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.

The TRUTH About Intra Trans Cringe | Re ContraPoints | Trad Trans Rants

Welcome back to Trad Trans Rants by TaraElla. Today, I'm going to present the first installment of my response to the new ContraPoints video titled 'Cringe'. As usual, my response will be delivered in three parts, with this installment focusing on the trans aspect, and the next two focusing on the adverse effects of cringe culture on our political landscape, and how to counter its effects.

A major part of the Cringe video was focused on the intra-group cringe culture that has become a large part of the internet trans culture in recent years. The video used examples from three very popular trans personalities, who are known for producing trans cringe content. To be honest, I actually don't fully understand the appeal of that kind of content myself, that's why I'm setting out to explore it here. However, I also think that Natalie's take on this phenomenon may perhaps be missing something important.

I think one important double-edge sword strength as well as weakness of Natalie's analyses is that she often resorts to explaining things using theories that were previously established by other people, often academics. I guess it's a mindset that many people who have trained to be academics have. But as I sometimes like to say, adherence to theory is akin to thought slavery, because theory is dead and the world is alive. It's probably not a good idea to force fit academic theories into complex and organic developments, because doing so would be awkward, and so very cringe indeed.

So why do many trans people like to watch trans cringe content? As I said, I don't have all the answers. But I am subscribed to two out of the three personalities Natalie showcased, and I know that some of my own subscribers also like to watch those two people. Furthermore, Vanessa, as Natalie calls her, is the most popular political YouTuber right now, and the vast majority of her fans seem to be LGBT people too. It really isn't an exaggeration to call Vanessa a trans community icon, I mean, almost every trans person knows who she is, right? But why do trans people watch Vanessa and people like her? Let's start with why I watch them, because that's really the only perspective I fully understand. I guess, for me, the appeal of watching people like Vanessa is that it provides an alternative perspective on trans issues.

To be honest, I really miss the days when nobody paid attention to trans issues. In those days, if you came out as trans, people don't have a pre-conceived idea of who you are. For this reason, I'm glad that I came out back in the days when many people didn't even know trans people existed. At least I was always given a fair chance to explain my own trans perspective, without popular cultural references and media tropes getting in the way. Ever since the trans tipping point in 2015 or so, however, I've found it awkward to discuss trans issues in everyday life, so much so that I generally avoid talking about the topic altogether, because people often already come with preconceived notions of what trans people are like. For example, I've come across plenty of people who think that all trans people believe that gender is a social construct, an idea which I actually strongly disagree with, as I explained in my other videos. The problem is, when such expectation are so dominant, it's almost like you have to come out again and again to everyone you meet, just to be honest with yourself and with others. It's really frustrating. For me, the cringe isn't about embarrassment; it's about the misrepresentation and the resulting wrong expectations that many of us find really frustrating. Like how I'm supposed to be super sensitive about people misgendering me, when I don't actually care that much, to be honest.

Which is why I'm sometimes glad that people like Vanessa not only exist, but are outspoken about themselves being almost the opposite of the public stereotype of a trans person. The fact is, and I have said this in numerous other videos before but it bears repeating, Vanessa isn't even special in any way. Regular trans people are the silent majority, and we are nothing like the stereotype. But because the media likes sensational stuff, they tend to give a disproportionate platform to the noisy minority of trans people who have extreme lifestyles or extreme political views. Just think back to last year, when many relatievly mainstream media outlets carried the story of a particularly obnoxious Canadian who identified as trans, who I shall not name again here. That particular Canadian was newsworthy precisely because of the obnoxious behavior. Ever since the trans tipping point five years ago, the media has kept on carrying sensational examples of trans people, distorting our public image, and creating a stereotype that many of us feel extremely uncomfortable with. I guess for some of us, channels like Vanessa's are valuable in that they provide a strong rebuttal to the stereotype. My channel here is something similar, although I have a different style and focus. Again, it's not something you could explain using any existing academic theory, it's just how real life is playing out. When I was younger, I thought that trans people could never go mainstream because we are less than 1% of the population; I just never imagined that we would instead go mainstream in a bad way like this. Real life is unpredictable and often rougher than you can imagine.

