Wish vs Reality: A Trans Perspective | An Asian Trans View

This is the first part of a mini series talking about my experience of living life as a trans person, what I've learned, and what I wish the trans community could come to terms with. Today, I want to talk about the gap between wish and reality in trans lives, and how we can deal with it in a healthy way.

Having a gap, a big difference, between wish and reality, is a constant feature of life for many people. This is especially true for people who suffer from gender dysphoria. While the goal of transition is to alleviate gender dysphoria, the key word here is 'alleviate'. In many cases, it doesn't make the dysphoria disappear completely, but it makes it easier to deal with, so we can go on with our lives. In other words, there is still a big difference between wish and reality in many areas, both physical and social. The reality is that, trans women can't become exactly the same as genetic women, and trans men can't become exactly the same as genetic men. Eventually, to achieve long term stability, we just need to deal with this fact. Many trans people who have transitioned for at least several years would agree that, at some point, you just need to accept this wish vs reality gap, and deal with it. Trust me, it is needed for our long term psychological health.

Which brings me onto the next issue: the difference between how people perceive us, vs how we perceive ourselves. The fact is, we can't control how others perceive us. It's another fact of life that we need to get used to. Of course, as trans people suffering from gender dysphoria, it is totally reasonable that we don't want to have our dysphoria exacerbated. Therefore, we might not want to hang out with people who constantly try to find opportunities to invalidate our gender identity, for example. We certainly have the freedom to do so, and there's nothing wrong with doing so for the sake of our wellbeing.

However, more broadly speaking, we can't expect the whole society to perceive us the way we perceive ourselves. As I often like to say, the goal of trans rights should be reasonable accommodation, so that we can have an equal opportunity at life. The goal shouldn't be to demand validation from society, because nobody can demand validation from another person. Recently, I read a comment saying that the problem with trans activists is that they sometimes demand agreement with their epistemology of transness. The fact is, we can't even agree on the epistemology of transness within our own community. It's been a point of argument for as long as I can remember. How can you expect non-trans people to agree, and to which part of the trans community should they agree with? As the history of philosophical debates shows, seeking agreement on epistemology is a dead-end. We can have trans acceptance without epistemological agreement. Who cares whether this or that person really thinks that 'trans women are women', as long as they are accepting of us and kind to us?

I guess having a philosophy that respects each of us as individuals with the right to our own moral consciences can help us navigate the way we relate with other people. After all, it was in the year that I first came out as trans that I solidified a lot of my philosophy in this area. As a Moral Libertarian, I believe that every individual should have equal moral agency. Therefore, you don't have the right to invalidate or intimidate me, and I don't have the right to invalidate or intimidate you. I have the right to identify and present the way I want to. You have the right to think or say anything about it, but it wouldn't take away my right to do what I believe is best for myself. This attitude has served me well for 15 years. I think this is the healthiest attitude for trans people to take, in a world that is not always accepting.

Against Queer Theory, For Trans Rights | Asian Trans View

Music: Not That Kind Of Retro by TaraElla

The Key to Winning Trans Rights | An Asian Trans View

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How to make the Trans Community Respected Again | An Asian Trans View

Today, I want to sort of respond to the latest Blaire White video titled 'This is Why the Trans Community Isn't Respected', and elaborate on some of my own thoughts on this matter. As I understand it, Blaire is worried that trans acceptance in mainstream society is going backwards because the trans activists have the wrong messaging. She also suggested that we learn from the gay marriage and gay adoption movements. My regular audience would know that this line of thinking is something that I totally agree with; indeed, I have been strongly advocating for this since two years or so ago.

Like Blaire, I have also been worried about the way trans acceptance is going nowadays. Blaire has only been openly trans for several years, and yet even she feels the decline. As for myself, I felt more accepted back in 2007 compared to now, so you know how bad it is! And it's sad because, you know, everything I do here, I'm doing for the trans community, my fellow trans people. It feels weird that I even have to say this, but nowadays, everyone seems to be using the trans community for some kind of agenda, and it leaves us with the consequences. Indeed, I think it's akin to a moral crime to use such a misunderstood minority for your own political agenda. 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!

