Why People Like American Idol | TaraElla & Friends #9

TE: Welcome back to TaraElla and friends. Today, we have my friend The Clarifier again, and we will take a break from talking about LGBT issues. Instead, we will talk about, well, why people like American Idol, seeing that it is in its 19th season. I mean, not many things make it to 19 seasons! So it has to great, right?

TC: So let's start with this. Why do you like American Idol? Why do you still watch it after already having seen it so many times before?

TE: I mean, there's the music, but ultimately I guess it has something to do with the idea of Dreams and Dreaming Big. Idol and similar shows are all about dreaming big, after all. It's about music, personalities and performances, but ultimately it's about dreaming big, and I think that's where the appeal is at. We all need a regular dose of revitalizing that dreaming big part of ourselves, especially since many of us don't get enough of it in real life, after becoming adults. You know the unspoken social expectations, like, dreaming of being president is reasonably acceptable when you're 10, dreaming of being a style icon is sort of realistic when you're 20, but when you're 30, almost any dream is a bridge too far. That's why we keep coming back for things like Idol.

TC: So you think the adult world is lacking in this dreaming spirit then?

TE: Well, yes, I guess. I mean, I think it's sad that dreaming big seems to only feature much in movies set in high school, but unfortunately that's the way it is. From classics like Hairspray, to more recent hits like Ryan Murphy's The Prom from last year, the personal dreams of teenagers can not only be realized, but also help change the world in the process. The sad thing is that, even Hollywood seems to tell us that everything is possible when you are 16, but not when you are 36, for example. That really doesn't make sense, right? Shouldn't you be able to dream twice as big, now that you're twice as experienced?

Anyway, let's talk about two movies from the past few years that had me thinking a lot afterwards: Mistress America starring Greta Gerwig, and Brie Larson's Unicorn Store. I really liked those movies, but not so much their endings. Did Mistress America mean to say that Greta's character was immature for trying to live her dreams, and that she should snap out of it now that she was 30? Because I got that feeling, and it left a bit of a sour taste. And why did Brie Larson's character have to give up on her unicorn in the end? Excuse me if I interpreted those movies wrong, but I felt a bit sad that they couldn't unequivocally celebrate people who want to dream big, and still dream big in their adult lives.

The other thing is, I actually think this cultural separation of dreaming big from adulthood has social implications. And these are not very nice social implications, to put it mildly.

TC: So what are these social implications of dreaming big, or lack thereof?

TE: It basically says that, part of growing up and becoming an adult is that you have to just be okay with the status quo, even if it is objectively bad. I mean, there is a cultural expectation that the mature thing to do is to just suck it up. The world is unfair, and you've just got to suck it up. And sorry, I just don't believe in that. Let me repeat it: I just don't believe in that. I mean, I am not a utopian, but we do need to be able to envision a better way, if anything is to improve.

This is why I believe we should make a point to uphold all those who continue to dream big, despite having grown up. Now, you may ask what do personal dreams, like those portrayed on American Idol, have to do with social or political goals. But the fact is, it's all linked. There's the basic ingredient of being able to dream big, saying 'no' to the skeptics, to begin with. And then, once you starting going for your personal dreams, you start to discover the ways in which the world is flawed, and you start to seek to improve it. This is why, if we want to dream big for the world, we need to dream big for ourselves first.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exposing The TRUTH About the Anti Trans Alliance | TaraElla & Friends #3

TE: Welcome back to TaraElla and friends. This is perhaps the most important video I have ever made, and it could hold the key to the future of trans acceptance and trans rights, so pay attention, and listen with an open mind to the very end, before you come to any conclusions. Also, if you agree with me, and want to help improve trans understanding and acceptance, please pass this onto other people who may be interested.

Today, I need to talk about a situation I am very frustrated about: bad ideas rooted in ideological positions from various sides are preventing an honest discussion of trans issues, one that is rooted in real evidence and observation. This means a productive conversation is not taking place, and ideas are not being developed to advance the social acceptance and accomodation of trans people. To systematically explore this complicated situation, I will be interviewed by my friend The Clarifier, who is really good at clarfying confusing and entangled concepts.

TC: Let's start with this. What do you see as an honest discussion of trans issues?

TE: Basically, I am a trans empiricist. My ideas are similar to what is often called transmedicalism, but the emphasis is a bit different: the traditional transmedicalist view is often stated as 'you need dysphoria to be trans'. On the other hand, I arrived at my conclusions through empirical observation, drawing conclusions from the actual way trans people exist, and their lived experiences. And any honest empirical observation of trans people would yield the conclusion that the vast majority of trans people transition because they have severe gender dysphoria. The reason they need to transition is because they need to get the heavy burden of gender dysphoria off their lives, at least as much as possible, so that life becomes somewhat liveable. Therefore, understanding gender dysphoria and its effects is central to understanding the vast majority of trans lives.

