Trans Issues, Radical Feminism and Critical Theory | TaraElla Report LvCT

Why critical theory inspired radical feminism is bad for trans people

Welcome back to TaraElla Report LvCT, Liberalism vs Critical Theory. In this new series, we will explore the differences between the critical theory worldview and the liberal worldview.

Today, I am going to take a look at why radical feminism has had so much difficulty with the acceptance of trans people. As we've examined before, radical feminists are currently deeply divided on their attitude towards trans people and trans issues, but neither side of the radical feminism coin has really come to terms with trans people as we actually exist in this world. Therefore, my view is that radical feminism as a whole is actually not quite accepting of trans people.

Let's start by defining 'radical feminism'. Different people define the term differently, but here, I will use a broad definition. That is, 'radical feminism' here will include all major branches of feminism that are not liberal or reformism orientated, including the second wave, third wave and postmodern influenced varieties alike. Since the middle of the 20th century, feminism has been generally divided into liberal feminism and radical feminism. In general, liberal feminists essentially extend the the liberal commitment to equal opportunity, equal treatment and universalist civil rights into the field of sex and gender. Thus, liberal feminism believes in ending all barriers and unequal access to opportunities and choices in life based on sex and gender. On the other hand, radical feminism doesn't believe in the liberal feminist vision. Instead, their view of gender relations is strongly colored by the common critical theory worldview of power dynamics between oppressor vs oppressed groups. Radical feminism essentially sees the world as fundamentally defined by unequal power dynamics between men, as a class, vs women, as a class. Furthermore, just like other critical theory type worldviews, radical feminism believes that the current system is unreformable, revolutionary change must occur if there is to be justice, and such change can only come with strengthening awareness of the power dynamics, which makes it essentially opposed to liberal feminism to a great extent.

As you can see, the difference between liberal feminism and radical feminism has strong parallels with the difference between liberal colorblind anti-racism and critical race theory. It is essentially a parallel that can be observed across a variety of progressive movements, with one side being rooted in liberalism, and the other side essentially rooted in critical theory thinking. It is what this series is all about. But let's return to radical feminism.

I believe the difficulty radical feminists have had with trans people is fundamentally rooted in their binary two-class worldview, seeing men and women primarily as two antagonistic classes rather than as individuals. The liberal model has had a much easier time accommodating trans people because it sees people as individuals rather than members of a group. Thus, it doesn't have as much difficulty in dealing with people who don't neatly fit into a group all the time. After all, the liberal demand for treating people equally regardless of sex or gender, which is basically sex-blindness and gender-blindness, is equally applicable even where the sex and gender of the person is mismatched, or otherwise unconventional. On the other hand, radical feminism requires first classifying people as 100% belonging to one class or another, and it is easy to see why it would have difficulty with trans people. The core divide within radical feminism is basically one of agreeing vs refusing to classify trans people with the gender they identify as. The bitterness of the divide, as it currently stands, demonstrates why the liberal model is better, in my opinion.

I think another reason why radical feminism has had difficulty with trans people is its a-priori ideological commitment of seeing gender as a social construct. As I've said before, gender critical feminists can't accept trans people because they believe that gender is a social construct, which essentially means that all non-physical differences between men and women are socially constructed. In this worldview, trans people can't logically exist naturally. On the other hand, while postmodernism-inspired radical feminists (sometimes called intersectionalists) might support trans rights superficially, they too can't truly accept most biological explanations of trans identity, because they too believe that gender is a social construct. This means that postmodernized feminism essentially sees trans identity as no more than a 'performance', or an aspect of personality at most. This actually amounts to a refusal to understand gender dysphoria properly, and is ultimately bad for trans acceptance because it perpetuates misunderstanding in the wider world. This is why I say that neither side of the radical feminist divide actually fully accepts trans people.

Radical feminism is committed to the idea that gender is a social construct, not because of clear empirical evidence proving so, but because of the strong influence of the critical theory worldview, which includes the view that the dominant cultural ideas of society are the ideas that uphold the dominance of the oppressor groups. In the radical feminist worldview, gender, i.e. any differences between men and women that are not physical, must be a product of the patriarchal system that benefits men and oppresses women, and hence must be abolished or at least revolutionized in some way. There is not much room for compromise here, because any compromise would essentially mean accepting oppression and giving up on revolutionary consciousness. This is why, if the theory of gender being a social construct comes up against the reality of trans people, radical feminism would essentially demand that reality yield to their theory. However, since trans people are real people, and trans lives are real lives, this is simply not morally acceptable!