I want to come back to the way Vanessa and others kept making videos of that particular Canadian, even after the Canadian ceased to be newsworthy. As I've said in previous videos, I think the approach of Vanessa is often ultimately self-defeating. Sometimes, it appears to me that she is so keen to prove that she is normal, that she keeps platforming the small minority of extremely cringe-worthy trans characters, and in doing so ultimately reinforce the media stereotype of trans people. While to be fair she has recently taken care to showcase more regular trans people, and stated the fact that the silent majority of trans people aren't like the cringe ones, her disproportionate focus on the cringe characters still contributes to the problem of disproportionate platforming of cringe trans people that we are supposed to be combatting. This is why I'm taking a very different approach here on this channel. I'm not going to focus on the cringe-worthy minority at all, except for one or two videos when I believe that it is morally necessary for every trans person with a platform to provide a rebuttal, like with the Canadian last year. Instead, I'm just going to present my own thoughts on news, current affairs, and a variety of topics, which will hopefully be more than enough to show you that I'm nothing like the stereotype. It's a good approach because we're adding more regular voices rather than platforming cringe people looking for attention.

Finally, let's go back to the big question: why are people like Vanessa so popular within the trans community? I guess one reason why Vanessa is popular is because she bucks the stereotype, and does so in a very spectacular way. In fact, not only does she keep going against the media stereotype of trans people, she also has a politics that is very opposite of what most people expect of trans people, like how she is anti-feminist, anti-SJW and supports President Trump. Now, I'm not suggesting that it's a good idea to take up those positions just to stick it to the stereotype, and I'm not suggesting that Vanessa is doing that at all, but I guess it could be part of her appeal to trans people who are sick of other people having the wrong expectation of who they are. I mean, actually supporting Trump is probably not on the agenda of most trans people, but using the current US Presidential election cycle as an example, I know that there are trans people who avoided supporting candidates that fit the stereotype of someone trans people would support, like Elizabeth Warren, and instead go for candidates like Bernie Sanders or Joe Biden, precisely because they don't talk about LGBT issues anywhere as much. As far as I'm aware, no Democrat in this cycle completely avoided LGBT issues, but if there was one, I suspect many trans people would actually flock to them. The fact is, with the media stereotype bearing down on us all, many trans people are almost desperate to escape that expectation, and some are even perhaps going to the extent of bending their politics to prove a point.

BreadTube Faux-Intellectualism & Bias | TE Report Trans S3 E6

TaraElla: Hi everyone, welcome again to the special LGBT season of the TaraElla Report. From now on, we'll be doing something different: I'll be having a chat with some of my LGBT friends who have a different view of LGBT matters to what the activists promote as being representative of us. What I want to do is to showcase the diversity of views in this community, to show that diverse views do exist, to encourage the creation of solutions that will work for everyone and not just the activist establishment. Today, we have Ashley, who is, above all, skeptical of the new dogmas surrounding the trans experience and the concept of gender identity. She is here to respond to my recent talk about why BreadTube hates transmedicalism, in Episode 24 of BreadBusting. For those who are new to this discussion, BreadTube hates transmedicalism, the idea that the trans experience is defined by the medical condition of gender dysphoria. This discussion has blown up again, due to the latest ContraPoints video featuring Buck Angel, a trans male icon with transmedicalist views. This led to Natalie being accused of platforming transmedicalist ideas, even though she's not transmed herself. Apparently, transmed views are now so taboo in BreadTube that even including a transmed's voice in a video is a sin.

Ashley: I've always had a skeptical personality. However, my skepticism towards everything grew further from my political experience, having gone from the so-called SJW crowd, to the so-called anti-SJW crowd, and then distancing myself from both of these crowds, having finally seen the flaws in all of them. The problem is, they all have certain dogma, a certain party line that you have to toe, if you want to be part of the group. This means they are not committed enough to the truth. What I'm seeing recently in the LGBT community, including on BreadTube, is, unfortunately, something similar. There are certain views about gender identity, what being trans is, and how a trans person should relate to the wider world that one now has to have if one wants to be cool in many LGBT circles. And these views are, in my opinion, often explicitly anti-science. Like you said last week, there is a general prioritization of ideas from the sociology and philosophy departments over ideas from the medical science department. And frankly, I think this bias stinks of faux-intellectualism.

TaraElla: My point was that, BreadTubers have more educational capital in the humanities, and they often have little educational capital in the medical sciences, therefore, they favor sociological explainations to make them sound smarter. But the fact is, medical explainations have usually turned out to be correct more often than sociological explainations, if you look at the history of humans asking the big questions of our existence.