THE MOST IMPORTANT FUNDAMENTAL POINT...

Any discussion of trans issues that doesn't center gender dysphoria simply isn't operating in reality, and won't solve any problems effectively. Gender dysphoria isn't the most pleasant thing to discuss, but any honest discussion of trans issues should be firmly centered on how to allieviate dysphoria, and accomodate people with dysphoria.

TC: And how do you see people with 'ideological positions from various sides', as you put it, affecting this discussion?

TE: As a trans empiricist, I base all my conclusions and solutions on the observable reality of trans people alone. Basically, I focus on what simply is there. On the other hand, the ideological people start with their ideological framework, and force fit the reality of trans people into their framework. There are three main groups here.

THE 3 IDEOLOGICAL GROUPS

Firstly there are people whose worldview doesn't allow for trans people to exist at all. These include religious fundamentalists, for whom 'God never makes mistakes' so trans people can't exist. This is why they resort to explaining transness as a mental illness, even though this view is no longer accepted scientifically.

Secondly there are the 'gender critical feminists', otherwise known as TERFs, but I prefer calling them 'gender critical', because this term accurately describes their ideology. As the name plainly says, it is a form of 'critical theory', i.e. Marxian or pseudo-Marxist theory, that is applied to the concept of gender, that is, everything related to biological sex that is cultural or behavioral rather than physical. Gender critical feminists believe all of gender, is a social construct that serves the patriarchal system, and should be abolished. This ideology leaves no room to acknowledge the lived reality of gender dysphoria in trans people, which is variously dismissed as a mental illness or the result of societal stereotyping. In this worldview, trans people are essentially making a lifestyle choice, and one that is not conducive to the radical feminist program of 'liberation', so trans people are the enemy.

Thirdly, there are the postmodern feminists, who basically share the same criticalist influences and fundamental worldview as gender critical feminists, including that gender is a social construct that should be abolished in its current form. However, the difference is that they aim to deconstruct gender by destablizing the binary, drawing from the ideas of the postmodern thinker Derrida. They see trans people as helpful to this process. Therefore, they appear to be friendly towards trans people and trans rights. However, their worldview still ignores gender dysphoria, and their dominance means that the trans narrative can't focus on gender dysphoria at all, so it still ends up hindering rather than helping trans people.

THE 2 UNHOLY ALLIANCES

Finally, these three highly ideological forces combine to derail the trans discussion, in what I call the 'two unholy alliances'. The first unholy alliance is between the transphobes, including the religious right, and the gender critical feminists. Their worldview is otherwise diametrically opposed to each other, but some of them appear to be joining forces just to prevent trans rights from happening. The second unholy alliance is not a conscious alliance, but rather a dynamic between postmodern feminism and the first unholy alliance, that means trans people are made to keep losing every argument needlessly.

TC: There's a lot to unpack here, but I would like to go into detail about the 'two unholy alliances'. Let's start with the first alliance. Who is involved in that alliance, and what effect does it have on the trans discussion?

TE: I think that, basically, the first unholy alliance is ultimately built and maintained by people with a political agenda. These are often political conservatives looking for a culture war program that could boost the electoral fortunes of conservative parties like the US Republican Party. Given their absolute hostility on issues like abortion, the religious right and gender critical feminists wouldn't naturally come together to work out an anti-trans program. The glue to this alliance is thus conservative political operatives with an eye on the next election, hoping to replicate the anti-gay marriage wave of the 2004 US elections. They even draw in some rational atheists who normally have no symapathy for religion or radical feminism at all!

The result is an internally inconsistent argument against trans people that looks rational on the surface. I mean, the coalition includes rational atheists who simply have an inadequate understanding of the science behind sex and gender, as well as religious fundamentalists who wouldn't care what the science says anyway. It includes religious conservatives who uphold traditional gender roles, as well as radical feminists who want to completely abolish gender roles. As a result, their argument against trans people looks like a mix of over-simplified eighth-grade level biology, plus radical arguments supporting gender abolition, as well as conservative arguments against gender abolition, essentially both sides of the 1970s culture war at the same time. The internal contradictions are easily exposed if one simply tries.

TC: If it is so easy to discredit the arguments of this unholy alliance, then why has it not happened effectively yet? I mean, conservative operatives promoted the idea that gay marriage would be the end of family values, but that was easily debunked, and gay marriage support increased quickly after that. Can't the same happen now in the trans debate?

