back during a time when the top 40 scene was much less political than it is now. This had its pros and cons. But people were simply not used to their favorite celebrity speaking up about political issues. And those who do often get punished, like how the Dixie Chicks, now simply known as The Chicks, were subject to a boycott back in 2003, during the heated arguments around the Iraq War. You know, people don't want to lose their careers just like that.

TE: That whole drama around the Dixie Chicks, I was so angry back then. Especially since I was vehemently against the Iraq War. I guess it was back then that I started to form a strong opinion against what we call 'cancel culture' now. It's probably why I'm so against cancel culture in all its forms. I mean, one thing that's better about where we are now compared to two decades ago, is that people don't feel as compelled to stay silent on controversial political or social issues. However, my worry is that the rise of cancel culture could completely reverse that progress. We have to remember that many of the reforms we have achieved, things like marriage equality, were made possible by people being comfortable enough to speak up. We should cherish that.

SH: A related point is the unhealthy polarization. This divisiveness makes people uncomfortable, and it means people aren't going to be as comfortable discussing political issues in the future. Many people are already avoiding political topics during family gatherings. If this trend continues, I think we may indeed see a reluctance to discuss controversial issues return among public figures, especially those in the mainstream entertainment industry. And if that happens, I think it will be the fault of those pushing their extreme views on all sides.

TE: I suspect we may even be beginning to see some of this. For example, while many celebrities profess their general support for the LGBT community nowadays, they don't discuss many of the controversial issues dividing the LGBT community itself. I guess events like the 2019 attempted cancellation of ContraPoints, over some personal opinions about pronoun introductions, have taught mainstream celebrities to stay away, for the sake of their careers. You see this strategy of superficial support but no deep engagement in the whole JK Rowling controversy last year, for example. Many celebrities distanced themselves from Rowling's stance and professed support for trans rights, but it was in a shallow way, without engaging deeper in the issues at hand. What I'm worried about is that, in the future, supporting the LGBT community will mean shallow virtue signalling and nothing more. This, in turn, means that nobody ever changes their mind, and no progress is ever made.

On Asian and Trans Representation in Moxie (2021) | An Asian Trans View

Today, I want to talk about the film Moxie, by Amy Poehler, released last month. Much has been said about the brand of feminism it promotes, but today I want to focus on the trans and Asian representation in the movie. I think I should say that I haven't read the book, so all of this review is going to be based entirely on the movie.

Much has been said about the very limited trans representation in the form of the character CJ, played by actress Josie Totah. As many people are saying, blink and you'll miss it. I also suspect that people who aren't familiar with trans issues wouldn't even know the character is trans, given the way her story was presented. I mean, the extremely online world notwithstanding, the reality is that trans awareness isn't that great in the general public yet, so a trans character probably still has to be presented clearly to be universally understood. Another thing I'm worried about is that it could be becoming fashionable to just randomly add trans characters for performative wokeness points, where they otherwise don't relate much to the storyline at all. As we recently discussed on TaraElla & Friends, this kind of shallow representation risks being not enough to promote public understanding and empathy for trans people, while still being enough to generate plenty of backlash. That would indeed be the worst of both worlds!

In contrast to the trans representation, the Asian representation is much more substantial, in the form of the character Claudia, played by Lauren Tsai. Claudia's life gets plenty of in-depth treatment, including her family life. I think there's both good and bad things about her portrayal here. The good is that we are finally getting more in-depth exploration of Asian culture and issues, after having been ignored for so long. The bad, I think, is that the portrayal here is quite stereotypical, of Asians being nerdy, cautious, eager to stay out of trouble and so on. I mean, I won't deny that there is at least some validity to that stereotype, and it is linked to Asian culture and the way many of us are brought up. Indeed, it could be helpful to acknowledge this, so we can begin to address the root causes of the underrepresentation of Asians in media-related occupations, and hence in the mainstream media conversation about cultural diversity. In a way, I think the movie's message that Claudia could contribute 'in her own way', and her work is not any less valuable, helps advance the much needed conversation of whether there are culturally based barriers towards the participation of Asian voices that should be addressed.