Ashley: That's exactly what I'm worried about. For example, Dr Benjamin is out, and Foucault and Butler are in. I'm a pretty science-based person, and I don't like that. There's little interest in all the medical scienfitic hypotheses like genetic imprinting, hormone receptor mutations, or partial androgen insensitivity, all of which may lead us down the path towards more knowledge about the condition of gender dysphoria and its endocrine origins. Instead, there's an over-focus on how gender is socially constructed, and a misguided attempt at trying to deconstruct it all. I am pro-science because, frankly, I think science leads us to the truth, and philosophy often makes us more confused. Of course, what I mean by science is not the simplistic eighth-grade science that doesn't acknowledge any possibility of deviation from the usual sexual norms of the 98%. At more advanced levels of medical science, there are plenty of plausible theories about the origins of gender identity and gender dysphoria, and I'm angry that too little attention is being payed to those theories.

TaraElla: I think what you're saying is that we shouldn't let the social overshadow or overtake the scientific. And I totally agree. The scientific method exists for a reason: it's the best way to lead us to the truth. Many activists say that transmedicalism is about putting down non-binary people, which is nonsense. For many of us, transmedicalism is basically about sticking to scientific methods as the principle way of learning about the trans condition. And as you said, there's much to learn, and much truth to uncover here, something that's being ignored by both cultural conservatives who stick to the eighth-grade version of 'science', and Foucauldian cultural radicals who essentially believe that the scientific method is a tool of oppression and control. I think that's a sad situation indeed.

Why is Transmedicalism Taboo in BreadTube | Re ContraPoints Opulence | BreadBusting #24

NOTE: The transmed view is that the root cause of transness is the condition of gender dysphoria, as defined in DSM-V. It does not however mean that it is a mental illness. Being trans is NOT a mental illness!


Welcome to BreadBusting by TaraElla, where we attempt to examine the problematic ideas that come out of BreadTube, and also LeftTube in general. Subscribe if you're interested.

Today, I am going to continue to respond to the latest ContraPoints video, titled Opulence. This is part three of three, and my focus today will be on how some observations from the video can be applied to BreadTube culture, as I have observed it as an outsider.

So where should we start? I guess we can start with the controversy around the inclusion of the voice of trans male icon Buck Angel in the video. Buck was one of the voices who read out the quotes in the video. However, some people have criticized Natalie for including Buck, because he holds some transmedicalist views. Transmedicalism is the idea that being trans is a medical condition; or in other words, having the medical condition of gender dysphoria defines being trans. And as we all know, transmedicalism is essentially taboo in BreadTube world. Also, given that Buck didn't even talk about any of his views in the video, apparently it's now transmedicalist people who are taboo, and not just trasmedicalist ideas. But why are transmedicalist views taboo in BreadTube? Some may say such views are harmful, because they think transmedicalism is against non-binary people. But then, from my experience, most transmedicalists actually accept non-binary people, and they don't tend to force their beliefs onto others either. So what's the real reason for transmedicalist views being taboo in BreadTube? And what does that have to say about BreadTube as a whole? As I will explore today, I think the answer can ironically be found in some of the concepts that were mentioned in the Opulence video.

BreadTube's culture is quite an exclusive one, and may I say, an arbitrary one too. I think it's like how Natalie described the relationship between art and the museum, that sometimes whatever is in the museum is deemed to be art because it's in the museum. Likewise, it seems that whatever is accepted by the BreadTube community is BreadTube, and what is excluded is simply content that the community doesn't like for some reason. Now, to prove this point, let's consider whether BreadTube indeed has objective criteria. Firstly, it's nominally a community of left-wing YouTubers, so I guess Republicans and Trump supporters are automatically excluded. That's a reasonably objective rule, I guess. But then, it's not just all left-leaning content. For example, 2020 Democratic candidates Andrew Yang and Tulsi Gabbard have gained substantial followings online, and there are plenty of channels dedicated to these two people on YouTube. However, I never see them shared on the BreadTube subreddit, or otherwise mentioned as part of BreadTube. Apparently, Yang Gang can't be part of BreadTube for some reason, even though Yang is generally considered left-wing. It appears that only a certain kind of left is included in BreadTube. And on top of all this, there are certain taboo views that one must not hold in order to remain in good standing with the BreadTube community. Transmedicalism is one of them. Again, this appears to be quite arbitrary. I think this proves the point that BreadTube is like a museum that is curated by certain people according to their tastes. BreadTube, then, is ultimately a brand based on taste and cultural preference.