So this, I think, explains why radical feminism has had so much difficulty with trans people and trans issues. It is also an example that demonstrates why, compared to the critical theory model, the liberal model of social progress is much more adaptive, flexible and hence more useful for resolving many social justice issues.

JK Rowling, Trans People, Free Speech and Truth | TaraElla Report S6 E16

Welcome back to TaraElla TV, where we examine cultural and political issues from a truth-orientated, non-factional, and constructive problem solving perspective. Subscribe if you're interested. Today, I'm going to revisit my views on the JK Rowling trans issues controversy. Given that this is a complex and sensitive topic, please listen to what I have to say with an open mind, and don't jump to conclusions right away.

Last month, when the issue was dominating social media, around the time Rowling published her controversial essay, I put out a video saying that, as a trans person, I don't think she's transphobic. Since then, I've been accused by some of agreeing with what she wrote. What I want to clarify is that I don't, actually. There were certainly quite a few things I didn't agree with in that essay. What I actually said was that Rowling isn't transphobic, and has even shown a basic level of sympathy to trans people, points which I still stand by. All this doesn't necessarily mean I agree with her. It just means that I have taken her concerns from a good faith point of view, I don't believe she has acted in hostility towards trans people, and she shouldn't be just labelled a bigot and pushed away.

The fact is, there's disagreement, and then there's bigotry, and the two are very different things. For example, someone who actively wants trans people to not exist in mainstream society would definitely be transphobic. On a lower level, I think someone who mercilessly makes fun of trans people could also be said to be transphobic, because there is a malicious intent to harm trans people there. But having views that many trans people find disappointing is another thing altogether. It may not be what some people want to hear, but it's not the same as bigotry. The problem with treating disagreements as bigotry is that it essentially hampers free debate. This extends even into debates within the trans community. Even trans people sometimes feel like we aren't able to freely voice what we think on some trans issues, or what solutions or compromises we would be willing to accept to improve our lives, just because other trans people may not like what we have to say. I know that there are many trans people who feel like we're under the boot of some orthodoxy upheld by certain activists, and that this orthodoxy may not end up serving the needs of trans people well either.

The problem of treating disagreement on certain issues as bigotry is not limited to the trans community, it's actually part of a wider problem. It really didn't use to be this way, and it really shouldn't be this way. For example, if you oppose gay marriage, I certainly strongly disagree with your position, but I wouldn't label you a homophobe just for that. Instead, I may invite you for a discussion or debate. As an active supporter of the marriage equality movement for over 10 years, this had always been my position, and I think this respectful attitude won us a lot of support over the years. However, this method has been supplanted by a much more militant form of activism, one that takes people who disagree in bad faith right away, and sees those in the way of desired progress as enemies and oppressors. The logical conclusion of this attitude would be essentially, agree with me right now or you're the enemy. I think last year's cancelling Contrapoints drama is the fullest manifestation of this attitude, and if things don't change, more of this kind of madness will be coming in the future.

As I often say, free speech works to resolve social issues and bring much needed progress, and there's a historical track record to prove that. Naysayers to free speech often take the position of Herbert Marcuse's 1965 essay Repressive Tolerance, in which he argued that universal tolerance of all ideas is repressive, because the status quo always wins out. However, if that is the case, we wouldn't have women's suffrage, the civil rights movement, gay marriage, and more. In particular, the whole gay marriage movement, from start to finish, has occured during my own lifetime, and I've seen how quickly attitudes can evolve when there is good faith and respectful discussion. Yes, the world is still imperfect, and there is still more to do for justice. But things have indeed come a long way, and rational discussion will certainly take us much further. This is because justice cannot exist without truth, and rational discussion will bring us further to the truth. This is the big idea behind the Enlightenment after all.

To foster rational discussion, we need to stop seeing each other as the enemy. The critical theory inspired attitude of oppressor vs oppressed needs to go. The postmodern idea that speech and discourse are devices of power needs to go. Instead, we all need to work on a mutual commitment to finding the truth, and finding the best solutions for every problem.

