The Problems with Trans / LGBT Culture Right Now | TaraElla Clips

This is an excerpt from LGBT People Shouldn’t Push the Rest of the World Away by TaraElla.

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.

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.

Trans People Need to Think of Ourselves as Normal Members of Society | Trans Realist

Fight against those who want to harm us, but don't overreact all the time

Today, I want to address a criticism of my work regularly raised by some trans people: that I am supposedly too tolerant of anti-trans bigotry, and fail to recognize that there are people out there who want to hurt us. Let me start with this: I certainly don't have an appeasement policy towards anti-trans forces. I have called out the dangerous agenda of truly anti-trans people many times just within this year, and I have also argued that we need legal recognition to protect us from anti-trans forces. I have also called out those who seek to downplay the suffering of gender dysphoria in particular.

However, it is also true that some parts of the trans community have repeatedly overreacted to what people are saying. A good example of this is last year's Dave Chappelle controversy. Chappelle's work has always been controversial. It's part of his brand. In last year's Netflix special, he made controversial jokes about many groups. However, trans people were the only ones who overreacted. Somehow, trans people seem to be the only ones to think that Chappelle being Chappelle was a major threat to them. This led to headline after headline highlighting the trans-related content in the special, as if he had made a whole special dedicated to trans issues. In reality, the trans stuff was only a small part of the program.

So how can we balance the need to call out and push back against those who really want to harm us, and the need to not overreact to every insignificant thing people say? I think the answer is just to 'act normal'. What I mean by this is we should think and act like we are normal members of society. What we need to do, is to stop thinking of ourselves as oppressed victims all the time. If we do this, we would stop overreacting to things that almost nobody else thinks is important. We would also stop pushing the rest of the world away by getting combative over minor things all the time. This way, it wouldn't feel exhausting for others to deal with trans people and trans issues.

On the other hand, we must still recognize that there are people out there who are vehemently anti-trans, who would even support things that would actively make trans people suffer. In the past year, some anti-trans activists have stated that they would want to make it more difficult for people to transition. A few have even said that, in their ideal world, they would like medical transition, the medically necessary treatment for gender dysphoria, to be banned. Given that no normal person would appease those who want them to suffer, it would just be very normal for trans people to call these people out and condemn their cruel positions. Indeed, if we left the Dave Chappelles of the world alone and save our rage for those who really want to harm us, I think we would gain a lot more credibility and support in mainstream society.

In conclusion, acting 'normal' towards the rest of the world is ultimately good for us, and to do that, we need to adopt a 'normal' mindset, i.e. stop thinking of ourselves as oppressed victims all the time. This would be the key to stop overreacting all the time. We still have to fight against anti-trans forces that really want to harm us, and that is also a natural part of a 'normal' mindset. After all, nobody would just allow others to harm them without fighting back, right?

Please Don't Be A Fake Trans Ally | TaraElla Clips

This is an excerpt from How to Make the Trans Community Respected Again by TaraElla.

My point is, if you don’t really want to help with the practical improvement of trans lives, please don’t pretend to be an ally and use us for your political program. To all you people using trans lives to promote your talking points of deconstruction, Foucauldian postmodernism, the Macusean Great Refusal, the 1960s style revolution and so on. As a trans person suffering the consequences, I’ve really had enough of it!

Classical Liberals Should Make Common Cause with the LGBT Community | TaraElla Clips

This is an excerpt from the article We Need to Call Out the Biased Coverage of Trans Issues by TaraElla.

To effectively make the case for the classical liberal social contract, we must make it work properly in practice. This includes making an effort to correct things that are not working well. At the very least, we need to call out the aforementioned unfair coverage of trans people and trans issues. If nothing else, free speech liberals taking a firm stance on this issue would at least stop the critical anarchists from painting all of us as hypocrites driven by a 'right-wing' agenda. This will save the reputation of classical liberalism in the long run, long after the current culture wars end up discrediting the ideologues on both sides. Moreover, by trying our best to call out bad practices, we might even end up changing them, at least to some extent. If we can use classical liberal means to fight the 'anti-woke' culture war reactionaries, and limit the damage that they can do, we will gain credibility among the LGBT community and its allies, and young people more generally. This will be a win-win situation, for both the LGBT community and classical liberal values like free speech.

How to Argue Against the New Anti-Trans Movement | Trans Realist

We Need to Identify the Source of the Problem and Respond Effectively

Today, I want to talk about an important problem: the increasingly extreme anti-trans attitude that has now become a dominant feature in the reactionary culture war part of the Right. The problem is getting so bad that, honestly, I have to say that I would be quite concerned even if I were not trans. Moral panics targeting minorities have a very troublesome history, which is why everyone should be worried about one that is clearly brewing. Moreover, the current anti-trans wave is increasingly showing signs that it is going to affect non-trans people too. Therefore, it is a problem that needs more attention. Here, I will examine what the problem looks like, what its root cause is, and how we can change things.

Part 1: The Problem

It all began as part of a 'pushback' against the excesses of trans activism, starting a few years ago. Back then, some trans activists repeatedly tried to cancel people they didn't agree with. They also began making demands that mainstream society change their language on many things, which was deemed to be unreasonable by many people. These developments brought together concerned parties from different parts of society, thinking they needed to push back against a movement that had become unreasonable. I, too, agreed that we should defend free speech, and I repeatedly stated my belief that such extreme actions were not going to help the trans community. However, we should remember that the activists described here are only a small part of the trans community, even if they are quite vocal. Many people involved in this 'pushback' were genuinely concerned about free speech. They had no ill will towards trans people, and they told me so repeatedly. However, others with an anti-trans agenda, often rooted in religious fundamentalism, were also riding this 'pushback' wave, hidden at first behind the more reasonable voices defending free speech. Over time, backed by powerful forces vehemently opposed to trans rights, these anti-trans people began to change the narrative, from concern about activist overreach, to seeing the whole trans community as the enemy, perhaps linked with other conspiracy theories on the far-right.

The increasing dehumanization of trans people allowed cruelty towards trans people to be normalized. After all, trans people weren't suffering people anymore, they were now enemies with a dangerous political agenda, who deserved whatever pushback that was coming their way. Anti-trans activists who openly state that they want to reduce the number of people who transition, and even one who stated that, in their ideal world, they want all medical transition to be banned, are now welcome as voices of common sense in trans skeptical circles. The fact that medical transition as treatment for gender dysphoria is medically indicated, and has a long history of use among adults with gender dysphoria, is basically never mentioned in these same circles. This has led to trivialization of gender dysphoria and the suffering it brings, which has led to real world effects, like Florida deciding to end Medicaid coverage for all medical transition treatments. Note that this applies to adult patients, some who have been followed up for many years, who have been assessed by their doctors as needing this treatment, because there is no other way to relieve their dysphoria. These patients receiving this treatment is certainly not controversial at all, from a clinical medicine point of view. Taking away others' medically necessary treatment is one of the most despicable things one can do, especially if it is to fulfill a culture war objective.

Moreover, the implications of this new anti-trans wave are now starting to spread beyond trans people. There is now an increasing fearmongering and demonization of gender non-conformity, which is affecting non-trans people too. Even some gender critical feminists have become concerned about this recently, which shows how bad it has become. Furthermore, there is now a very real concern that the rising anti-trans sentiment is fueling a return of religious right politics, that would have authoritarian implications in many areas of life, and not just limited to the LGBT community. As you can see, it is all becoming a major problem that those who are dedicated to free speech, free expression, and compassionate treatment for all, have rightly become very worried about.

Part 2: The Root Cause

To deal with a problem, we need to examine its root cause. Here, I believe the root cause is biased coverage. It all began with unfair coverage of trans people, which made us into the 'enemy' over time. The most extreme trans activists are highlighted all the time. Even the most unpopular and most uninfluential activists are given a platform to showcase their views, as long as it would reflect badly on the trans community. The coverage of trans issues also strongly skew towards the most controversial issues, with journalists, reporters and show hosts often encouraging an emotional response from their audiences. Meanwhile, the fact that 99% of the trans community consists of everyday trans people, who just want to relieve their gender dysphoria and get on with their lives with as little hassle as possible, is never mentioned.

Looking at the history of the problem, I believe left-leaning media was worse during the mid-2010s. At that point, the LGBT discourse on left-leaning media was captured by postmodernist voices, like those who thought that the very existence of pronouns were 'cisnormative', and old-school regular trans people with gender dysphoria were deemed not progressive enough for them. Back then, at least right-leaning media would feature some reasonable trans people, as a counterpoint to what was being platformed on the other side. However, as organized conservative politics began to take an anti-LGBT turn, right-leaning media stopped giving reasonable trans people a platform. Instead, they began to showcase only the most extreme activists, even more so than left-leaning media. Gender critical activists are often invited on to be the 'reasonable' voice, critiquing the 'trans movement' while normalizing hardline gender critical talking points. In contrast, while there are many reasonable trans people who are willing to talk about reasonable compromises, they are never given a chance to speak. All this contributes to a false picture that the trans community is full of extremists. The point is that, over time, we have been dehumanized, and turned into political enemies, as a result of this biased coverage.