I think there's still time to regain that respect, to avoid the spiral downwards. It all starts with the trans community itself. Many well meaning trans people have tried to get rid of the bad faith actors, to get the trans conversation back on track. I mean, we all still disagree to an extent, it's like how I don't always agree with Blaire, and Natalie from Contrapoints doesn't always agree with my views either. But we can all see there's something wrong, and something needs to change. However, this is where bad faith actors use cancel culture to silent critics and forcibly shape the agenda. Anything any well meaning trans people say, any well meaning criticism to get the community back on track, the bad faith actors will try to cancel us for this or that. You either get with their program, or they cancel you. Again, everything I say and do, I do it for the benefit of everyday trans people. But I still have to live in fear of the cancel culture mob. It's sad, but it's true.

As for what we can do, honestly, I've felt at a lost for some time now. I've even begged the trans community to listen to Jordan Peterson back in 2018. Like, I definitely disagree with what he says about trans rights and Canadian Bill C-16, I have no illusions about some of what he said being harmful, but what he said about thinkers like Foucault was spot on. We can't let the Foucauldian anti-truth and anti-science cult use and derail the trans community. Peterson might not have been the perfect messenger, but the trans community is the biggest victim of Foucauldism and radical critical theory, so I thought Peterson and the IDW could be used to help get the trans conversation back on track, ironically. It would at least get us back to a conversation that is based on the objective, scientific truth, centered around the practical needs of trans people, rather than some philosophical argument. You know, being trans is a reality, not some philosophy. Needless to say, my efforts to build that bridge failed badly, because too many people were obsessed with the idea that Peterson was anti-trans.

So, where do we go now? I guess we need to do two things. Firstly, let's have a trans rights agenda that is focused on the needs of everyday trans people. Blaire mentioned employment and housing in her video, and I think that's exactly where the attention needs to be focused. As I said in my comments about Elliot Page last year, I really don't care too much for the trans actors, athletes, models, and so on. Not when we don't even have equality in employment and housing. Forget about all that glitz and glamor, that don't help us too much. And even forget about the pronoun wars, because that's only a dead end. The day we get equality in employment and housing is the day we get dignity as a community. Therefore, I think the trans conversation should be centered around what reforms can be done, to improve the situation with employment and housing. And then we need to win over hearts and minds to achieve those reforms, like the gay marriage and gay adoption movements did.

The other thing is, we need to promote another trans narrative. You know, one that is not automatically combative, one that does not automatically assume bad faith in people who disagree with us. The more extreme activist circle has an advantage here, because they shout the loudest. But if we could, in some ways, add our voices to the conversation, real voices of real trans people, then we could change the tone of the conversation. I'm trying my best to put my views out there, but other than that, I still haven't found a way to get our voice into the mainstream yet. I mean, I'm not that popular unfortunately. Blaire seems to be much more popular, yet I'm surprised that even she hasn't been able to exert much of an influence in the broader trans conversation. I mean, when some trans activists were all out trying to cancel JK Rowling last year, Blaire and I were on the same side, defending Rowling's right to free speech and calling for reasonable debate, but it was a lonely side to be on. I wonder why Blaire's one million or so fans, who generally agreed with her position, didn't speak out more. Perhaps it's all because we're so scared of cancel culture coming after us. If so, then what we need might be more examples of people speaking up. That's why I keep providing my point of view, in the hope that it will give confidence to more people to speak up over time.

What is Bigotry Anyway? | An Asian Trans View

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On Harry Potter vs Animorphs | An Asian Trans View

Today, I want to talk about something that's been on my mind for the past six months: the great Harry Potter vs Animorphs debate. Now, this is some cultural controversy around books people feel passionately about, so if that's not something you want to hear, then this episode is probably not for you. Also, there are several spoilers for both series, so don't listen if you don't want that.

Back in the middle of this year, when JK Rowling made her controversial comments regarding certain trans issues, some people were saying that we should all drop Harry Potter and read another book. Now, I don't support what's essentially cancel culture, so of course I didn't participate in any of that discussion. I strongly believe that people can disagree while not cancelling each other. Besides, the whole point I wanted to make was that Rowling and trans people weren't enemies, so of course I wouldn't be telling people to drop Harry Potter. However, what interested me was that one of the book series people suggested was Animorphs, my favorite books back when I was 13 or so. Back then, I decided to say nothing, because I don't want to be seen as yet another trans person participating in the mob cancellation of Rowling in any way. But since six months have passed, I think we can talk about this now without all that controversy.