On the other hand, it still concerns me to some degree to see that there are outspoken black people, there are outspoken white people, but the Asian has to be particularly shy and controversy avoiding. Growing up, I was the outspoken Asian, which I would admit is not the usual norm, be we do exist! I have yet to see anything in the mainstream media acknowledging this at all, and to be honest, I am frustrated. I am also worried that, this whole stereotype would contribute a vicious cycle, robbing young Asian people of the media role models that could encourage them to be more outspoken. This is why, I think, it's important to have more Asian representation that breaks with this stereotype, and is as loud and confident as the most loud and confident black and white voices alike.

Why This 'Top 40' Trans Woman Doesn't Like BreadTube | TaraElla & Friends #7

TE: Welcome back to TaraElla and friends. In the past, I have had my fair share of criticizing BreadTube from an LGBT perspective, mainly from a more intellectual or philosophical angle. However, other people, like my friend Simply Happy, have had similar feelings but from a more practical, top 40 hits angle, if you know what I mean. Today, I'm going to interview Simply Happy, a self described 'top 40 person' who doesn't like BreadTube, but doesn't really care about the philosophical side critiques from people like myself either. So let's start. Simply Happy, why do you call yourself a top 40 person?

SH: I consider myself a top 40 person, you know, like a person who likes to listen to top 40 radio hits. And I love my top 40 hits. I really don't like music snobs who think their music is better, when it's clearly not as popular. If something's popular, there has to be a good reason for that. I also have this attitude towards almost everything else in life. If it's popular, it's almost always good. It's why I only pay attention to popular things.

TE: I think you certainly do have the right to choose to only pay attention to the popular things, but I think you'd be missing out on so much. There are so many great things that aren't popular simply because of commercial reality, you know, how much money there is to promote it. But I totally respect your lifestyle choices. However, there is something I must ask you: do you have a problem with people who have non-mainstream tastes in life?

SH: No, I don't actually. What I have a problem with is people who think they're so much better than the rest of us because of their odd choices. Like, they choose to be unusual, they choose to embrace unusual ideas, and they think they are so much better because of it. And, let's face it, many of those unusual choices can be harmful for you, like they are psychologically unhealthy. They are unpopular for a reason. That's why I have a problem with BreadTube. They keep promoting ideas I believe are psychologically unhealthy, and my friends in the LGBT community keep swallowing it. It's really taken a toll on their self confidence.

TE: You know I actually sort of agree with your concern about parts of BreadTube. It's really psychologically unhealthy for the LGBT community to see people oppressing us everywhere. It's not good for us, personally, to see bigotry and hostility where there ain't such intention, or for us to be oversensitive to other people's comments. I've said this in relation to the trans community's response to JK Rowling, Jordan Peterson, Joe Rogan, and several others. I think this mentality is a result of bad theory. My approach is to fight bad theory with good ideas, and bad philosophy with good philosophy, if you know what I mean. However, you seem to not quite agree with my approach.

SH: I actually consider myself, like, pretty anti-philosophy in general. It's the idea of philosophy that's gotten people into all this mess in the first place. If people could live in the here and now, and there's nothing more than that, I think many people would be happier. Your thing of fighting bad philosophy with good philosophy is noble, but I don't think you'll win, because the concept of philosophy itself encourages people to embrace weird ideas, so as long as the concept exists, the weirder ideas will win. That's why the solution is to stop debating philosophy and listen to more top 40 radio. Philosophy is unpopular, and top 40 radio is popular, for a very good reason!

TE: But you said you were concerned that your LGBT friends are being sucked into problematic philosophy. Wouldn't debunking those ideas help pull them out?

SH: I don't believe in going round and round in circles like that. Instead, I think we should pull them out by getting them to enjoy what real life has to offer. Like listening to top 40 radio. Of course, we can also poke fun at ideas that simply don't make sense. I call it 'fighting weird with normal'.