Part 3: The Solution

The first step to change is to be aware of the problem. This is why I am trying my best to raise awareness all the time. The next step is to take action, to call out and push back against those who perpetuate the unfair coverage problem. No, it is not OK to repeatedly use postmodern gender activists as 'representation' of what trans people believe. It is not OK to pretend that gender studies 'experts' speak for us, and let them put words in our mouth. And it is certainly not OK to disproportionately feature the most radical trans activists because they bring in more clicks and revenue. In fact, I believe that media outlets that engage in this kind of behavior should probably be subject to a boycott, so as to correct for the problem of financial incentives, but that's another topic. We should also remember that basically all kinds of media outlets are currently guilty of the aforementioned behavior. Old school mainstream media, internet-based new media, progressive media, conservative media, so-called free speech media, they are all guilty, and they all need to be called out. Therefore, we need to push back against all of them, without discrimination. Only by acting to end this unfair coverage problem can the current anti-trans wave be defeated.

Free Speech People Need to Call Out Anti-Trans Bias | TaraElla Clips

This is an excerpt from the article We Need to Call Out the Biased Coverage of Trans Issues by TaraElla.

As I said before, the best way to persuade the LGBT community to stop embracing critical anarchism is to demonstrate that the classical liberal approach works as promised in practice. In particular, the promise of free speech is that it will help everyone come to a fair and objective view of things. With truly free speech, the best ideas will prevail, and we can build a better consensus moving forward. However, for this to work effectively, ideas and perspectives must be placed on a level playing field in the first place. This is why de-platforming certain ideas and perspectives is bad. Whilst not as directly authoritarian, biased coverage can have a similar effect. This is especially true when it comes from media outlets backed by lots of money, that can easily drown out independent voices when they 'move in the same direction'. In recent years, the coverage of trans issues in many 'anti-woke' leaning media outlets has not been a level playing field, to put it mildly. There has been a strong emphasis on covering the most extreme parts of trans activism, while everyday, reasonable trans people who just want to get on with their lives are rendered non-existent. Consumers of this media often end up with very skewed perceptions of trans people. The skewed media coverage has essentially made us into 'the enemy', and a tool for negative partisanship, and dehumanized us in the process. This is very different from simply disagreeing with postmodern queer theory, or the tactics of certain trans activists.

We Need to Talk About Anti-Trans Cancel Culture | TaraElla Clips

This is an excerpt from the article What Graham Norton Getting Cancelled Over Trans Comments Teaches Us by TaraElla.

...cancel culture can come from all sides, including from people who are not usually considered 'woke'. In this incident, Norton was basically cancelled for being perceived to be supportive of trans people and trans rights. The people doing the cancelling could be broadly described as 'gender critical', and these people are not generally considered 'woke' for some arbitrary reason. (Gender critical feminism is considered part of the 'non-woke' Left, even though it is a form of identity politics, for reasons I don't fully understand.) I guess this is why this incident has received lower than expected levels of attention, compared to say, last year's controversy over Dave Chappelle. Many 'free speech activists' who fought for Chappelle's free speech back then simply failed to come out and support Norton this time. Far too often, cancel culture that comes from the supposedly 'non-woke' is not taken as seriously. It's like how when, earlier this year, Florida governor Ron DeSantis used the power of the state to 'punish' Disney for speaking up against his Don't Say Gay law, and 'anti-woke' free speech forces didn't unite to oppose the move as some might have expected. This just shows how the 'woke' vs 'anti-woke' lens is of limited utility in defending free speech, and well past its expiry date, in a time when cancel culture can almost equally come from all sides. This is why it's time we moved away from a 'woke' vs 'anti-woke' narrative, towards a narrative that opposes cancel culture and defends free speech on the grounds of traditional classical liberal ideals.

Why Trans People Should Embrace Classical Liberal Norms | TaraElla Clips

This is an excerpt from the article Dismantling Liberal Norms Endangers the LGBT Community by TaraElla.

What we need to remember is that liberalism has been responsible for basically all the social progress of the West since the Enlightenment. The liberal dedication to individual liberty, equality and the objective truth has been essential in the fight against arbitrary power based on superstition, which is what is at the root of the religious right's opposition to LGBT equality. The anarchist wish to overturn liberal norms would lead to the return of the pre-Enlightenment dark ages, and empower the religious right's authoritarian tendencies. It must therefore be resisted tooth and nail by those who support LGBT rights.

The Vicious Cycle Keeping Trans People Marginalized | TaraElla Clips

This is an excerpt from the article We Need a Normie Trans Rights Discourse by TaraElla.

The best way to argue for liberalism, i.e. for an ordered liberty, against anarchy (including the postmodern kind), is to demonstrate that it works better in practice. This would have to include the accommodation of minorities, so that they have equal opportunity and liberty in practice. Liberalism has won many battles on that front over the years, by advancing women's rights, civil rights and gay rights. The latest battlefront appears to be trans rights. Many trans people feel like the current social order does not treat them fairly, and as a trans woman myself, I think it is fair they feel this way, unfortunately. As a result, a substantial number of trans people have rejected society as it currently exists, and embraced postmodern anarchist ideas. This has made the trans discourse look quite anti-normie in recent years, which has scared away many moderates and liberals who believe in a normie politics. Many people, who previously argued the 'normie' case for gay marriage, have decided that trans issues simply can't fit in a normie politics in the same way, and therefore should be ignored. This attitude has, in turn, 'confirmed' the worst suspicions of many trans people: that normie politics are nothing more than respectability politics, and only the postmodern far-left is their true ally. All this goes round and round in a vicious cycle, serving to marginalize trans people further and further. Moreover, the lack of a mainstream, normie movement for trans acceptance and trans rights has allowed reactionary culture warriors to comfortably target trans people, knowing that they will not get much credible pushback. The lack of a robust liberal response to the anti-trans 'movement' has in turn provided fuel for postmodern anarchists to discredit liberalism, especially in the eyes of Generation Z.

Why a Practical Reformism will Save Trans People | TaraElla Clips

This is an excerpt from the article We Need a Normie Trans Rights Discourse by TaraElla.

As I have repeatedly said, trans people are caught in a philosophy war that has its origins in academia, which has nothing to do with our everyday lives at all. These philosophy wars have hindered public understanding and acceptance of trans people, by taking the focus away from trans lives and onto abstract philosophical questions. On this, the postmodern activists are actually just as guilty as the reactionary culture warriors and the most extreme gender critical feminists. The fact that postmodern activists are more interested in deconstructing gender than actually helping trans people in any tangible way shows that they are not our true allies at all. Liberals have a good opportunity here to expose the weakness of the postmodern arguments, and demonstrate the merits of reformism within the framework of ordered liberty. We simply need to provide a pragmatic pro-trans politics that puts the focus back on the everyday life needs of trans people, and help build the required consensus in society to achieve the necessary reforms. There is a better way to do the trans discourse than what exists currently, and it's up to us to make it happen.

How To Fix the Trans Rights Discourse | TaraElla Clips

This is an excerpt from the article The Importance of Legal Recognition of Gender Identity by TaraElla.

Why Anti-Trans Culture War is Against Common Sense | TaraElla Clips

This is an excerpt from the article The Authoritarian Implications of the 'What Is A Woman' Wars by TaraElla.

To put it bluntly, normal people don't think of chromosomes or gametes when they interact with others. These things are in the realm of expert knowledge, not everyday life. Most people take a 'if it looks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck' approach to determine gender, which is undeniably the common sense position.

Under the 'if it looks like a duck' approach, many people already accept at least some trans women as belonging in the category of 'women', at least in everyday social situations where people are fully clothed. That trans women are genetically male is not even relevant in this most simplistic and most old-school of approaches.

On the other hand, the culture war activists are relentlessly attempting to supplant the 'if it looks like a duck' approach, forcibly complicating things by making people consider chromosomes and gametes where they are not even relevant. In doing so, it is destroying normal people's ability to ascertain and express reality, using commonly shared terms like 'woman' as they see fit.

'What Is A Woman' Culture Warriors are Actually Radical | TaraElla Clips

The example of 'what is a woman' illustrates the problem with reactionary culture war politics, and why it can never be a truly conservative thing. In a tribalist, whatever it takes culture war, even those who claim to 'defend' the status quo will contribute to its destruction in the process. This is because taking a politics driven, 'us vs them' culture war approach inevitably distorts and damages important parts of our cultural inheritance, and such damages could be difficult to repair even long after the culture war is over.