ENOUGH! JK ROWLING ISN'T TRANSPHOBIC (I'm Trans) | TaraElla Report S6 E11

Welcome back to Trad Trans Rants by TaraElla. Right now, I'm very frustrated. You see, the whole 'JK Rowling is transphobic' thing has heated up all over again. It all started when Rowling tweeted her disagreement with the language used in an article titled 'Creating a more equal post-COVID-19 world for people who menstruate'. Obviously, Rowling disagrees with the usage of 'people who menstruate' and would prefer the use of just 'women' instead. That opinion, as you may expect, attracted severe backlash in the echo chamber that is Twitter. Rowling then went on to post a few more tweets like these ones:

"If sex isn’t real, there’s no same-sex attraction. If sex isn’t real, the lived reality of women globally is erased. I know and love trans people, but erasing the concept of sex removes the ability of many to meaningfully discuss their lives. It isn’t hate to speak the truth."

AND

"I respect every trans person’s right to live any way that feels authentic and comfortable to them. I’d march with you if you were discriminated against on the basis of being trans. At the same time, my life has been shaped by being female. I do not believe it’s hateful to say so."

Doesn't really sound transphobic at all to me. In fact, as a trans person, all I have ever asked for is to be able to live in a way that feels comfortable for me, and not face discrimination or hate as a result. If Rowling supports my right to do all this, then I feel she really has my back. As for whether Rowling thinks of me as a man, I don't think that matters. People have their right to their own opinions, and I can respect different views. I can surely get along with people who don't agree with me.

Of course, all this wouldn't really have been an issue at all, say, ten years ago. Not many trans people from ten years ago would have taken offense at Rowling's words. I think the issue is that, there has been a new gender-related movement that probably sprang up from places like Tumblr, which gradually got mainstream in the last 5-10 years. Rather than focusing on the ability to live free from discrimination like we always did, this new gender movement is all about changing language. For the record, I have no problems personally with phrases like 'people who menstruate'. As a free speech activist, I think everyone is entitled to use whatever language they want. The problem is, this whole episode started when Rowling expressed her disagreement with the phrase 'people who menstruate'. While you certainly can come up with unconventional phrases to express your viewpoints, others have an equal right to voice their disagreements. I think Rowling is fed up with the idea that to simply dissent to the new language is equivalent to transphobia, and on this point, I am fully with her.

I think it's time the trans rights movement stopped caring about language, and started caring about more bread and butter issues, like employment, housing and health care. After all, only the privileged can afford to care about language, for the rest of us, it's always the bread and butter issues that must take priority. The truth is, I can't afford to care about what language people use because I actually have a life to live and work to do, and I suspect the silent majority of trans people are with me on this.

As for people like Rowling, they are actually trying to participate in the trans rights conversation, and I think it's a mistake for the radical activists to push them away. Surely, she is bringing her concerns to the table, but she is also bringing her commitment to allyship, and the latter is much more important. As for Rowling's concerns, which she does appear to share with many people out there, it is up to those of us who care about trans rights to deal with them. I think we should let everyone voice their concerns about any trans rights proposal, as long as they are doing so in good faith, so that we can work through them, and come up with solutions that address the concerns of everyone. As with all social change, there are a diverse number of stakeholders we need to communicate with, and compromise with, in order to make it work. If anything, I think we should be happy that people like Rowling are willing to openly share their concerns, while still committing to being allies.

Let's DESTROY All the Anger and Negativity! | TE Report Trans S3 E16

Hi everyone, welcome again to the special LGBT season of the TaraElla Report. This is where we talk about the diversity of views around the issues, and hope to come together to resolve our differences. Subscribe if you are interested. This show is brought to you by my new book, Postmodernism, Skeptics & Transmedicalists, which is partially about how trans people got entangled in the latest culture wars and got misunderstood by the world. Link is in the description.

In fact, I think I have been talking about the issues, and possible solutions to accomodate the concerns of all sides, for nearly two years now. We've talked about everything ranging from the clinical science of gender dysphoria, to the ways the needs of trans people can be accomodated while considering the concerns of other parties, to the way a rational discussion can be had on these issues. Yet I think most people out there aren't truly listening. Of all the trans related videos I've made, the ones that got the most views so far are one about a particularly hated ContraPoints character, and one about a particularly controversial Canadian personality who I shall not name here. People are more interested in conflict than rational discussion, it seems. This is reflected in the state of online trans-related discussion, where one side simply screams empty slogans like 'trans rights' or 'trans women are women', and the other side simply screams some stuff about biology deniers, SJW snowflakes, and probably some Ben Shapiro quotes in return. Meanwhile, no intellectual dialogue is ever made, and people retreat to their respective echo chambers after the screaming. It seems that people just want to be angry for the sake of being angry all the time. Honestly, I've had enough!