TE: You know, I'm still skeptical of your take, but I have to admit that I am having very limited success with my approach so far. Therefore, I'll keep an open mind on your alternative approach. So let's keep this conversation going for now.

Facts vs Feelings in the Trans Debates & Discourse | TaraElla & Friends #6

TE: Welcome back to TaraElla and Friends. One of the things that have been troubling me about the cultural and political discourse of the past few years is that people have an inability to discuss things in a rational and productive way. This is especially true for trans issues, and it's turned everything into a bitter stalemate. I have explored again and again the various reasons for this, including the adverse influence of certain postmodern critical theories. But what we need is a way to get out of this situation. This is where I'm running out of ideas.

AT: While it's useful to think about why things have turned out a certain way, it's perhaps not too productive to dwell on theoretical causes. Besides, dwelling on theoretical analysis can dehumanize the whole thing, which leads to maladaptive solutions. I mean, people often act a certain way because of their emotions, because they are flawed human beings, and not because of any theory or planned action.

TE: I think that's a good point. While we have to intellectually combat bad theories, we also have to acknowledge that much of the tribal us-vs-them behavior is simply rooted in irrationality. I think with things like cancel culture and twitter mobs, it's often more irrational behavior than rational behavior. The thing is, I am the kind of person who has a hard time understanding irrational behavior.

AT: I think you got to start from the emotions. I get that you are a facts over feelings person, but many people don't base their actions on intellectualism like the way you do. They are more gut feeling people. Hence, if they feel hurt, or they feel fearful, they will erect borders. This is where the us-vs-them comes from. In complicated and sensitive issues, like trans issues, we see this very often. I think the key is dealing with the emotions adequately, so things don't get overheated.

TE: I am more of an ideas person. I mean, my plan to get this conversation going is by getting people to talk, to start a conversation. That's why I propose that all sides of the debate should put forward ideas that could satisfy the concerns of the other sides. It's why, I am interested in hearing all sorts of proposals to the current controversies, as long as it is suggested in good faith, and not completely dismissive of the concerns of other stakeholders. I mean, we are not going to magically agree in the first instance. But if we are willing to work with ideas that we don't entirely agree with at first, I think we'll get to a better consensus eventually. That's why I think it's important to be open-minded. However, with emotions mixed in, some people become shut off, defensive or even hostile. How could we deal with that?

AT: Firstly, simply acknowledging the emotions involved can go a long way. If you are moderating a discussion, it could be a good idea to assure everyone that they are supported, that their needs and concerns will be taken seriously. This is especially important when talking about issues where there are many stakeholders with sensitive concerns, like trans issues. I think that, when a concern is raised, as long as it's raised in good faith, we should acknowledge it, and promise to take it seriously. We will deal with it so everything works in practice, and not just in theory. On the other hand, if there is an attempt to belittle the lived experience of other people, we should also discourage that, and instead promise to take it seriously too. We should actively make it a discussion where everyone's concerns will be taken seriously, and make it clear that we favor solutions that will work for everyone, that actually cares about everyone's needs in practice and not just in theory.

Supergirl, Euphoria & OITNB - 3 Types of Trans Representation | TaraElla & Friends #5

TE: Welcome back to TaraElla and Friends. Today, I want to continue my discussion about trans representation in the media. In particular, I want to look at several prominent examples, including the characters of Dreamer in Supergirl (played by Nicole Maines), Jules in Euphoria (played by Hunter Schafer), and Sophia in Orange Is The New Black (played by Laverne Cox). I want to examine if these representations actually help or hinder public understanding of trans lives, and whether these representations are, on the whole, fair and balanced or not.

TC: Before we start examining individual cases, perhaps we should establish this first: why is it important as to how mainstream media is portraying trans lives? What practical impact would it have in real life?