The time was the late 1990s, or perhaps the year 2000, which felt like the 90s anyway. It was the golden era of tech, you know, when CPU speeds increased more than 10-fold in just a few years, and when many people began to have the internet at home, and perhaps a mobile phone. Back then, something like an iPad or a Kindle Reader couldn't even be imagined, and people still read paper books, and there was no shortage of young adult book series for middle school aged people like myself. Even back then, Harry Potter, which had only been out for a couple of years or so, was getting all the hype, but my favorite had to be Animorphs.

In fact, I didn't begin to like Harry Potter until 2003, when the fifth book came out, and I was already in college. Perhaps it was just my 13-year-old attitude, but back then I thought the first Harry Potter book must have been written for someone much younger than myself, and I was too old for that. I certainly didn't feel that way with Animorphs. I didn't understand why even some adults wanted to read Harry Potter back then. Back then, the Harry Potter books were released once a year, and Animorphs was released almost every month. That all came to an end in 2001. The last Animorphs book, the 54th in the series, was released in April 2001, and people soon stopped talking about it, while Harry Potter took a three year hiatus, and didn't appear again until 2003, when I was already in college. Of course, the world was a very different place by 2003, and I was in a very different phase of life by then. I went out and got the 5th Harry Potter book, the Order of the Phoenix, because of all the hype, even though I didn't particularly like the first four as a kid. And surprisingly, I really, really liked this one. The final two Harry Potter books were released in the next four years, and I also liked them so much that I finished them within a week of release. By the final Harry Potter book, I was almost 21, and I finally realized why adults like Harry Potter: in a world of disappointments, moral ambiguity and alliances of convenience, the Potterverse provided an antidote to all this, with its moral clarity, its clear-cut good vs evil, and the loyalty of its characters. Besides, wouldn't it be great to be in a house with people just like yourself? By the way, the official sorting hat decided that I was a Ravenclaw, and I generally agree with its assessment.

Anyway, this sums up my relationship with my two favorite young adult franchises of all time. And yes, both these series were special. But they are also very different. The fundamental difference is that, the Potterverse is actually much more of an idealistic world, while Animorphs operates much closer to real world conditions. You go to Harry Potter for emotional therapy, to feel like there are still good guys in this messed up world, that everything will be alright. On the other hand, Animorphs is much more honest about how the real world is. It is very clear that there ain't happy endings to wars, and the so-called good guys may still betray you in the end, if it suits them. You can't imagine, for example, Harry killing 17,000 of Voldemort's people and being accused of being a war criminal, struggling with his conscience for years afterwards, or that he would have to bargain with some of the so-called good guys to not destroy the whole wizarding world, just so they can defeat Voldemort cleanly. You certainly can't imagine Hermione dying in the last book, essentially condemned to that fate by Harry himself. Harry Potter wouldn't be Harry Potter if it ended like that, it would destroy the magic of Harry Potter. On the other hand, Animorphs wouldn't be conveying the deep anti-war message it has, if the main characters all survived, and just went on to live happy, normal lives afterwards.

I guess we need a bit of both. The emotional reassurance that there are still good guys out there, and the good guys will win in the end, is a powerful motivator to fight another day. However, we can't be all that naive when we are operating in the real world. It is, after all, a world full of imperfection, betrayal, and people with their own agendas, and if we don't operate with this in mind, we end up being used as a political football by others. We need to remember that, while the bad guys are out to get us, the seemingly good guys can also betray us at any minute like the Andalites planned to betray Earth, to satisfy their own agendas. Given that people with agendas on all sides want to use trans people as a political football, we really need to remember this at all times. While Voldemort's people in the Potterverse and the Yeerks in Animorphs clearly represent the bad guys, there is nothing like the Andalites in the Potterverse. Of course, in real life, especially in politics, it is much more likely that we are dealing with Yeerks vs Andalites rather than Voldemort vs Harry. In real life, to mistake the former for the latter is very dangerous indeed.