The cultural and political environment we're operating in right now is really difficult. Really, really frustrating. And I blame it on all the anger and negativity, coming from both sides of politics. A subset of the left is ideologically wedded to anger, because it is driven by conflict theory. A subset of the right practically thrives on getting outraged, because they don't have a more meaningful politics. It's the old SJW vs anti-SJW thing, but now dumbed down to an even more ridiculous level. Normally, I would just say that these people deserve each other, and they should leave the rest of us alone. However, for some reason, both sides seem to have a massive obsession about trans people, while not even trying to understand the issues at all. I personally think any political movement that keeps talking about trans people has essentially lost the plot, since we make up only 0.2% of the population, but leaving this aside, the quality of the discussion is also very bad. At this point, it's just 'politics as identity', the even more problematic cousin of OG identity politics.

I guess the only way out of this is to destroy the anger and negativity, by making it look bad, and by making the opposite look good. Looking back, it seems that people were trying to do this, but they picked the wrong targets. Firstly, it was the SJWs who were angry and negative, so they went anti-SJW. Then, the anti-SJWs became even more angry and negative, so they went anti-anti-SJW. But that's really missing the point. The problem isn't even in what people believe, it's that they are angry and negative. Anger and negativity is the real enemy. It's what I will be focusing on going forward.

The Two Sides of the Trans Community Should Respect Each Other | TE Report Trans S3 E10

Hi everyone, welcome again to the special LGBT season of the TaraElla Report. This is where we talk about the diversity of views in the community, to show that diverse views do exist, and to promote mutual understanding. Subscribe if you are interested. This show is brought to you by my new book, Postmodernism, Skeptics & Transmedicalists, which is all about the battle between postmodern and Marcusean ideology vs skeptics opposing these ideas, and how trans people got entangled in this battle and got misunderstood by the world. Link is in the description.

Today, I am going to again revisit my response to the Transtrenders video by ContraPoints from last year. As I said last time, the video actually talked about two separate topics, transmedicalists vs anti-transmeds, and assimilationists vs those openly queer, for lack of a better term. This time, I'm going to focus on the assimilationist vs openly queer thing. This is actually separate from the transmed thing, because you can indeed be transmed and also gender non-conforming and very openly queer. As we discussed last time, there's no incompatibility there.

I am, of course, closer to the assimilationist end of the spectrum. And I guess it makes sense for me. Everyone around me is cis and straight. In fact, I've never had a close LGBT friendship in my whole life. All my friends are cis and straight, in other words. Therefore, I practically exist in the cis-straight culture in real life. It's simply my living situation. There should be nothing taboo about stating this, it's the way a lot of LGBT people live out there in the real world. And given that we all like to fit in with our family, our friends and our social groups, I'm naturally not going to make being trans a big part of my identity. Again, this is simply real life, not some form of 'respectability politics'. The other thing is, I can only take being reminded of being trans in small doses. If I were always reminded that I'm trans, it would be very dysphoric for me. Again, it's not internalized transphobia or anything stupid like that, it's simply the way my dysphoria works. I can go for days without consciously remembering that I'm trans, and I like it that way.

Now, I understand that not all LGBT people, not all trans people, like to live life the way I do. Some apparently want to celebrate their queerness every day. If that's their thing, then more power to them. As a Moral Libertarian, I'm very pluralist when it comes to cultural and aesthetic matters. Each to their own. Surely, I'm not going to wear trans pride badges or any rainbow stuff when I go out. But if other people do, I certainly don't mind. I even think it looks great on other people. Just not me.

The problem, I think, is that there hasn't been enough mutual understanding, respect and acceptance, and this goes both ways. For example, I understand that some of my fellow assimilationists have bad things to say about the very openly queer, and I don't agree with that. On the other hand, some of the people on the other side think that we have internalized transphobia, that we pursue respectability politics, or that we don't have a spine and will always bow down to mainstream society. This biased view of who we are, and the resulting disrespect towards our needs, is equally uncalled for. For example, parts of the LGBT community that mainly lived in 'queer ghettos', for lack of a better word, kept calling gay marriage a respectability politics issue. This was very unkind to those of us who live in communities where rights and dignity are only conferred with marriage, whether we like it or not. Similarly, a trans person living in mainstream society wants mainstream acceptance because we want a job, we want friends, and we don't want to stick out like a sore thumb. Honestly, I don't think this is too much to ask for. As assimiliationists, we do have needs and priorities to help us integrate into mainstream culture, because that's where we live our life. If you respected us more, you may become more empathetic to this need. Trust me, if you were living my life, and you suffered from the disadvantages of not living in a very pro-LGBT community, you too would prioritize some of the things I prioritize too.