TE: It is an unfortunate fact of life that mainstream media, and the narrative it creates, has a dominant impact on how many people see the issues. For example, last time I was talking about the lack of focus on gender dysphoria. I've heard so many trans people say that they can't afford to see gender as a social construct, because their very real dysphoria is crippling their lives. Yet I don't hear this represented in the media. Now, you may think that the internet means that mainstream media matters less now. But that's simply not true. Back in the 90s there was real hope that the open internet will level the playing field, but over the years, establishment sources have gained more and more privilege, thus gradually rebuilding the landscape of the TV, radio and newspaper world. For example, Wikipedia would generally only include people and topics with enough mainstream media coverage. Given the prominence of Wikipedia in Google search and other places, all this has the potential to greatly amplify and legitimize points of view represented in mainstream media, and minimize and delegitimize other viewpoints.

TC: With the importance of mainstream media narratives established, we can now look at the specific examples you mentioned earlier. Let's start with Dreamer in Supergirl, often said to be the first trans superhero. Dreamer is confident, capable, well-adjusted, and conventionally attractive. She's the whole package, really. Do you think this is good representation?

TE: Yes and no. The reality is complicated. I mean, having a well-adjusted and confident trans character is a nice change, from the more usual stereotype of trans people being socially marginalized and having lots of issues. That said, Dreamer is a bit too perfect. She doesn't even seem to suffer from much gender dysphoria at all. Which would probably make sense in the context, Dreamer being a fantasy superhero. But what Dreamer's narrative is missing is the reality of gender dysphoria, which means it may not generate much public empathy and understanding. I mean, one can have gender dysphoria and still do well in life in general. It's like how many people have their own issues, but still struggle to do well enough in life. And there are plenty of such characters in the rest of the TV world. You know, the career woman with anxiety issues, or the young professional struggling with being gay, yet still enjoying career success. There's no reason why gender dysphoria can't be mixed in with an otherwise heroic life.

TC: If you think Dreamer shows too little of the trans life realities, how about Jules in Euphoria? I mean, we do see a lot of her life, her struggles, and her thoughts. There's even one whole episode where she discusses everything with a therapist.

TE: I do think it's great that the show goes into such depth about Jules's life and struggles. I think it could have even helped more people understand and have empathy with trans people, at least to some extent. However, the downside is that it could also feed into the narrative about trans people having lots of issues. I mean, Jules doesn't just have gender dysphoria, she has lots of other issues that have nothing to do with gender dysphoria. What I'm worried is that, if this is somebody's first insight into trans lives, then they may get the false impression that gender dysphoria is caused by other social or mental health issues. You know, there are already many transphobic people who like to promote that kind of view. I think we need to be careful not to give too much ammunition to them.

TC: Earlier on, you mentioned the traditional stereotype of trans people being socially marginalized. I understand that you want that stereotype gone. Yet it was such a socially marginalized character, Sophia in Orange Is The New Black, that was part of the 'trans tipping point' back in 2014 or so. Laverne Cox, who played Sophia, even landed on the front cover of Time. How do you see this?

TE: I still feel like we need to break free of the marginalized minority stereotype. The danger is that it could compliment and amplify a long line of prejudicial trans narratives, going all the way back to old films like Silence Of The Lambs. I fear it could lead to more discrimination in real life. That said, Orange Is The New Black is better, because basically everyone there is marginalized, it's not just the trans person. Besides, Laverne's performance was really groundbreaking for that time. There was a time when 'trans celebrities' only existed in trans circles. And in trans circles, Laverne was certainly already a trans celebrity before Orange Is The New Black. But she was the first of the many trans celebrities I was following to cross over into the mainstream, and that was almost surreal to see. I mean, I still think the character embodied some of the stereotypes I wish we could get rid of, but back in 2014, it was at least an introduction to trans people and trans issues, for many people who would otherwise be clueless about these things.