So why must the BreadTube community render certain ideas cool, and other ideas taboo? I guess one reason is simply because they can, and they want to. But another reason could be about portraying a certain kind of cultural classiness. Now, remember that opulence, wealth, and the trappings of class are not necessarily always linked. As Natalie said, President Trump seems to have opulence, wealth, but not the trappings of class, and this gives him a self-made man image that is popular with some people. While Natalie talked a lot about how one may deliberately portray opulence to imply having a lavish lifestyle, I guess one may also deliberately portray some trappings of class to imply a certain eliteness. I know it's unpopular to say this, but I feel like some BreadTubers are keen to portray the trappings of being highly educated, knowing more than the average person, and perhaps belonging to an exclusive sub-culture where only those who are appropriately learned can enter. BreadTubers often come across as just the opposite of Trump: they don't have opulence, they are generally not wealthy, but they portray the trappings of the elite intelligensia.

In turn, I think this explains many of the preferences of the BreadTube subculture. They like complex theories, especially by obscure theorists. They like to tell people to read this author or that author. They like to use big, uncommon words like 'praxis' when they can just say 'practice', for example. And they don't like simple, practical stuff. I guess that's why they don't have much interest in the Yang Gang and their fixation on 'securing the bag'. There's no grand theory or praxis there. I guess if you're an economist there are indeed a lot of technical things you could say about the UBI. However, your average BreadTuber doesn't have the necessary educational capital in the area of economics to make those sophisticated comments. For your average BreadTuber, there's not much there that one can use to show off their elite educated status, to show that one is different from the average person in the street. Now, let me make it clear that I'm not against higher education. I personally have multiple postgraduate degrees, so I can't be against higher education. But it's one thing to cherish education, and it's another thing to be elitist and exclusive, almost for the sake of it.

So where does the taboo against transmedicalism fit into all this? I guess transmedicalism is hated because it excludes your average BreadTuber from the 'elite' conversation. At a higher level, transmedicalism is associated with many different medical hypotheses, but you would probably need a medical sciences background to understand, study and explain those hypotheses. Most BreadTubers don't even understand basic stuff like hormone receptors, genetic imprinting and basic neuroanatomy, so it's not something they can delve into. In the transmedicalist world, your average BreadTuber would be stuck at the basic, high school level, and they don't like that very much. Furthermore, the transmedicalist hypothesis also has no implications beyond trans people, and can't be linked up with the grand social theorizing that BreadTube is all about. If transness is simply a medical condition, there's no implications for the rest of society, and transness also can't be linked in any way to the social theories. On the other hand, the alternative, that is the social constructionist model of gender, can be used to theorize about all sorts of things, and can also be linked to all sorts of social theory. By embracing social constructionism, the BreadTuber can thus show off their knowledge and education in various areas of the humanities. While your average BreadTuber doesn't have the educational capital to sound elite in the medical sciences, they do have the educational capital to sound elite when it comes to philosophy and sociology. In fact, I guess this could explain why the contemporary humanities is often a bit hostile to the sciences.

What's With Trans Women and Glamour? | Re ContraPoints Opulence | BreadBusting #23

Welcome to BreadBusting by TaraElla, where we attempt to examine the problematic ideas that come out of BreadTube, and also LeftTube in general. Subscribe if you're interested.

Today, I am going to continue to respond to the latest ContraPoints video, titled Opulence. This is part two of three, and my focus today will be on her point about trans women and glamour. As I understand it, Natalie seems to be seeing glamour through the lens that it is the portrayal of the fantasy of a lavish lifestyle. And to be fair, she has a point. But I think it's more complex, and therefore we should take a closer examination of this idea, as I often like to do.

Let's start with the fact that some trans women love glamour, even if some don't. In fact, according to my observations, proportionally more trans women love glamour, compared to non-trans women, something I will discuss again later. Natalie is a good example of a trans woman who loves glamour, as is Gigi Gorgeous, who Natalie often likes to mention. Natalie then discussed the political dimensions of it, hypothesizing that far-left trans women could be getting frustrated at her love of glamour for political or ideological reasons, drawing on quotes from DJ Sprinkles, as read out by Theryn's voice in the video. However, I think we should note that many trans women with a wide range of politics are of the glamour type, ranging from the moderate Republican Blaire White, to staunch progressives like Natalie, even to Stef Sanjati, who as I understand it holds very far-left political views. Therefore, the love of glamour does not represent a political type among trans women, and I guess among women in general.