The fact is, we may live under the same umbrella, but we have very different needs. I think it's time to respect and support each other, though our lives may be different. Let's end the pointless cultural and asethetic wars, so we may achieve some practical progress together.

Why Transmeds Aren't the Enemy of Non-Binary People | TE Report Trans S3 E9

Hi everyone, welcome again to the special LGBT season of the TaraElla Report. This is where we talk about the diversity of views in the community, to show that diverse views do exist, and to promote mutual understanding. Subscribe if you are interested. This show is brought to you by my new book, Postmodernism, Skeptics & Transmedicalists, which is all about the battle between postmodern and Marcusean ideology vs skeptics opposing these ideas, and how trans people got entangled in this battle and got misunderstood by the world. Link is in the description.

Today, I am going to revisit my response to the Transtrenders video by ContraPoints from last year. When the video came out, I did some response to it, but it wasn't systematic, and it wasn't very well thought out. Thinking about it, the video actually talked about two separate topics, transmedicalists vs anti-transmeds, and assimilationists vs those openly queer, for lack of a better term. This time, I will try to examine the two topics again, in a more systematic, and may I say, more concilliatory and constructive manner. Today, I will talk about what transmedicalism should actually be about, why the gender non-conforming isn't our enemies, and why, if you are a gender non-comforming, openly queer trans or non-binary person, the transmedicalist point of view is not your enemy.

Firstly, I identify as a transmed. But what is a transmed? The word is a combination of 'trans' and 'medical', and taken literally, it should mean seeing the trans condition through the biomedical point of view. As somebody who is trained in the biomedical tradition, I think it can accurately explain almost everything about the human condition, hence I am very committed to explaining things like the trans condition through this model. In other words, I am of the firm belief that gender dysphoria, and in fact, even gender non-conformity more generally, is biomedical rather than sociological in origin. This, of course, is closely linked to my firm belief that gender is biological, not sociological. Now, I understand that gender non-conforming and non-binary people are sometimes very skeptical of transmeds. As I said previously, I think this has to do with the behavior of certain controversial transmed online personalities, who go around and attack people as 'transtrenders'. But the transmed view actually has nothing to do with that kind of behavior.

As a transmed, my primary fight is not even with 'trenders'. My primary fight is with the science denying postmodernist gender philosophy that comes out of certain sections of academia, for example gender studies. The more these ideologies are taken up, the less attention is paid to the science, and we, as trans people, suffer for several reasons. We suffer because people out there will think that being trans is a choice, a choice that they can prevent us from making. We suffer because basic trans rights become entangled with postmodern nonsense, and people will start opposing trans rights thinking that it's part of stopping postmodern nonsense. We suffer because there would be less support for scientific research into gender dysphoria, and hence less progress on understanding and helping trans people. Make no mistake: anti-science postmodern gender philosophy is one of the biggest oppressors of trans people right now. As a transmed, I'm here to fight the fight to right this wrong. I'm certainly not here to waste my time and argue if certain people are transtrenders or not. I have much bigger fish to fry.

Another thing is, I personally think there is a real transmedicalist case to support the validity of gender non-conforming and non-binary people against societal prejudice, because the existence of gender non-conformity in a small number of individuals is clearly supported by both basic medical science and observations from clinical medicine. In the case of biological needs conflicting with societal expectations, biology should always come first. As I often say, medical science is the friend of discriminated minorities everywhere, because of its power to explain the truth of biological diversity. That's why I put my faith in medical science, and not anti-science postmodern philosophies, to explain the world.

The transmedicalist model also provides a lot of empowerment and freedom: after all, if what we feel is biomedical, then it is morally wrong for society to try to force us to suppress it, with all the bad health consequences this will cause. On the other hand, if gender dysphoria is sociological, then it becomes no more than a lifestyle choice. If gender were a social construct, then trans would also be a social construct, and it could be constructed away. If gender were performative, then trans would also be performative, and the rest of society could simply ask trans people to stop putting on that performance. Not to mention that, if gender were performative, then trans people would only be our identified gender when we perform it right! This would suggest that trans people who cannot transition for whatever reason, for example, are less valid. This is very cruel indeed! As you can see, the social constructionist model of gender, and the anti-science views that are taught in many gender studies programs and increasingly accepted in many LGBT circles, are incompatible with the basic dignity of trans people.