On the surface, the culture war activists are claiming to 'defend' the traditional dictionary definition of woman as 'adult human female'. However, using this definition as a weapon in an ongoing culture war is certainly not in line with traditional practice at all, and certainly 'complicates' the category of woman. While there has always been broad agreement with the understanding of woman to mean 'adult human female', it has not generally been used to draw a rigid line to strictly define who is in the category or not, especially in a heated, culture war context. Doing so effectively makes the formerly universally accepted definition controversial, and makes it a point of constant argument in the face of 'borderline' cases that naturally exist. The attempt at rigid classification also provides plenty of room for postmodernist activists to attack the inconsistencies in its application to various 'borderline' cases, thus justifying their argument that the category is ultimately unstable or invalid. In return, those trying to 'defend' the category will likely come up with increasingly rigid and twisted definitions that defy both science and common sense. This cycle goes on and on, until it all becomes a meaningless war of language. In the name of 'defending' the status quo, the culture war activists are actually radically changing the status quo.

 

This is an excerpt from the article The Authoritarian Implications of the 'What Is A Woman' Wars by TaraElla.

The Lessons of What Is A Woman from a Trans Perspective | Trans Realist #11

The backlash is not inevitable. We need to turn the ship around.

Welcome back to Trans Realist, a project where I have a conversation with my fellow trans people, about what could be done to make our lives better in the real world.

Ever since the release of Matt Walsh's film 'What Is A Woman' a few months ago, there has been a lot of discussion about trans issues from the perspective of what is shown in the film, and it has not been good for public understanding and acceptance of trans people. The film takes a 'just asking questions' approach, and highlights the most controversial and weakest arguments for trans rights, so as to portray trans people and trans rights in a very bad light. As I previously said, the film itself is not very scientific, and it does not feature in-depth analyses in biology, evolutionary science, or clinical medicine. However, given how weak the so-called pro-trans arguments presented were, Walsh's side seems to win by default, on the basis of common sense. The fact they mock our side for not being able to answer 'what is a woman' isn't because they have the most scientifically sound answer. Rather, it is because they can demonstrate that some of the answers given by people on our side fly in the face of common sense, and have no basis in any kind of scientific method either. I hate to admit it, but it's true.

Even before 'What Is A Woman', the polls were already showing a substantial backslide in support for trans people in both the US and the UK, and the trend does not look like stopping or reversing any time soon. The effect of a film like 'What Is A Woman' then, would be to further accelerate and solidify the backlash. If things really get to the point of no return, trans people will needlessly suffer for a generation or more. Therefore, we need to try and turn things around, and do so quickly. There is no time to waste.

Some trans activists have argued that the current backlash is inevitable, and eventually their actions will lead to some kind of 'liberation' for all of us. However, nothing is inevitable, nor is there evidence that the current pain will lead to any kind of future utopia. This is basically accelerationist philosophy, which has no factual support in history, and is also inherently against justice and decency. Instead of entertaining unproven fantasies about the future, as trans people living in the here and now, our priority should be to improve trans lives, or at least prevent things from getting worse, in the here and now. To do this, we need to have effective arguments against the onslaught of anti-trans propaganda coming from gender critical activists and right-wing culture warriors alike. There is no substitute for having convincing arguments that are rooted in objective, observable reality.

To develop effective arguments against anti-trans propaganda, and arguments for trans rights reforms that can potentially gain widespread support, we need to be able to think and talk freely. The trans community has effectively been put in an ideological straitjacket by ardent activists, who attempt to silence or 'cancel' every idea that contradicts their supposed philosophy of liberation, which is rooted in postmodern queer theory. The attempted cancelation of several high profile trans people over the years, and their ultimate bowing to the activists' position in some cases, has served to solidify the control of postmodern queer theory over the trans community. Many people might privately disagree with the queer theory program, but they dare not speak up against it in public. As I had explained in the past, the problem with postmodern queer theory is that it is completely detached, and to some extent even in denial of, empirical scientific reality. The Foucauldian view that knowledge is always historically contingent and shaped by power, which lies at the root of queer theory, is basically incompatible with a commitment to objectivity. This is why arguments from an objective, empirical, or biological viewpoint have often been met with hostility from the queer theory activists, and hence made semi-taboo in the trans community. This has ultimately led to the proliferation of non-sensical 'arguments' in the pro-trans discourse, like the ones shown in 'What Is A Woman', as well as a profound inability to answer our critics with facts and sound logic.

This is why I have been publicly challenging queer theory, and the set of ideas it is based on, including postmodernism, Marcuse's pseudo-Freudian ideas, and critical theory more generally. Over the years, I have even extended this project to include related ideas that are not LGBT-specific, like critical race theory, so as to highlight the common faults within these ideologies. However, my arguments have sometimes been quite academic, and some people have pointed out that this is of limited effectiveness in the real world. This is why I have increasingly engaged with real world events in recent months. I have long argued against cancel culture, especially in the trans community, and I will continue to do so. I have also begun regularly responding to anti-trans arguments using facts and logic. Contrary to popular belief among the activists, it is almost always useful to engage your opponents. More debate leads us closer to the objective truth, and should be welcomed.

Let's Talk About the Transmedicalist Scare | Trans Deeper #8

It looks like the cancel culture activists have found a perfect boogeyman to target trans people with

Welcome back to Trans Deeper, a show where we take a deeper look at what people are saying in the trans conversation, and whether their claims are valid or not.

Today, I want to take a look at another aspect of the controversy surrounding trans actress Hunter Schafer supposedly agreeing with a controversial Instagram post. Among other things, Schafer was called a 'transmedicalist' by many who attacked her. (Schafer has since stated that she is "not a transmedicalist".) This makes the whole incident reminiscent of the 2019 cancelation of trans YouTuber ContraPoints, who was also often called a 'transmedicalist' at the time. However, what do these people mean when they call someone a 'transmedicalist'?

From what I see, when the term 'transmedicalist' is used as a pejorative, it carries connotations of bigotry against non-binary people, discrimination against trans people who don't 'pass' as their identified gender, semi-acceptance of gender critical ideology, a 'more trans than thou' attitude, and so on. On the other hand, some trans people actually identify themselves as transmedicalists. According to these people, the defining feature of transmedicalism is the belief that 'you need to have gender dysphoria to be trans'. From what I see, most transmedicalists have no problem accepting non-binary people as part of the trans community, as long as they have gender dysphoria. I have never seen a transmedicalist who discriminates against non-passing trans people, or supports gender critical feminism. The other important thing is, most of the people being accused by online mobs of being 'transmedicalists' have actually never voiced opinions that would be considered transmedicalist by the aforementioned definition. Given these observations, it must follow that the term 'transmedicalist' used as a pejorative has no clear relation to people who actually identify as transmedicalists.

So, then, 'transmedicalist', at least as used by the online cancelation mobs, is a term that has no concrete meaning in objective reality. However, those branded with it are considered traitors to the trans community, oppressors of non-binary people, and more, and worthy of cancellation. Moreover, the accusation is generally not backed up with any concrete evidence. In other words, it is nothing but a boogeyman that is used to justify the existence of cancel culture within the trans community. As with other forms of cancel culture, the actual goal is to silence dissenting opinions, create a culture of fear, and keep the discourse in line with a certain ideology.

This is why I have adopted an anti-anti-transmedicalist attitude. My point is, you don't necessarily need to agree with the people who identify as transmedicalists, although I would say that their emphasis on gender dysphoria is a very valid point. No matter if you actually agree with real transmedicalists or not, the fact that cancel culture activists are using this term as a boogeyman, to target people in the trans community for cancellation, is not OK. It is a dangerous development we need to resist. I am anti-anti-transmed because I am for free speech, and against cancel culture.

We Must Not Let Cancel Culture Silence the Trans Community | Trans Realist #10

If a big trans celebrity can be canceled for a small controversy, what hope do we have?

Welcome back to Trans Realist, a project where I have a conversation with my fellow trans people, about what could be done to make our lives better in the real world.

Recently, trans actress Hunter Schafer was attacked by what I can only call a cancel culture mob, after interacting with a controversial Instagram post coming from another trans person. The post in question basically blamed non-binary people and certain forms of gender activism for Florida's decision to strip Medicaid coverage of transition related health care. Schafer commented on the post with several exclamation marks, which some people understood to be agreement. (Schafer has since stated that she is "not a transmedicalist", and does not hold any disdain towards non-binary people.)

Let me make this clear: I do not agree with the sentiment of the post in question. There is clearly a new movement aimed at making accessing health care difficult for trans adults, and it does not have anything to do with non-binary people. Also, while postmodern gender activism has been unhelpful for trans acceptance, I'm sure that people like Ron DeSantis would still be anti-trans even if it didn't exist. However, what I think is the more important thing here, is that Schafer found herself in a major controversy just for supposedly liking what another trans person said. If a trans celebrity is to receive such a level of backlash, because they appear to side with a controversial opinion, then everyday trans people would surely feel even more pressure to hide their unconventional opinions from the rest of the community. What hope is there for free speech and free thought within the trans community then?