However, I think that glamour could be associated with certain cultural ideas or idealized social types. For example, when I see a fully glammed up person, no matter what their gender is, I often think of them as having a Hollywood style mindset, and it turns out they often do. Larger than life, and bold in experimenting. My other instinctive feeling about glamorous people is that they tend to have less traditional views on a wide variety of things compared to myself. And 99% of the time I would be right. Natalie, Gigi Gorgeous, and Stef Sanjati are all clearly culturally not very traditional. And then, there's also the fact that the glamour style is less common in more conservative areas, for example rural America. On the other hand, I think it's interesting that Natalie raised the fact that far-left trans women are most often not interested in glamour either. DJ Sprinkles, whose quotes were used by Natalie in the video, has very radical cultural ideas. While she shares the traditionalist's aversion to excessive glamour, she doesn't share any of the traditionalist worldview. In fact, her negative views about families and family values scare me. In the quotes used in the video, she justified her disinterest in glamouros LGBT icons using social class theory, but I suspect for many far-left trans women rejecting glamour could also be a cultural thing. Throughout history, those who see themselves as revolutionaries generally don't embrace glamour. Being a revolutionary is a pretty gritty thing in general, and roughness is often part of that culture. For the traditionalist, rejecting glamour is about being down to Earth and family orientated; for the revolutionary, rejecting glamour is about being rough and facing up to the toughness of the world.

My point is, the embrace of glamour or lack thereof is often a function of internalized cultural image, that is, the ideal of how a person sees themselves. This could be related to politics in some, but probably not most, circumstances. For trans women, this association between style and self-image may become particularly intense, which I think could explain why the full expression of the Hollywood glamour style is overrepresented among trans women. As we grew up, many of us built up our image of what we want to be like, but were unable to actually portray that image. Therefore, when we actually can do so, it feels like reclaiming what has been denied to us. As Natalie said, portraying glamour can be part of this reclamation for some people. But equally, for those of us who don't see ourselves in the images of the glamouros Hollywood types for whatever reason, this reclaimation would occur without embracing glamour, or even explicitly rejecting glamour. As someone whose idealistic image is that of a family person, perhaps one day a successful small business owner, and an outspoken independent thinker, Hollywood style glamour is clearly outside of my self image. Glamour doesn't suit my identity. However, I respect that other trans women embrace glamour because they have a different ideal identity, and portraying glamour could be part of their self actualization. Again, this is also valid. I think we just need to learn to respect each other.

Are TRUSCUM Evil? | Re ContraPoints "Transtrenders" | BreadBusting #9

Welcome to BreadBusting, where we attempt to examine the problematic ideas that come out of BreadTube, and the ideology of Breadism more generally. Basically, it's like Myth Busting, but for Breadism. Please note that, while I do have my personal political beliefs, all this is done in the name of intellectual discussion and seeing things from different perspectives. This is the second part of my response to the latest ContraPoints video, titled Transtrenders. Last time we looked at the conflict between assimilationist vs anti-assimilationist LGBT people; and this time we will take a look at the transmedicalists vs anti-transmedicalists conflict.

But then... Truscum Trouble?

Technically, 'transmedicalist' refers to trans people who believe that being trans has a firm basis in the medical condition called 'gender dysphoria'. 'Truscum' originally meant a transmed who acts exclusionary towards trans people who don't agree with them, but nowadays many people just use the term as a smear for transmeds in general. Based on the way Tiffany treated Baltimore in the video, Tiffany would fit both definitions of a 'truscum'. But then, as I explained last time, putting down people who disagree with your worldview is an attitude problem, not a belief problem, and since I have already dealt with Tiffany's attitude problem last time, I won't explore that again. Instead, I'm going to focus on the difference in belief between Tiffany and Justine, and that difference is the acceptance vs the rejection of the transmed idea. In the rest of this video, I will see if this incompatibility is the make or break for this potential couple.

Are TRUSCUM Evil? Let's Look Deeper.

So, the main conflict we are presented with is that, Tiffany, like all transmeds, believe that being trans is a medical condition, and Justine, like all anti-transmeds, is opposed to this idea. Well, then, people have different ideas about various things, and they disagree all the time. So what? But then, this is actually personal for both Tiffany and Justine, because they are both trans. Therefore, Tiffany's theory about trans would apply to Justine too, and Justine's theory about trans would apply to Tiffany too. This is why the argument between transmeds and anti-transmeds have gotten so toxic, and people on both sides have taken it so personally. But then, to be fair, if people like Justine hate being described by Tiffany's transmed theory, people like Tiffany hate being described by Justine's theory just as much. And what was Justine's theory? It's that gender is performative, a theory originally described by Judith Butler in her book Gender Trouble back in 1990. And from what I know, this view of gender is hated by the vast majority of trans people across the political spectrum. I am certainly very opposed to it myself, as I have described in my previous video, 'Are Transwomen Women'. So then, both Tiffany and Justine are promoting a theory of trans-ness that some other trans people hate. They need to recognize that, they have at least this in common.