As I often say, the transmed model is the only attempt to understand the trans phenmenon, which was developed through actually studying and respecting trans people, our needs and our agency. On the other hand, all that stuff that comes out of gender studies departments weren't even developed with the reality of trans people in mind. Instead, they all share a root with 'gender critical' feminism, otherwise known as TERFism, and you can draw whatever conclusion you want from that. The fact is, believing that gender is a social construct is the root of gender critical-ness, which is why all that gender studies ideology don't actually accept trans people, no matter what they say on the surface. I would even go as far as to say that gender studies ideologies inevitably leave a backdoor for a trojan horse to enter and attack trans rights.

Trans & Cancel Culture: JK Rowling, Joe Rogan, ContraPoints, JBP... | TE Report Trans S3 E8

Hi everyone, welcome again to the special LGBT season of the TaraElla Report. This is where we talk about the diversity of views in the community, to show that diverse views do exist, and to promote mutual understanding, which is always good for humanity. Subscribe if you are interested. This show is brought to you by my new book, Postmodernism, Skeptics & Transmedicalists, which is all about the battle between postmodern and Marcusean ideology vs skeptics opposing these ideas, and how trans people got entangled in this battle and got misunderstood by the world. Link is in the description.

Cancel culture is bad. It denies free speech and takes away opportunities for education, debate and mutual understanding. Yet, the trans and broader LGBT community seems to be frequently involved in cancellation drama. This has not only given our community a bad name; it has also prevented more mutual understanding between trans people and other sectors of society. Today, I want to take a collective look at some of the cancel culture-type drama surrounding the LGBT community in the recent past, and see if we can find a way to break through all this and move forward.

Reviewing the past few months, I've been able to identify at least three big cancellation dramas. Firstly, there was the pronoun round drama surrounding ContraPoints, where she was essentially canceled for something she clearly wasn't guitly of. Secondly, there was the attempt to label JK Rowling a TERF, even though there wasn't adequate evidence of that. Finally, there was the outrage over Bernie Sanders's decision to accept Joe Rogan's endorsement, partly because Rogan said some insensitive things about trans people in the past. There were also numerous smaller dramas, from calling Hillary Clinton transphobic just for acknowledging some concerns in the community, to calling Tulsi Gabbard homophobic for her opposition to gay marriage 15 years ago, something which she has since apologized for. If we go back further, there's also the attempt to cancel Jordan Peterson, which the LGBT community was a big part of, and which pit the LGBT community against many Peterson fans, in a not-so-good way.

You see, I've just listed at least five or six incidents where there was perhaps some misunderstanding between the LGBT community and other parts of society, where some conversation could have fixed things and promoted mutual understanding. But in each case, except the ContraPoints case perhaps, LGBT activists seem to have chosen to be defensive, to quickly label the other party an enemy, and were generally not interested in conversation at all.

I guess they probably felt hurt by the comments made by those people. The hurt is understandable. But then, it's probably a matter of expectations. Personally, I never feel too hurt about comments like those made by Rowling or Rogan, because I've come to expect them. Maybe it comes from being on this planet for over 30 years, maybe it comes from a life of many disappointments, or maybe it comes from having struggled with trans issues in the much less understanding world of pre-2010 or so. I don't feel upset because I have realistic expectations about people. That perhaps the majority of people out there simply don't understand trans people yet. They don't understand our needs, and some of them even fear we may trample on their rights. I'm hopeful that, with more conversation and mutual understanding, things will change in the future. However, for the sake of our own happiness, and for the sake of productive conversation, I guess we should accept and work with present conditions as they are. Furthermore, a certain peace comes with the acceptance of conditions as they are. That's why I don't get too upset over mildly transphobic comments. I get a little uneasy but I don't get too upset, having gotten used to it since a long time ago.

Seeing things from a level-headed perspective, I don't see enemies everywhere. I don't think any of the aforementioned people are trying to hurt anybody. For example, I see Joe Rogan and people like him as passionate voices who are blunt in their words but generally well-meaning in their intentions. They may be wrong on some topics, they may hurt people without realizing it, but there's really no malice in it. I think it's good for everyone, and especially good for our own wellbeing, to recognize this fact. People may misunderstand us and hurt us as a result, but they don't actually mean to harm us. We don't actually have that many enemies out there.