As I recently said, trans people desperately need legal recognition and protection right now, and we won't win these things without truly resolving the concerns of various stakeholders in wider society. The only way we can get there is with free speech and rational debate. The current culture of silence is only going to maintain the stalemate in trans rights, which, as I previously explained, could ultimately put our access to transition related health care at risk.

To embrace free speech and free debate would mean allowing controversial opinions to be heard, and dealt with in good faith, whether you personally think they are correct or not. Even those of us who don't agree with the original post itself can surely acknowledge that it was coming from sincere concern. Opinions on various trans issues that come from the wider community often get much uglier than that. We need to have realistic expectations about the upcoming negotiation process with wider society, including the fact that our feelings are going to get hurt again and again. People will even deliberately upset us to make a point, but we will still have to keep calm and be the adult in the room. This is why, the trans community needs to learn to have mature discussions over issues like this, if we are to have any hope of getting trans rights back on track any time soon.

A New Proposal for Trans Legal Recognition | Trans Realist #9

Taking Criticisms On Board, and Trying to Break the Stalemate

Welcome back to Trans Realist, a project where I have a conversation with my fellow trans people, about what could be done to make our lives better in the real world.

Last time, I talked about the importance of prioritizing the legal recognition of trans people, as a way of protecting access to treatment for gender dysphoria. To get any legal reform done, there must be broad based support, as we saw for success stories like gay marriage. However, this could be a problem for trans rights reforms, because the debate has been poisoned by forces from all sides, and many people have become very skeptical of everything trans. Therefore, for the sake of securing the basic rights of trans people, we need to work hard to undo the current situation, and get everyone talking on a rational basis again. I have identified several key reasons that have made people skeptical of trans rights. I will discuss each of these areas in detail, and propose ways we can address the current stalemate in each area.

1. Respecting Both Gender Identity and Free Speech
As I analyzed last time, a truly accessible system of legal recognition, that can protect trans people's access to medical treatment, would necessarily involve self-identification to some extent. In this context, the term 'self-identification' merely refers to the idea that the sincere self-reported identity of trans people will be recognized by the law, perhaps with some supporting evidence to prevent people from abusing the system. This would simply be a matter of how the law operates on trans individuals, and how the government treats trans individuals. The reform would ensure that trans individuals would be treated fairly, with full respect to their gender identity. It would not create a new obligation on private individuals to recognize that identity. This means that, just like a gay couple obtaining a marriage license, a trans individual obtaining legal recognition of their gender would not affect the lives of other people. Importantly, it would not impact on anyone's free speech rights. This stands in contrast to the idea of 'self-identification' popularized by certain online spaces, where an individual's declaration of identifying as a particular gender would create social obligations on others to agree with that identity, including the enforced use of their preferred pronouns. This type of 'self-identification' creates obligations on others, and is strongly disliked by many people who have an 'I don't like to be told what to do' personality.

If we are to build support for legal recognition reforms, we must not allow the online culture's version of 'self-identification' to affect how the general public views legal self-identification. The easiest way to do that would be to bring online culture's norms into line with how the legal version of 'self-identification' would operate. This would mean that trans people can declare their gender identity, it would normally be accepted by site admins and moderators, but this would create no obligation on other people to agree, or to use particular pronouns, or otherwise limit anyone's free speech in any way. Allowing people to get used to the norms that accurately reflect the legal version of 'self-identification', and seeing that it would have no adverse effects on their free speech, would be the best way to build support for the reform.

2. Reinforcing, Rather Than Deconstructing, Gender
The online culture's version of self-identification is sometimes linked to queer theory, postmodern gender theory, or other philosophies relating to gender deconstruction and abolition. Activists inspired by these theories deliberately disrupt society's common understanding of gender, in order to cause radical change of some kind. This, in turn, has caused the concept of 'self-identification' to become tainted with these radical philosophies. Gender is an important part of many people's lives, and is vital to the functioning of many social institutions. Postmodern gender activism's vision is justifiably rejected by mainstream society, and people also do not appreciate social change being undemocratically implemented. Those opposed to legal self-identification have painted the reform as backdoor gender deconstruction using social justice as an excuse. However, the fact is that legal self-identification would not require allowing people to identify with an infinite number of genders. Only the genders that are relevant to the operation of the law need to be covered. As I previously discussed, there would also be adequate safeguards against people abusing the system in bad faith. Therefore, legal self-identification actually provides no way for postmodern activists to advance gender deconstruction or abolition. Again, it shouldn't be confused with online culture's 'self-identification'.

Besides emphasizing the aforementioned point, I think those of us campaigning for legal reform could argue that recognizing trans people's gender in law would reinforce our common understanding of gender. Human brains are not computers, and there is evolutionary psychological evidence that we function on pattern recognition rather than rule operation. This is why trans people who have made an effort to present as their identified gender are generally perceived to be members of that gender in society, even where they are known to be trans. Given that trans people are already largely being seen as their identified gender in society, the law seeing them as the other gender would discredit the whole system, and make it dysfunctional in important ways. Recognizing trans people's gender in law would bring the system back into line with reality, similar to how the legalization of gay marriage brought the marriage system back into line with the reality that there are gay couples and families nowadays, thus making marriage itself more relevant and credible.

3. Recognizing Both Gender Identity and Biological Sex Differences
Postmodern gender philosophy includes the belief that both gender and biological sex are social constructs, and should be deconstructed. Based on this, opponents of trans rights have accused trans activists of having an agenda to erase biological sex differences. However, the average trans person who wants their gender recognized in law certainly do not have such an agenda. They are simply campaigning to reform the law so that they can receive its full protection, like any other citizen. To assign some ideological ulterior motive to a trans person fighting for their own legal rights is unfair and dehumanizing, and is like accusing gay couples wanting to get married of being part of some bigger 'gay agenda'. To deny the average trans person's rights in the name of resisting postmodern gender activism is also unfair, cruel, and simply incompatible with the individualist social contract of Western society.

There is also no reason why a fair system that recognizes the gender of trans individuals can't also recognize biological sex differences where they are relevant. The insistence on rigid classification of all individuals as either male or female for all legal purposes simply isn't necessary, nor is it productive. Instead, the law could consider the relevance of various factors in each situation, in its approach to assign rights to people, on a case-by-case basis. In other words, just because the law recognizes the gender of a trans woman as 'female', it doesn't mean it has to ignore her different circumstances from a biological woman. For example, where it is justified, the law can still allow for the provision of single-sex spaces based on anatomy, for example changing rooms or spas, situations where anatomy is very clearly relevant. I'm sure many trans women would agree with me that such a policy is very reasonable. On the other hand, these exceptions have to be truly justified. For example, some gender critical feminists have been strongly opposed to trans women being classified as women for statistical purposes, even where it would clearly not make a significant difference overall. There is no reason that these ideologically driven demands should be accepted, because doing so makes trans women's lives harder without any benefit to biological women. What society needs to do is to come together and discuss, in a rational manner, what matters in each kind of situation. A culture of free speech and rational discourse would be most helpful here.

The Importance of Legal Recognition of Gender Identity | Trans Realist #8

Powerful forces are waging war on trans people, and we need this shield to protect us.

Welcome back to Trans Realist, a project where I have a conversation with my fellow trans people, about what could be done to make our lives better in the real world.

Today, I want to talk about what I feel is an increasingly important topic: the need to secure legal recognition of trans people, so that such legal recognition can be regularly obtained by trans individuals. I will explain in detail what this means later, but first I think we should start by looking at our current context. As my regular audience would know, I have often opposed what I consider to be trans alarmism in the past, telling people to calm down over everything from JK Rowling, to Dave Chappelle, to the British and Australian governments' rejection of certain trans-inclusive language. I gave my explanation as to why we shouldn't treat these things like the end of the world, and I stand by my judgements.

However, even by my relatively relaxed standards, I can see that this year, 2022, has been very bad for trans people in the Western English-speaking world. Anti-trans forces have gone on the attack during important national political events including the confirmation of a US Supreme Court judge, the Australian federal election, and the British Conservative Party leadership election. A record number of anti-trans bills have been proposed across America. Companies taking a pro-trans stance, from Disney to British DIY store Wickes, have been attacked by online mobs for nothing more than their free speech, as if being a trans ally is to be made taboo. Those following conservative online media would also have felt a new hostility to all things trans that simply didn't exist in the same way just two years ago. Let's be honest here: these people aren't just taking aim at activist overreach or so-called 'gender ideology'. They are waging war on the trans community as a whole.