If theories about being trans are dividing us, why can't we just not have them? Why do we need those theories anyway? As Justine said, there's no theory about being gay. But then, being trans affects one's identity and interaction with other people much more extensively than being gay does. It requires family and friends to get used to some serious changes when they interact with you, every single time. It can't just be put aside for a while, it is always there. Hence, most trans people feel the need to explain their circumstances to many people in their lives. And this is where theories about being trans come in. Tiffany believes that the transmed story is the one that represents her. Justine believes that the Butlerist performativity theory story is the one that represents her. It's like two people who have different religions, or two people who support different football teams. And within each camp, we can have further divisions. For example, I am a transmed too. But then, I don't share all of Tiffany's views, nor do most transmeds I know. For example, most of us have certainly evolved to be accepting of non-binary people. I don't like the label 'transsexual' and I prefer to reclaim HBS instead. I would classify gender dysphoria as an endocrine condition rather than a mental disorder. I also think the idea that seeking medical transition being what makes trans people valid is fundamentally wrong, because medical diagnosis should always be separate from what treatment choices the patient makes. Nevertheless, the thing we all agree on, as transmeds, is that being trans can be traced to a medical cause of some sort, and is not explainable by sociological theory.

And trans theories are very personal for many of us. In the video, Tiffany seems to say that she favors the transmed theory because it can be more readily accepted by others, but I don't think this is the reasoning for most transmeds, but rather, just Natalie's idea of how we think. For most of us, it isn't about which theory gets acceptance at all. For me, the transmed narrative accurately represents my story, and I feel that other narratives such the Butlerist performativity theory or the gender as a social construct idea don't speak to me at all. For me, only the transmed narrative adequately explains my onset of gender dysphoria the very first time I learned that the world was divided into genders, my feelings of missing out on things throughout childhood, my experience of awkwardness with puberty and so on, and any sociology-based narrative wouldn't represent my history adequately. Sociology theories also can't explain physical dysphoria. For me, I feel as though the sociology based narratives invalidate a large part of my past 30 years. It feels like some so-called expert in an ivory tower, often a radical feminist theorist, tries to fit my existence around her own view of what the world should be, and not caring that it invalidates me as a person in the process.

The LGBT Assimilation Question | Re ContraPoints "Transtrenders" | BreadBusting #8

Welcome to BreadBusting, where we attempt to examine the problematic ideas that come out of BreadTube, and the ideology of Breadism more generally. Basically, it's like Myth Busting, but for Breadism. Please note that, while I do have my personal political beliefs, all this is done in the name of intellectual discussion and seeing things from different perspectives. Today, I want to respond to the latest ContraPoints video, titled Transtrenders. This will be the first part of a three part response, looking at the conflict between assimilationist vs anti-assimilationist LGBT people; transmedicalists vs anti-transmedicalists; and the left-wing stereotyping of centrists respectively. I will try to balance out my discussion so that left-wing theory, classical liberal values and more conservative concerns are all examined.

Today, I will focus on assimilationist vs anti-assimilationist LGBT people. In the video, the character Tiffany Tumbles represents a stereotypical assimilationist, and the character Baltimore Maryland represents a stereotypical anti-assimilationist. One important thing to note is that, while Tiffany was also transmedicalist and Baltimore was also anti-transmedicalist, I think this should be treated as a separate issue, and I will examine this in part two. One thing I didn't like about the video is that it contained all jumbled up stereotypes, for example I'm still unsure whether Jackie Jackson is supposed to be a classical liberal or a centrist, but she actually sounds more like a conservative to me. But let's leave that for part three. Anyway, Tiffany Tumbles wishes to be accepted in mainstream circles, and is therefore inclined to present herself according to conventional expectations of what a woman should look like. On the other hand, Baltimore is happy not to fit into traditional expectations. Tiffany wanted to make the point that she and Baltimore are very different and have very different life circumstances, which is actually true. But then, Tiffany kind of insulted Baltimore when making her point, painting them as a 'transtrender' who is a fashion disaster. Baltimore probably got offended, and like many leftists, responded with indirect insults at what they saw as right-wing judgemental attitudes, the way gay activists have long responded to religious right commentary. As you can see, it's all very stereotypical. Tiffany Tumbles didn't actually sound like your average assimilationist, but rather the left-wing stereotype of one.