Change can come, but it comes with understanding, and it comes with time. You can't force people to change; they have to be truly convinced on their own terms, in their own free will. That's why I think we should discuss the experience of dysphoria, and try to work with society on ways that trans needs can be compassionately accomodated, while taking into account others' concerns. This education and negotiation process can take some time, and we just need to be patient. Meanwhile, I think it's important to stay positive throughout this process. We need to remember that mainstream society doesn't generally want to oppress or harm trans people; the hurt only comes from misunderstanding that can be resolved one day. Only by remembering this will we stop pushing people away. Also, only by remembering this can we work constructively going forward.

Conversation With a TradTrans: Shared Concerns About BreadTube & LGBT Culture | TE Report Trans S3 E7

TaraElla: Hi everyone, welcome again to the special LGBT season of the TaraElla Report. This is where we showcase the diversity of views in the community, to show that diverse views do exist, despite what the activists may have people believe. Now, I don't endorse all the views presented on this show, but I think it's important to showcase diversity. Today, we have Louise, who is a self-identified traditionalist trans woman, or a Trad-Trans, as she calls it. She has some controversial views regarding where the LGBT community is going. And she's worried about the effect BreadTube and its associated culture may be having on the LGBT community.

Louise: Lately, I've observed that BreadTube has a particularly high proportion of LGBT followers. I've also seen people talk about BreadTube or its creators from time to time, in general trans discussion spaces. BreadTube really seems to have become a part of LGBT culture nowadays. What I'm most concerned about is how BreadTube seems to be bundling the trans experience, or LGBT identity more generally, with some very ideological, and in my opinion misguided, worldviews.

For example, the idea that marriage and family is somehow tied to the origins of homophobia and transphobia is commonly accepted as fact in BreadTube and culturally adjacent circles. But not only is this untrue, it turns LGBT people against marriage and family, two things that are valued by most people, for no good reason. We really don't need to do that, now that we have marriage equality. BreadTube seems to have its own views about justice, which is rooted in certain academic theory. However, for me, the biggest justice LGBT people can get is to be able to integrate into mainstream society with dignity, and thanks to movements like marriage equality, we have become more able to do just that. I'm worried that the BreadTube aligned LGBT community seems to be turning its back on all that.

TaraElla: Yeah, BreadTube style 'justice' is very narrowly defined, and we need a broader notion of justice that is rooted in what people actually want. Different people want different things, and that should be respected. As a communitarian minded person, I definitely see the importance of integration to many LGBT people. Also, as somebody who helped fight for gay marriage for over a decade, I'm honestly confused and frustrated by this change too. It's as if there's been a change of guard at the top of the LGBT activist establishment, and the 1960s style conflict theory based activists are in charge again. As I've often said, our gains over the past two decades were hard won, and I'm worried that this return to conflict theory would only lead to our estrangement from mainstream society. Of course, people who believe in conflict theory don't care about that. They probably enjoy being rejected by mainstream society, to a degree. But the important thing is, the rest of us shouldn't have to suffer the very real and very material consequences of their actions.

Louise: I mean, there's no reason to teach LGBT people to be anti-marriage and family, unless the goal is to make us miserable, lonely, and hated by mainstream society. I personally believe that things like marriage, faithfulness, getting along with the community, and the like are good for everyone. Now that the historical wrong of excluding LGBT people from traditional institutions has been righted, I think we should relish our opportunity to live in these institutions, and reap the benefits of the good life they bring. Of course, that's just my personal view, and I'm not forcing it on anybody. But of course, some activists believe that the personal is political, and even my personal lifestyle choices as a Trad-Trans can offend them for some reason. It's just unbelievable. One thing I certainly don't like about BreadTube is that they politicize everything, and seem to appreciate nothing. I think LGBT people already have a hard enough life; we certainly don't need the extra anger.

TaraElla: This I can certainly agree with. Not everything is political. What I had for breakfast this morning isn't political, and nobody should pretend otherwise. In believing that almost everything is political, radical activists submit everything to their critical theory analysis, and leave us no room to enjoy freedom over anything. This is why, sometimes, it just helps to be less critical, and more appreciative, in life. Apperciation of life as it is, is something the BreadTube community could probably have more of.

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.