The most compelling evidence that they are actually attacking trans people, rather than just some ideology or activism, is in the newly dismissive attitude towards gender dysphoria, and the attack on its treatment. This kind of callousness would have been quite taboo just two years ago, when everyone who criticized 'gender ideology' still emphasized their compassion towards those who have gender dysphoria. There's Jordan Peterson's comments on Elliot Page's surgeon as 'criminal', as if something ethically controversial was done, despite Page being a mentally sound adult who was able to fully consent to his treatment. There's 'What Is A Woman' presenter Matt Walsh's agreement with a tweet that stated 'it should be illegal for anyone of any age to transition'. And then there's Florida's decision to remove trans health care from Medicaid coverage, translating the aforementioned sentiments into actual policy that affects people's lives. Also, in this year alone, an anti-trans activist group called for society to 'target 100% desistence', and gender critical activists are now openly talking about keeping down the number of people who transition so as to limit the number of people who will need special accommodation. These people are clearly signalling an intention to make it harder for trans people to obtain evidence-based treatment for gender dysphoria, and they don't care about the cruel effects this would have on thousands and thousands of people out there. Of all the bad things you can do to trans people, denying their treatment is clearly the cruellest of them all. Given this cruel and callous attitude, I believe that trans people and our allies are now left with no choice, but to do everything we can to prevent the medically necessary care of trans people from being taken away.

Like it or not, we don't live in a libertarian 'live and let live' utopia, and if there is no certain legal way to protect our rights, they can be taken away by bad actors. A fact of life is that, the English-speaking West is governed by the rule of law, which means that basic human rights are only safe when there is legal recognition of the situation the rights should apply to. The gay community, which used to not care too much about government recognition of their relationships, found out how important it was to have access to marriage during the AIDS crisis. Similarly, if the gender of a trans individual is not recognized by the law, it could be difficult to secure the right to health care that treats them as members of that gender, including hormones and surgery. If a trans woman is recognized legally as a woman, this would protect her doctor's right to provide her with health care like female hormones, something that is routinely provided to other women. If not, then the doctor would be prescribing female hormones to a legal male, something that is still legal right now, but some people clearly want to restrict by law, by labelling it 'experimental' or even 'unethical'. Even if prescribing female hormones to a legal male isn't outrightly banned, it could be made effectively unavailable through the threat of litigation. Moreover, while there are anti-discrimination provisions on the grounds of gender identity in some places, the concept of gender identity itself is being attacked from every angle, which means that this concept could get watered down by legal precedent over time. This is why proper legal recognition of trans individuals' gender in law is the only reliable shield we have, against people who clearly have cruel intentions towards us.

Currently, most trans people exist without proper legal recognition and protection, as evidenced by the fact that most trans people in the UK don't have a Gender Recognition Certificate. This is because it is too difficult to obtain, for one reason or another. Meanwhile, the bar for similar legal recognition is even higher in some parts of America and Australia, so things aren't better elsewhere either. Things have always been this way, and trans people have just coped in their own way, because they have been able to get on with their lives, even without the benefit of legal recognition, when trans issues weren't at the center of the culture wars. Indeed, during the whole GRC reform debate in the UK, many trans people, including myself, were of the attitude that this didn't matter, because we were just talking about a piece of paper. However, things are different now, because we are under attack by cruel forces that want to take away our health care. Legal recognition is no longer just a piece of paper, but a shield we need to protect us from, in this war we never asked for.

Therefore, going forward, I believe we need to actively campaign for systems of legal recognition that are actually accessible for everyone with gender dysphoria. I am flexible as to what this system looks like, provided that it fulfills three conditions. The first condition is that it is truly accessible for every adult citizen suffering from gender dysphoria. The second condition is that this system cannot depend on having obtained certain medical treatments, specifically because we need it as a shield against people who want to make treatment unavailable. In this context, such a system would not only provide further incentive to limit the availability of treatment, it could also be used to justify locking future trans people out of accessing treatment, through a vicious cycle of no treatment, no recognition, no protection, no way to obtain treatment, and so on. The final condition is that there is no plausible way to arbitrarily deny recognition to trans people who apply. For example, a review board stacked by an anti-trans administration with anti-trans people could use it to limit the number of people who can transition, thus fulfilling the gender critical agenda with the power of the government.

Given these conditions, I think such a system would necessarily have to depend on self-identification to some extent, although I would also accept some safeguards against people using it in bad faith. The last time a similar proposal was widely discussed was a few years ago in the UK, where the debate ended up getting derailed by concerns about bad actors applying in bad faith, and access to women's spaces and sports. The unwillingness of activists to discuss possible compromises lost us support. The reform ended up getting dumped, and the gender critical movement was empowered in the process. Given that adequate legal recognition is something we need as soon as possible, this kind of debacle is not something we can afford again.

What the activist establishment needs to recognize is that, the dire situation right now means that we really need this protection, and we don't have the luxury of making enemies out of regular people who have reasonable concerns. This is why I think we should be willing to accept compromises and limitations on the kind of issues that derailed the debate in the UK. Regarding these issues, I think it's something we all need to discuss, and I think we should welcome all kinds of proposals with an open mind, and deal in good faith with others' concerns as much as we can. This is why we should encourage free speech and free debate. We also need to reassure people that we don't have an agenda to deny biological differences, and biological sex can still be applied where relevant. I also don't mind that some people disagree with 'trans women are women', they are free to think that way and I totally respect their right to their views. In seeking legal recognition we aren't making a philosophical statement. Our point should be a practical one: that the law needs to be adequate to protect people's basic needs, and recognizing the gender of trans people is needed to enable the law to fulfill this function. This reform has a practical need, and this should be recognized separately from any academic philosophical debate.

Building the Conservative Case for Trans Acceptance | Trans Sandwiched #23

Like a British PM once said, 'I support gay marriage because I'm a conservative'

Welcome back to Trans Sandwiched by TaraElla. Recently, I discussed the idea that the contemporary Western intellectual landscape is lacking a healthy appreciation of conservative philosophy, and how this has led to the rise of an unintellectual, reactionary style of conservatism. To fix this, I think that we need to revive an intellectual philosophical conservative tradition. I think we should at least welcome this philosophical conservatism, as one more lens to see things through, to help resolve our current social controversies. Today, I want to explore how we might approach trans issues from this kind of philosophical position.

I think that, in general, the starting point of an intellectual conservatism should be to adapt effectively to new circumstances and demands, while insisting on preserving the good things in our basic social structure. The goal is to successfully integrate the new solutions into our current social structure. This way, our shared institutions, values and social contract get strengthened in the process, while they also get to evolve to become more adaptive and responsive to the needs of people, hence staying relevant for generations to come. This stands in contrast to a reactionary approach, which just opposes and resists all proposals for change, from a place of fear or resentment. An intellectual conservatism recognizes that some change is essential for preservation ultimately, unlike the reactionary approach. Hence, for an intellectual conservative, the question is, what changes are acceptable, and even to be encouraged, because they will help us further realize our shared values, and what changes are not acceptable, because they will break the fundamentals of society.

As you can see, an intellectual conservatism does not oppose all proposals for change as a knee-jerk reaction. Rather, all proposals are assessed intellectually, and assessed as to the harm or benefit it will have on our shared values and social contract. A good application of this was seen during the gay marriage debate. While reactionary conservatives ardently opposed all attempts to advance gay marriage and even civil unions, many intellectual conservatives saw the benefits of extending marriage to gay couples, including the strengthening of the institution of marriage, the re-establishment of the norm of life-long commitment, and the affirmation of the value of equality of all individuals before the law. Ultimately, the intellectual conservative view provided important arguments that won the marriage equality debate. On the other hand, the proposal of abolishing marriage, that came from the more radical quarters of the gay community, was rightly opposed by intellectual conservatives, because it would only lead to the destruction of our shared institutions and values. It was with the help of intellectual conservatives that the gay community ultimately chose, and got, marriage equality, rather than marriage abolition.

I propose that we start applying the same lens to the trans issues currently under debate. Currently, there are many proposals for change out there regarding the topic of gender broadly speaking. Some of these proposals are clearly at odds with our shared values and social contract. For example, there is no reason that free speech should be compromised, or gender itself should be 'abolished', nor would this benefit trans people. An intellectual conservatism needs to firmly oppose these radical ideological programs, and guide the trans community towards more productive reforms. However, reactionary conservatives are also using these extreme proposals as an excuse to resort to their habitual knee-jerk position, to blanketly oppose all trans-related reforms and social changes. Not only has this approach been discredited by history (given that gay marriage has not destroyed families), it also disaffirms many of our long-standing shared values, including compassion, open-mindedness, accommodating the less fortunate, equal opportunity for all, and more. As you can see, the reactionary approach is basically anti-conservative from an intellectual conservative point of view!