We need to remember how far trans awareness has come, even though it's actually not all positive. But back when I came out in 2006, some people simply didn't understand what being trans meant at all. Basically, they had never heard of a trans person. Most other people may have vaguely heard of trans people, but they surely hadn't seen one in real life, and weren't expecting to either. The 'trans tipping point' really changed everything. However, we don't live in 2014 anymore, and we must push for a more representative and fairer portrayal of trans lives. The reason being that, as I said, not all of the trans awareness has been positive. Now that the can of worms has been opened, so to speak, there's no going back. The public are curious, they want to know more about trans people. If the media won't actually start portraying trans lives fairly and accurately, so that public understanding can develop, all kinds of myths and stereotypes would start filling that space. And if that happens, it will likely set back the cause of trans acceptance and trans rights for many years.

The Problem with Media Representation of Trans People | TaraElla & Friends #4

TE: Welcome back to TaraElla and friends. Today, we have my friend The Clarifier again, and I want to sort of continue the conversation we were having last time. This time, I want to focus on the current state of media representation of trans people.

TC: The amount of trans representation in mainstream media has increased a lot in recent years. I mean, quite a few popular series have had trans characters, played by trans actors, for example. So you don't think that's good enough?

TE: As I said in the last episode, while there seems to be some media representation of trans people in recent years, almost none of them focus enough on dysphoria, which is the central part of the trans life experience. This really needs to change. Maybe discussing dysphoria isn't pleasant, but it is the only way other people will come to understand and have empathy with trans people. The problem with not focusing on the dysphoria is that other ideological driven narratives would take its place, muddying the whole picture.

Overall, I think that the current media representation of trans people is very superficial, and somewhat self-serving. It's almost like a few select trans people are put there as 'fashion of the day' accessories, or to give a feel of performative wokeness to shows. The trouble is this doesn't go far enough to allow the public to understand and empathize with trans people, while still being enough to generate a backlash.

TC: So why do you think the trans representation we have now is 'superficial'? I mean, there are trans story lines that are largely consistent with the lives of many trans people. How is that superficial?

TE: Firstly, while these story lines do illustrate some typical trans experiences and struggles, like financial problems, hormone therapy, family issues, and the like, they often don't do enough justice to the dysphoria. Maybe it's hard to insert that stuff into a TV series. Maybe it's more suitable for more in-depth formats, like talk shows. Like what we're doing here. But you don't often seen trans people on talk shows, at least not often enough to let us explain the dysphoria experience properly. You know what would be great? A trans talk show host, who can integrate the trans narrative with their other talk, and maybe discuss this a bit with their guests too. A trans version of Oprah or Ellen, if you like. It would go a long way to achieve public understanding.

The problem with having only superficial representation is that there is still going to be a lot of misunderstandings. As I said, it doesn't go far eonugh to generate empathy, but it does go far enough to generate plenty of backlash. It's almost like the worst of both worlds. Furthermore, the lack of focus on dysphoria allows the ideologically driven ideas of the 'two unholy alliances' to insert themselves into the debate, which would only generate more confusion and backlash among the general public. If the media wants to be as trans friendly as its claims to be, then it really needs to improve its game. We need to tell them, we aren't happy with your token gestures of performative wokeness, that could indeed do more harm than good for trans people in real life.

TC: Are there any other problems with the media representation that we need to raise with the world?

TE: Of course there are many, many more. Indeed, the way mainstream media is run nowadays has many problems. But let's focus on what I just said, plus a few more that are not that difficult to fix. For starters, the trans voices represented in the media don't cover many walks of trans life. There is basically no asian trans representation, for example. It's why I decided to call my show An Asian Trans View. Because the asian trans view is being left out completely. There's also not much about the diverse economic backgrounds, life aspirations, and social and political views found in the trans community. It's sometimes as if we were two-dimensional cardboard cut-outs, people who are defined by being trans but don't otherwise have much of a special life of our own.

I really don't want to sound too ungrateful for what little representation we now have. But it is in fact not good enough, and it needs to improve. I really hope more people, especially those in a position to change things, hear this.