But let's look past the stereotyping for now, and let's look deeper as to what is really going on. Tiffany is worried that the existence of people like Baltimore is going to make it difficult for her to explain her circumstances to her social circle, to get them to understand and accept her. From Tiffany's point of view, acceptance from her social circle, which probably leans conservative, is very important to her, and if she doesn't make a case for acceptance that will resonate with conservatives, she has a lot to lose. This is very real indeed for Tiffany. Of course, the case for conservative acceptance will inevitably rest on accepting the conservative social contract, and promising to not upset the conventional order. Baltimore probably can't understand it, because they probably don't interact much with conservatives. In other words, Tiffany has a lot to lose from immediate conservative rejection, but Baltimore probably doesn't. The stakes are different on both sides here.

On the other hand, Baltimore feels as if Tiffany is making her own case for acceptance at the expense of them. And it certainly comes across this way in the video. I mean, Tiffany came across as quite rude in the video, unlike most assimilationists I know, and I certainly don't agree with the way she treated Baltimore. I suspect this portrayal may reflect Natalie's own view of assimilationist LGBT people from her own radical-leaning point of view. But then, as I said earlier, there is indeed a practical need for assimilationist LGBT people to separate themselves from the anti-assimilationist. One group has agreed to live within the conventional social contract and the other is actively tearing it apart, so for the narratives of either to work, they must both deny being similar to the other. There's nothing wrong or condescending about that in priniple. However, I do believe, as a general principle, that people should make their point without putting down other people. For example, as an assimilationist, I would point out that people like Baltimore are in fact very different from people like myself when it comes to our narrative, our life circumstances, our expectations of society, and our desires, but as someone who actually follows real classical liberal values as they were defined by people like John Stuart Mill, as someone who actually celebrates individual freedom, I can have nothing against Baltimore being 'different'. I will try my best to use their pronouns out of respect, and I'm certainly not going to be judgemental about the way they live their life. I also think the assimilationist community has been moving in this direction for some time now. Crude rhetoric like that of Tiffany Tumbles used to be very common 15 years ago, but it's certainly less common now.

I also think respect is a two-way street, and radical anti-assimilationists should look at if they have treated assimilationists with adequate respect. For example, I have to say that Natalie seems not to have enough respect for assimilationists at this point, seeing how Tiffany is portrayed as a crude stereotype rather than a character with real nuance and real needs in life. While assimilationists and non-assimilationists can be friends and allies, anti-assimilationists need to respect that assimilationists have an inherent need to explain their differences clearly. For example, during a recent LGBT politics debate, a conservative assimilationist trans person tried to make the point that she doesn't have much in common with politically radical non-binary people, only for her point to be rebuked. I mean, if someone says their life experiences are inherently different from yours, then you need to respect it. It's just like if an African American person told me I wouldn't know how it's like to grow up black in America, then I have to just accept it. Challenging that would be rude indeed!

While in the ContraPoints universe it is Baltimore who suffered at the hands of Tiffany, in the real world it is often the other way around. For example, I often get the feeling that anti-assimilationists somehow think they're superior to us, and won't ever see us as equals. This bias is probably based in leftist critical theory, which justifies the belief that the non-assimilationists are de-constructing the gender binary and therefore bringing about real liberation, whereas the assimilationists are almost like class traitors who are happy to be slaves living in the master's house. Again, I doubt we can ever get along well if that's what you think about me. As I said, assimilationists have real, material reasons to be assimilationist, and we choose this out of our own agency. Furthermore, many assimilationists have said that they regularly see this condescending attitude on display from radical anti-assimilationists, including when they speak to the media, pretending to speak for all LGBT but ignoring the assimilationist faction completely, or even making a comment about how sad it is that we even exist. It appears that they are all too willing to let their political radicalism stand in the way of mutual respect and allyship. As a Moral Libertarian, I believe the most important thing is for everyone to have equal and maximum moral agency, and that means I respect you being you, and I equally expect you to respect me being me. All healthy relationships have to have this equal respect built into them. Let's use another example. Interfaith cooperation among religions only work on the basis that they can put aside their differences and respect each other. Catholics and Hindus can and do work together, but only on the basis that Catholics don't force Hindus to agree with the Christian Bible, and vice versa. Similarly, radicals and assimilationists can work together, but only on the basis that you stop telling us to read Judith Butler or bell hooks.

That's all for today. I'll be back next time to discuss another big idea. Subscribe if you want to follow our story. The transcripts are available on my website. And remember to resist the hive mind and stay individualistic. The world depends on it.