The challenge for an intellectual conservative position on trans issues is therefore to find and support proposals for change that will help integrate trans people into society as productive members with equal opportunities, while preserving, or even strengthening, our shared values and institutions. I think anti-discrimination provisions in housing and employment would fit into this category. Ensuring adequate and affordable access to evidence-based health care for gender dysphoria would be another example. Going forward, there needs to be more discussion about what else could fit into this category, and what does not.

Trans People Are Not All The Same. Let's Face It. | Trans Realist #7

Refusing to acknowledge our differences is hurting us in many ways.

Welcome back to Trans Realist, a project where I have a conversation with my fellow trans people, about what could be done to make our lives better in the real world.

Today, I want to talk about another controversial topic: the fact that not all trans people are the same, or even similar, in our experiences, and the way our gender identity developed. The denial of this fact, the reluctance to talk about it, has caused various unexpected consequences: non-trans people turning to the Blanchard typology to understand us, some trans people feeling excluded from the trans community, and some even finding refuge in anti-trans gender critical philosophy, to name a few. I know that some people think that unity is everything, and everything done in the name of unity is justified. But this artificial unity based on denying our differences clearly isn't working.

The trans community has its own historical problems with hierarchy, gatekeeping and exclusion. I guess this is why a taboo against talking about our differences developed. But now that trans issues have gone mainstream, it is unsustainable, because even the non-trans people out there can see that we are not all the same. The trans community's refusal to provide an account of our differences has led some people to seek out unsound theory like the Blanchard typology, because it at least tries to explain the vast differences seen among trans people. Quite a few people have actually told me that this is the exact reason they came to be interested in Blanchard's theory. It's bad news for the trans community, because if people are turning to the Blanchard typology, it would hinder them from developing a proper understanding of trans people and gender dysphoria. This is why, if we don't honestly explore the differences among trans people, others will do it for us, and it will be in a way that is unsound and unfair to trans people.

Another problem with the refusal to acknowledge differences is that a vague, one-size-fits-all narrative is all that is left, and many trans people themselves find it unsatisfactory to explain their condition. Many trans people, especially when they are done with the initial stages of transition, start searching everywhere for a satisfactory explanation of how their life has turned out, being unable to find it in the conformity of the trans community. I guess this is why some trans people end up embracing gender critical philosophy, despite its inherent anti-trans attitude. Some even end up being spokespeople for the gender critical movement. Trans activists like to label them as self-hating people who have betrayed the community. But could it be the truth instead, to say that the trans community failed them in the first place?

Another thing is, in my own experience, under the cover of the vague one-size-fits-all philosophy, the trans community is often more welcoming to some narratives than others. For example, the mainstream narrative of the trans community is skewed towards those who became aware of being trans after puberty or in young adulthood. This is the reason why 'egg culture' is a thing. To be honest, I don't understand 'egg culture' any more than cis people do. This is because I have felt trans for as long as I have known gender. In other words, I didn't have an 'egg' to 'crack' in the first place. Instead, the development of my gender identity was largely intertwined with my childhood experiences. For this reason, I've often felt like I've been sort of 'left out' of the trans community. The subtle exclusion of so-called 'early onset' trans people is basically intra-trans discrimination, and it needs to end. Without being able to talk about the differences between 'early onset' and 'later onset' gender dysphoria, we are unable to even speak about the existence of this exclusion, let alone change it.

Gender Dysphoria and the Trans Language Wars | Trans Realist #6

Why it is counter-productive to apply the new terminology to everyone

Welcome back to Trans Realist, a project where I have a conversation with my fellow trans people, about what could be done to make our lives better in the real world.

Today, I want to talk about a controversial topic: the trans-related language wars. Much has been said about this topic, however, I haven't seen anyone discuss this phenomenon from the perspective of gender dysphoria. As I've said before, it's important to put gender dysphoria back at the center of the trans discourse, and it's time we did so with the debate over so-called gender-inclusive language.

I think the relationship between gender dysphoria and gender-inclusive language is complicated at the moment. To begin, I think we should acknowledge that the new language was designed with the purpose of relieving gender dysphoria in the first place. Trans people have health care needs like everyone else, but information and care that is delivered using the normal terminology could trigger gender dysphoria in many trans people, which could then lead to avoidance of seeking proper health care, for example. Hence the invention of terms like 'people who menstruate' for trans men, so they can discuss health problems around the topic of menstruation without being called women, for example. Therefore, there is indeed a need for such terminology when delivering health care and services for trans people specifically.

The problem is that, in recent years, the new terminology has been applied in situations that are not specifically targeted at trans people, meaning that some non-trans people feel like they have been forced to use the new terminology without even being asked first. Moreover, when non-trans people object to the new terminology, they are sometimes accused of being 'transphobic' by activists. This has led to a feeling among some people that traditional terms like 'women', 'mother', and so on are being erased. This is now a major problem objectively, having become a political topic in countries like the UK and Australia. It is also an issue that has made many feminists skeptical of trans rights, unfortunately. Therefore, in regards to the move to extend the new terminology to the mainstream, given the backlash generated by this move, and the resultant harm to trans acceptance, from a gender dysphoria point of view, I believe the cons clearly outweigh the pros.

The extension of the new terminology into the mainstream has often been justified on grounds of being inclusive. However, how necessary is this move in being 'inclusive'? It's not as if trans people would find it offensive that a service designed for the mainstream, where 99% of users are not trans, would use mainstream language to describe things. Most trans people understand that we are a small minority, and would not expect the world to be designed around our specific needs. All we ask is for care and sensitivity to be applied when you are actually dealing with trans people.

On the other hand, applying the new language as the 'new standard' for everyone is more problematic than most activists would acknowledge. For example, a form that describes everyone who had given birth in their lives as a 'birthing parent', and allows the choice of 'mother' only as a subset of 'birthing parent', implies that 'mother' is only a subset of 'birthing parent', which challenges traditional notions of motherhood going back to the earliest civilizations. A form that uses 'mother' by default, but allows changes when used by trans men, would imply something very different, that motherhood is still a concept that stands alone, and is not part of some 'birthing parent' umbrella. As you can see, the approach of applying the new terminology to everyone is going to offend many more people. Given what we need is more understanding and acceptance of trans people, I don't see why we should adopt an approach that many people find offensive.

In conclusion, my view is that there is a place for the new gender-inclusive terminology. However, it would be best to limit its use to situations specific to trans people, for example when delivering care to a trans person, or in health services that specifically cater to the LGBT community. Forcibly applying the new terminology on non-trans people is seen as offensive by many people, and is going to hurt trans acceptance and understanding. The cons clearly outweigh the pros, if the objective is to help trans people living with gender dysphoria.

How to Build the Post Woke Trans Movement | Trans Realist #5

It could be up to trans people to break the stalemate

Welcome back to Trans Realist, a project where I have a conversation with my fellow trans people, about what could be done to make our lives better in the real world.

Previously, I suggested a possible post-woke model of trans discourse, which will hopefully lead to a more productive discussion and a pathway forward for trans rights reforms. Such a discourse will put the focus back on gender dysphoria and the everyday needs of trans people like employment, housing and health care, and move away from the language and philosophy wars. Today, I want to talk about how we might build such a movement. I actually think that trans people are in the best position to help bring this about. Let me explain.

Trans issues have gone truly mainstream, whether we like it or not. 2022 is the year in which trans issues have truly become a routine part of national level politics, as seen in the US Supreme Court confirmation hearings, the Australian federal election, and the British Conservative Party leadership election. Unfortunately, in each of these cases, it is trans skeptical forces which have brought the issue up, and there is no reason to expect anything different anytime soon. In the face of this, trans allies, many of whom don't exactly understand the nuances of trans issues either, have often reflexively taken up the talking points of the loudest activists to argue back. What they don't understand is that these activists don't always represent the reality or the interests of many trans people. In some cases, these talking points have actually been unhelpful for us, and have given gender critical activists further ammunition to use against us. Lost in all of this is an actual understanding of trans people's lives and needs.

Without an intervention from people who actually understand what it is like to be trans, I can't see the current stalemate ending. As trans people, we have a full understanding of what it is like to live with gender dysphoria, and what it is like to live in this world as a trans person. Therefore, we are well positioned to bring this conversation back to reality. Of course, it won't be entirely easy, because the loudest voices on both sides are backed by a level of money and organization that the trans community simply can't match. However, many people are actually very interested in what trans people have to say, so we at least have an avenue to make ourselves heard.

The next problem then would be how many people we can reach. Again, we are at a heavy disadvantage here, given that the culture warriors have bigger platforms than us. However, things often start small and snowball to get bigger over time. The important thing would be to first get the message out, and get the discussion started. Every single bit helps. For example, when we see the language wars heating up again, we can gently remind people that these things don't really help trans lives, and suggest re-orientation towards priorities like employment and health care. When we see heated philosophical discussions that treat trans issues as abstract hypotheticals, we can try to bring the practical reality of gender dysphoria back into the picture. Replying to what other people out there are saying can also be a useful way to insert our voices into the conversation, and to challenge existing misconceptions on both sides. Bit by bit, we can change the conversation.