Reflections on Elliot Page | An Asian Trans View

Today, I want to offer some of my thoughts on actor Elliot Page coming out as trans, from the perspective of a trans person.

So far, there's all the predictable reactions. Hollywood has been as supportive as you would expect it to be, meanwhile people like Ben Shapiro and Steven Crowder have said what they would predictably say. There were also the trans-skeptical feminists who had their own, well, unusual views. And then, there were the socialists who used this occasion to reinforce the message that Page is a rich celebrity who has much more resources to deal with his transition than the average trans person, so class is still everything.

While I'm not a socialist, this last point is something I want to dwell on more. I remember how, back in 2015, when Caitlin Jenner came out, large sections of the trans community were worried that her perspective, as a rich trans person, would get the most airtime in the mainstream, and displace the voices of everyday trans people. I guess many of us are feeling something similar again right now. Thinking about it, the mainstream media likes to focus on trans people whose experiences are clearly very different from everyday trans people. You know, celebrities, sports people, beauty queens, politicians, and the like. It's not that I have anything against these people, it's that their issues are very different from everyday trans people.

With Elliot Page, I have one particular worry about the potential excessive weight being applied to his narrative. You see, Page is not only a rich celebrity, he has also been an activist with very strong political views for many years. Not that there is anything wrong with having strong political views; I do too. But I'm worried the way he sees the trans experience and the way he engages with the public as an ambassador for the trans community, whether he likes it or not, will be excessively colored by his activist beliefs. This, coupled with his lack of worry about the kind of financial matters that plague most trans people, means that his priorities could be very different from those of everyday trans people. I'm just worried that this would just further serve to paint a public image of trans people that is far removed from the struggles and priorities of everyday trans people. You know, it's time to return to the bread and butter issues, in this ongoing trans conversation.

Perhaps I'm just too worried. But trans people are already misunderstood enough as it is, with forces on both the Left and the Right wanting to use us as culture war political footballs. Just in the past year, everything from Trump vs Biden, to the Harper's free speech letter, to everything related to JK Rowling, had to have a trans angle to it. With the release of Jordan Peterson's new book next year, we are almost certain to get more unwarranted attention soon enough. All this builds up to a lot of misunderstanding about trans people in the world out there, with real trans people suffering all the consequences. We surely don't need yet more misunderstanding.

Candace Owens is So Ignorant About Trans People! | An Asian Trans View

 

 

Welcome back to TaraElla TV, where we examine cultural and political issues from a truth-orientated and constructive problem solving perspective. Today, I want to briefly respond to a few ignorant comments made by Candace Owens on the Rubin Report recently.

Firstly, she said that she hopes black people will be at the forefront of pushing against the 'trans stuff'. What 'trans stuff' is she refering to? I mean, trans people have in common certain medical needs, and probably also have in common the problem of facing discrimination in some areas of life, and that's about it. Beyond that, trans people are a diverse bunch. We're pretty diverse in our politics, our values, our commitments, our lifestyles, and so on. So there's really no package deal of 'trans stuff' like she was talking about, because there really can't be. I mean, she should know better, having debated Blaire White on the same show three years ago. You know, how Blaire's opinions are taken controversially among trans people, some love her, others really dislike her. It's the same for Contrapoints, who gets cancelled by other trans people every now and then. And it's similar for most other prominent trans people too.

Secondly, she said that gay people should expel the 'trans stuff', like drop the T or something. So that would mean telling gay people to not welcome trans people into their circles, which would break with decades of tradition since Stonewall, not to mention being like really bigoted. Horrible idea indeed.

I think the problem is that Candace Owens appears to be confused. In case she still doesn't get it, here it is: trans people are people with shared medical needs and social issues. Get this into your head: we are not a political party, we're not a political movement. We can't be, because we are too diverse. Among trans people, there are conservatives, moderates, liberals, and socialists, just like among non-trans people. We don't think like a hive mind, and we aren't a 'thing' in a collective sense. I mean, what would it take for people to just understand these very basic facts?