The BreadPill Trap: How ContraPoints and BreadTube are Changing the LGBT Community | BreadBusting

Welcome to the first ever episode of BreadBusting, where we attempt to examine the problematic ideas that come out of BreadTube, what I call Breadism. Basically, it's like Myth Busting, but for Breadism. TransTella Mag has become BreadBusting, because the world around us is changing. When this project started last year, my intention was to provide an alternative LGBT voice to counter the growing dominance of radical discourse. In the past few years I had been increasingly concerned about the change in the LGBT community. Gone are the days when practical and realistic goals like gay marriage were the focus. Instead, I think the community has turned to escapism, with the help of postmodernism, itself born of historical escapism of a different kind.

And then, there is the rise of the Lobster Queen herself, ContraPoints, aka Natalie Wynn. Don't get me wrong, I love watching her content, it's quite entertaining. But like all infotainment, ContraPoints, and the rest of BreadTube, are here to spread ideas, and somewhere in all the fun and games, there are certain ideas that I just can't agree with. I first became concerned when Natalie's views on gender and trans issues began to become mainstreamed in certain sections of the LGBT community, at the expense of our more traditional, and more realistic, narrative. You can watch my other videos to see where we disagree. Basically, I can't accept the idea that gender is a social construct, or that it is performative. Even Judith Butler herself has said that she didn't understand trans issues well when she wrote Gender Trouble. But on a deeper level, it is the supplantation of one worldview by another altogether. Let's get directly to the point. I am concerned that the ideas of BreadTube, which Jordan Peterson seems to have a controversial name for, but I will just call Breadism, will lead us to a place where we believe that everything is socially constructed, and that we are the victim of such social construction. Somehow, we don't have much individual agency anymore. And, somehow, everything is also linked to capitalism too, which is so large and so powerful that we may as well be completely powerless. My first concern is, I don't think this worldview is either realistic or healthy, especially for LGBT people and other minorities who already stuggle to stay afloat, living in the here and now. My other concern is, adopting this worldview has led the LGBT community to abandon its successful strategy of gradual reform, which culminated in the legalization of gay marriage among other things, and instead regressing to the hopeless nihilism that characterized the gay community of the 1970s.

Let's put it this way. Breadism sometimes sounds like escapism, but with real world consequences. I mean, I watch a lot of political videos, which focus on real world news events. They talk about real world issues like health care and free speech. On the other hand, BreadTube is often more like Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings, or perhaps Game of Thrones. It likes to focus on a particular version of history, particular intellectual theories, and uses language that is only understood by people who are fans, essentially. It's very similar to a fandom, in other words.

My point is, BreadTube is, on some levels, escapism, and I think people are taking the Bread Pill to escape from a reality that they don't like. Which would explain the high proportion of LGBT people in BreadTube Land. But the thing is, BreadTube is a mind-altering drug, and people who take the Bread Pill too much will develop an altered sense of reality, which has real world consequences. And I have seen some of these real world consequences in the LGBT community recently. I won't sugercoat it. Ever since 2015 or so, there has been a great increase in victim mentality justified by critical theory, there has been a focus on fantasy-world theory and fantasy-world issues like Marxist gender theory rather than practical issues like helping other countries legalize gay marriage, and there has been an inability to debate people who disagree with us, which stems from a loss of faith in free speech. The LGBT community has been in a downward spiral, and frankly I'm sick and tired of it. That's why I started this channel to provide an alternative LGBT commentary. But then, I have come to realize that the recent developments are the result of the spread of Breadism, and if we want to reverse course, we need to confront Breadism itself. Furthermore, Breadism is also spreading in non-LGBT spaces, so it's not just an LGBT problem. Hence, from now on, I will critique Breadism broadly. I will show you why an ideology based on postmodernism is no less than Opium of the Mind, because it drains individual agency. I will show you how Breadism promises impossible utopia to its followers, in turn making them unnecessarily angry at the status quo. I will show you how Breadism, by developing and enforcing oppressor and oppressed binaries and hierarchies of privilege, essentially end up enforcing this privilege as a self-fulfilling prophecy. All this will be explored in the coming weeks and months.

My intention is to use this space to voice my disagreements with Breadism. Don't get me wrong, I like watching BreadTube, I am subcribed to most BreadTubers, but there are certain concerns I have. And, by the way, I will not use BreadTube style lighting and aesthetics, because I'm talking about something serious, and I don't want any distractions.

That's all for today. I hope you subscribe if you are interested. See you next time!