A Post Woke Approach to Trans Issues | Trans Sandwiched #22

Let's find a way to move beyond the current stalemate.

Welcome back to Trans Sandwiched by TaraElla. Today, I want to talk about what a post-woke approach to trans issues might look like. As I previously described, a post-woke approach is one that acknowledges the errors of woke culture, specifically addresses those errors, but is not based on just being reactionary to the woke position. Rather, a post-woke approach is constructive, and aims to provide a better alternative.

The woke approach to LGBT issues is deeply rooted in postmodern queer theory, and thus inherits the postmodern obsession with language. This obsession has been detrimental to trans people. It has created endless meaningless culture wars that has generated nothing but backlash towards the trans community, and it has served to distract from advancing public understanding of gender dysphoria and trans lives. For example, most trans activists insist on using 'cis women', while most anti-woke people insist on using 'biological women' to describe the same people, and both groups often turn hostile if they hear the other terminology being used. I personally think this 'disagreement' is really petty, because it wouldn't change a thing about the lives of trans people objectively. Another example is how some activists seem to find fault with a lot of conventional gendered language that has been used for a long time without problems, even among the trans community. A post-woke approach to trans issues must move away from this obsession with linguistic correctness. I've generally used the terms I think would be best received by the people I'm talking to in each instance, but it is tiring to have to think about this all the time. I think we all need to be less sensitive about which particular terms are being used, and focus on the actual things people are saying.

A post-woke approach to trans issues should also uphold the core post-woke values of decency, fairness and genuineness, because, as I said before, these are the values that will heal the wounds brought on by woke culture. Here, both the woke and anti-woke approaches have fallen short. The woke approach has allowed free speech to be compromised by putting everything in terms of power and oppression, and this is neither fair nor genuine. A post-woke trans discourse should restore the respect for free speech and freedom of conscience, and nobody should be afraid to voice their genuine concerns in good faith. Extreme versions of woke culture has also pit trans people against non-trans people, and this definitely has to end.

On the other hand, the anti-woke discourse has, especially recently, uncritically adopted elements of gender critical ideology that are certainly not decent or fair to trans people. For example, the insistence that only biological sex matters and gender does not is effectively erasure of trans people, or at least trivialization of trans issues, and is not a compassionate stance. Trivialization of gender dysphoria is literally cruel to trans people. The pressure on trans people in anti-woke circles to deny the importance of their own gender identity is also incompatible with encouraging everyone to be genuine. A post-woke approach should not treat trans people like this, given that decency, fairness and genuineness should equally apply to everyone.

A post-woke approach should also bring back the sincere intellectualism that both wokeness and anti-wokeness have destroyed. The culture warrior style approach on both sides to the 'what is a woman' question is incompatible with a truly scientific and sincere approach to the matter. A post-woke approach would uphold sincere and open-minded discussion, and allow trans people's actual experiences with gender dysphoria to be heard and considered fairly. Currently, the woke side represents postmodern queer theory, and the anti-woke side increasingly represents gender criticalism. Both ideologies essentially amount to an erasure of gender dysphoria by people with an unscientific worldview. A post-woke trans discourse would end this injustice.

Finally, a post-woke approach should allow the required space to discuss trans rights reform, so we can come up with constructive solutions that work to improve the lives of trans people, while also satisfying the reasonable concerns of other parties. From time to time, I've been asked about what trans rights I want exactly. I can tell you that, in general, my wish is that trans people get an equal opportunity at employment, and have basic needs like housing and health care satisfied on an equal basis as other people. I can also tell you what is not on my trans rights agenda: firstly, I don't want the language wars to continue. Secondly, I don't care about things that only affect a very small number of relatively well-off trans people, like elite sports. Finally, I don't demand or expect every women-only space to open their doors to trans women. I respect that people have freedom of association, and I'm certainly not going to force my way into a club that doesn't want me there. However, beyond these principles, I can't tell you exactly what trans rights reforms are needed, because I don't know exactly what barriers are faced by other trans people in their quest for employment, housing and health care. This is something we need to discuss and work out together. As long as the requests for reform are reasonable, and the concerns of other stakeholders have been adequately dealt with, I hope that the good people out there will be open to necessary reforms to improve the ability of trans people to access employment and the basic needs of life.

We Must Not Trivialize Gender Dysphoria | Trans Deeper #7

Turning other people's suffering into a culture war football is evil.

Welcome back to Trans Deeper, a show where we take a deeper look at what people are saying in the trans conversation, and whether their claims are valid or not. Today, I want to look at a worrying development: the trivialization of gender dysphoria. Specifically, in certain circles, basic compassion for those suffering from gender dysphoria is increasingly seen as 'woke', and inhumane treatment is therefore justified as non-woke and rational.

Let me give you some examples. Treatment for gender dysphoria via medical transition is described as 'experimental', despite being the only proven effective treatment out there, and decades of evidence supporting its effectiveness. From there, such treatment, even in the context of consenting adults, is painted as questionable, and possibly in violation of the 'do no harm' principle. This 'standard' is, of course, ridiculous if we apply it equally to all of medicine in general. All medical treatment carries potential harms. If this is the way 'do no harm' is to be interpreted, then clinical medicine might as well not exist, and patients left to suffer despite the existence of highly effective treatments. Of course, nobody intends for this 'standard' to apply to all of medicine. They only apply it to gender dysphoria, because they are trivializing the suffering brought on by this condition. This culture war motivated bias is both unscientific and inhumane.

Another example is the increasing normalization of gender critical views in anti-woke circles, to the extent that gender critical activists are given many opportunities to promote their views without the other side of the argument being equally presented. One thing gender critical activists often argue is that using a trans person's preferred pronouns is 'giving in' to some kind of ideology. I have argued elsewhere why this isn't the case, but as a supporter of free speech I ultimately respect your right to say whatever you want. However, the important point is, the gender dysphoria side of the story is almost never presented as a rebuttal to the gender critical argument. The argument is that, using a trans person's preferred pronouns contributes to relieving gender dysphoria, and is therefore a decent thing to do. After hearing this argument, it is still up to you to do what you believe is right. But the argument must be available for consideration in the first place. And too often, it isn't even on the table anymore in the anti-woke world.

As I have been saying for a long time, the discourse around trans people has been dominated by everything from academic philosophy to politicized culture wars, with the focus on anything but gender dysphoria. This is totally unfair to trans people, who transition because they need to relieve their gender dysphoria in the first place. The distraction from this fact leads to less appetite for compassion towards trans people as fellow humans, and more polarization over trans issues as abstract philosophical concerns, as if they weren't affecting actual human beings. The current trivialization of gender dysphoria is the logical conclusion of all this. Therefore, it's time we talked a lot more about gender dysphoria. It needs to be at the center of the trans discourse once again.

What is a Woman, Revisited | Trans Deeper #6

Culture War Politics is Anti-Science, No Matter Which Side You're On

Welcome back to Trans Deeper, a show where we take a deeper look at what people are saying in the trans conversation, and whether their claims are valid or not. Today, I want to take another look at the 'what is a woman' question. Honestly, I'm sick and tired of this so-called 'debate', but given that some people believe it is important enough to keep it going, there is something else I must say on this topic.

Previously, I offered my view that an 'archetypal' definition of the words 'man' and 'woman' are closest to their long-standing historical usage, and I gave an analysis to back this up. It was well received by many people, and it also generated some controversy, as expected. This time, I am going to look at this topic from a different angle: the fact that there seems to be a culture war politics driven campaign to manufacture division on this topic, and why this is actually very anti-science.

Let's consider this fact: apart from perhaps the true believers of queer theory, for the rest of us, there is in fact very good agreement on the classification of 'women' (or 'men'). Observers, regardless of cultural background, political affiliation or generation, can clearly come to a consensus on whether particular individuals fit the words 'woman' or 'man', 98% or more of the time. The overall level of agreement here, across the population, is in fact very high by the standards of biological science, where 100% agreement is generally not the norm. The level of agreement here is actually higher than for the diagnosis of many serious illnesses, for example.

As I said last time, the only truly significant disagreements regarding the classification of both sex and gender are in the 'borderline' cases, mostly individuals who are intersex (re both sex and gender classification) and trans (re gender classification), who represent about 1% of the population at most, according to various estimates. All the recent culture war panic about 'definitions' is basically referring to no more than this very small area of disagreement. Honestly, those pushing this culture war panic remind me of the people who said that legalizing gay marriage would 'radically change the definition of marriage' and lead to the downfall of family values. Years after the vast majority of Western countries legalized gay marriage, this of course has not happened. I believe there is actually a lesson to be learned there about emotional manipulation for political purposes.

On the other hand, I do acknowledge that there are some real differences in opinion here, and it is something that we have to deal with. Given that what we are talking about is a matter of biological science, I believe we should defer to the scientific way, rather than the political way, to deal with our differences here. In science, having differences of opinion among the experts is part of normal life. There might be heated debates, and sometimes people might just have to agree to disagree, at least for now. After all, if scientific matters were always comfortably settled, there would be no room for improving our understanding, no room for scientific progress, and no point to science at all! Taking comfort in the certainty of one's position is the attitude of the culture warrior, not the attitude of the good scientist. (And I intend for this criticism to apply to all sides of the debate.)

Anyone who knows something about the history of science would know that things can eventually turn out in a number of ways. In some cases, groundbreaking discoveries lead to a firm consensus eventually forming. It is often the ongoing debates that lead to the discoveries that in turn lead to the new consensus. In other cases, the disagreement drags on for generations. However, the ongoing debates can still lead us to a better understanding of the topic over time. For this process to play out in a productive and objective way, the most important thing is that everyone gets fairly examine the topic and apply their independent thinking, without pressure from any side, and that we remain open minded to all possibilities. This is why we need to resist the politicization and polarization that the culture warriors are pushing us into right now.

What is Gender Identity, Really? | Trans Deeper #5

The case for returning to a more realistic understanding

Welcome back to Trans Deeper, a show where we take a deeper look at what people are saying in the trans conversation, and whether their claims are valid or not. Today, I want to look at the issue of gender identity. I have come across many people who tell me that they don't understand the concept of 'gender identity', and it appears to be a real barrier for understanding trans people.

What is gender identity? In the trans context, it refers to our very acute sense of being aware that we identity with a gender that is not what is expected based on our biology. It is this mismatch, often present since early childhood, that gives us the high awareness of our gender identity. Hence, I think gender identity can be seen as a function of gender dysphoria, and it is the context of gender dysphoria that gives us its meaning.

I guess the trouble is that some activists have recently insisted that everyone has a gender identity. Based on conversations I have had with non-trans people, this clearly isn't true. Unlike trans people with gender dysphoria, most non-trans people don't seem to feel like they have an innate 'gender identity'. They are simply OK with the gender that has been expected of them from childhood. To ask non-trans people to accept that everyone has a 'gender identity' actually risks making them confused about trans people and trans identity. If non-trans people are supposed to be able to understand 'gender identity' simply by looking at their own experience in theory, but they actually can't feel anything like the gender identity described by trans people in reality, they might even end up dismissing the experiences of trans people.

I believe the best way to promote mutual understanding is to encourage honesty on all sides. For trans people, our innate sense of gender identity is central to our experience of life and our understanding of our gender dysphoria. If we are to be able to honestly speak about our own experience, we must be given the space to speak honestly about our gender identity. This is why the trend in certain anti-woke circles, where trans identity is routinely dismissed as 'woke', and trans people are pressured to accept gender critical philosophy and/or invalid models of transness that circumvent the concept of innate gender identity (e.g. the Blanchard typology), is something I've become really concerned about. On the other hand, non-trans people must be able to honestly speak out about their lack of feeling an innate gender identity, and their difficulty in understanding and empathizing with the experience of gender dysphoria. This is not transphobia. Rather, it is an honest description of the differences of our experiences. This honesty will be essential for building bridges and better understanding over time.

We Need to Address the Unevenness of Trans Acceptance | Trans Realist #6

Welcome back to Trans Realist, a project where I have a conversation with my fellow trans people, about what could be done to make our lives better in the real world.

Today, I want to talk about an often overlooked issue: the uneven state of trans acceptance we have right now. I mean, LGBT acceptance has always been uneven, and different parts of the Western world became ready for gay marriage at different times in the past two decades, for example. However, I still think the current distribution of trans acceptance is historically uneven, and is certainly more unevenly distributed than, say, the level of support for marriage equality fifteen years ago, if you want something to compare with.

So why are we seeing this unevenness of trans acceptance? Part of it is the current political polarization, which is often along geographic, demographic and educational lines. This is why aiming to end, or at least lessen, the political polarization should be an important priority for trans people and our allies. It is also why we need to actively build bridges and actively reach out to people from different backgrounds. We should aim to connect with people by emphasizing our common ground on shared values like compassion and decency, as well as a common respect for the Enlightenment values that underpin modern Western societies, like honoring each other's freedoms, and a commitment to science and objectivity.

We also need to acknowledge the fact that society is made up of people with different personality types. This is relevant because some styles of trans activism from recent years are likely to have alienated people of certain personality types. For example, people who pride themselves on free thinking could be turned off by seemingly being told what they can say or think. The collectivist atmosphere of much of recent LGBT culture could be an additional alienating factor for these people. The frequency with which some activists make statements indicating a wish for radical cultural change certainly doesn't help with promoting acceptance among traditionalist and communitarian types. The us vs them rhetoric is also a big turn off for communitarian minded people in general. The overall truth is, the current messaging of trans activism isn't playing well with a substantial portion of society, and this must change.

It is important to encourage a more even distribution of trans acceptance, because the current uneven distribution has many harmful effects on the trans community. For example, many trans people continue to live in very unaccepting environments, and their voices are not often heard directly. Meanwhile, other, more privileged trans people, who get to live in accepting environments, including most of those who are activists or celebrities, often do no more than pay lip service to the struggles of the left behind. Moreover, the uneven acceptance and polarized attitudes towards trans issues makes the trans community very vulnerable to being used as a political football in the tribal culture wars. We might even be starting to see trans issues become a regular part of national election campaigns, like gay marriage was for nearly two decades. The trans culture wars were an unexpected part of the recent Australian election, and many people expect it to feature prominently in the 2024 US and UK elections too. If we want to avoid that fate, I think the crucial thing to do is to address the uneven acceptance problem.

We Must Not Let Gender Abolitionism Hijack the Trans Conversation | Trans Sandwiched #22

Welcome back to Trans Sandwiched by TaraElla. Today, I want to talk about the elephant in the room that really needs to be addressed: the attempt by some people, who have gender abolitionist ideology, or gender abolitionist-adjacent ideology, to repeatedly insert themselves into the trans conversation. As I often say, the trans community is a small community, and our voices are easily drowned out by bigger forces with their own agenda. It's something people really need to talk about more.

Let's talk about gender abolitionism first. It is the ideology stating that, firstly, gender is a social construct; secondly, it is a product of oppressive social relations and hence harmful; and thirdly, it can and should be deconstructed and/or abolished. Gender abolitionists often literally believe there are no differences between men and women except for the physical differences, and all non-physical differences between men and women can and should be abolished. Gender abolitionism should not be confused with reasonable attempts to free people of gender stereotypes, which I strongly support as a liberal. Gender abolitionism has no scientific basis, in fact, it goes against the fundamental logic of biological science. This should not come as a surprise, because it came from parts of the philosophy landscape that are not well informed by science. I believe gender abolitionism needs to be decisively rejected, because it can lead to cruel and misguided stances, as I will illustrate.

What is commonly called gender critical feminism, otherwise known as 'trans exclusionary radical feminism', is fundamentally rooted in gender abolitionism. Gender critical feminists believe that gender is not inherent to the individual, and can be abolished with social and political action. Therefore, they see trans people's claims of an innate gender identity as invalid, and an obstacle to their political goals. This largely explains their attitude to trans people and trans issues. I believe the view that gender can be abolished through social and political action is a dangerous one, because it can essentially be used to justify everything from trans non-acceptance, to deliberately making trans people's lives harder, perhaps even trans conversion therapy. After all, if gender is a harmful social construct, shouldn't society hold the line and refuse to entertain trans people's claims of an innate gender identity? In this mode of thinking, the cruelty of denying trans rights becomes justified as the necessary path to a utopia, where trans people won't exist, and trans rights won't matter anyway.

While gender critical feminism, which is rooted in the old-school version of gender abolitionism, is well known for its anti-trans stances, postmodernist gender deconstruction ideology is no less harmful to trans rights, in my opinion. Gender deconstructionism continues to hold that gender is a social construct, but rather than choosing to outrightly deny gender identity, it aims to use postmodern philosophy to deconstruct gender. From what I see, it is basically gender abolitionism by another method, because at the end of the process, if the concept of 'gender' still exists, it certainly wouldn't look anything like our traditional understandings of it. Gender deconstructionism uses trans people as the 'exception' case to help deconstruct the 'rules' of gender, in the aim of making such rules unstable and untenable. It is more interested in using trans people to wage language wars than to find practical solutions for the accommodation and integration of trans people into society. Meanwhile, trans people are left to suffer the backlash.

As you can see, there is really no form of gender abolitionism that is good for trans people in any way. This is only to be expected, because trans people are living proof that gender identity is innate, and this is not compatible with gender abolition. Therefore, I believe the firm rejection of gender abolition in all forms is required for the progress of trans acceptance and trans rights.