TE: Of course debunking the first unholy alliance is the way forward. But we need to get past the second unholy alliance first! I would even go so far to argue that, the only reason the anti-trans alliance hasn't crumbled under its own contradictions yet, is because postmodern feminism is essentially holding it up. Therefore, postmodernism is basically the biggest barrier to trans acceptance, even as it pretends to be trans friendly. The only reason why the anti-trans alliance makes sense in the first place is because they all see trans people as the representation of an illogical and reality-denying postmodern phenomenon. If you replace the postmodern gender ideology narrative, and replace it with a scientific narrative centered on gender dysphoria, their whole alliance would crumble. For example, rational atheists are mainly skeptical of trans people because they see it as an illogical postmodern thing, a scientific perspective would convince many of them to stop being anti-trans. The discussion of this science would also drive a big wedge between the rationalists committed to science on one hand, and the religious right plus the gender critical feminists on the other hand, who aren't that big on science in the first place. Similarly, using the existence of gender dysphoria to argue against gender being a social construct would effectively put a wedge between the conservatives, who uphold the idea of gender being biological, and the gender critical feminists, whose whole ideology is to deny this fact.

In other words, if a trans narrative that centers gender dysphoria, as well as the clinical evidence and scientific theory that supports it, is allowed to take center stage in the trans debates, it would blast the anti-trans alliance wide open, probably resulting in its various factions fighting each other instead. However, postmodern feminism and its associated postmodern 'gender ideology' would not allow this to happen, simply because it is protecting its own ideological doctrine. Remember that postmodern feminism basically shares a lot of the gender critical worldview too. It's why it wouldn't allow the gender critical worldview to be effectively challenged by trans empiricists. It simply cannot allow liberal scientific empiricism to discredit the criticalist worldview in the first place. Postmodernists may say they are trans friendly, but in reality they are also effectively shielding gender critical feminism from the most effective attacks. This is why some transmedicalist people like to say that postmodernists are effectively TERFs. Because they are effectively very similar. And they would also rather the TERFs win than allow trans empiricism to prevail, even if it means delaying trans acceptance.

TC: So what do you think should be the way forward from here? How can trans people win this?

TE: I think the answer is simple, but not easy. Firstly, we need to return to a trans discourse that centers gender dysphoria. The justification is simple: it is clear from simple observation that most trans people transition because of gender dysphoria, so it is the root cause of the vast majority of transness in this world. Therefore, only a trans discussion that centers dysphoria would be effective in helping trans people. Any debate that occurs on the level of ideology and not reality can only detract from the goal at hand.

Secondly, we need to have a seat at the table to present our view. We need to have a voice in mainstream media, there is simply no alternative to that. The reason why trans people keep losing right now is because all of the three components of the unholy alliance have much more mainstream media representation than us. We need to demand change, and try every way to change that. Remember, attitudes to gay people and gay marriage only started to change with media representation. It's time we demand that trans voices that represent the real lived experiences of trans people be heard. While there seems to be some media representation of trans people in recent years, almost none of them focus enough on dysphoria. This is ridiculous, and really needs to change.

From Transmedicalist to Trans Empiricist | TaraElla & Friends #2

TE: It's so hard being a transmed sometimes. We are so misunderstood. This is for several reasons. Firstly, there are just too many myths against transmeds out there. If you say you are a transmed, some people may assume things that are simply not true of you. They are going to be biased towards you from the start. You know, like how transmeds don't support non-binary people. How transmeds like to judge others as not trans enough. How transmeds are gatekeepers who invalidate others. Some even call trans rights reforms 'demedicalization', with the implication that the transmedicalism worldview is against trans rights. Which is stupid, because I totally support reforms that would allow trans people an easier time with employment, housing and so on.

AT: It seems like many people don't understand the point of transmedicalism at all. From there, they naturally think, like, why have this worldview when it wouldn't necessarily gain you any acceptance, validation or rights. From here, some start to speculate bad things about transmeds, which loops back into the first point. To resolve this, I think we need to go back to the basics. What's the point of the transmedicalist model in the first place? Why do you believe in it?

TE: I'm certainly not interested in any of the gatekeeping stuff. In fact, I don't even think in terms of do you need gender dysphoria to be trans. For me, I guess the transmedicalist model is the only logical choice for a trans person who is opposed to postmodern philosophy. Basically, there are two main ways people use to explain the world these days. There's the empirical, scientific way, in which we are committed to the objective truth, and base our claims on observable evidence. And then there's postmodern philosophy and its associated 'no objective truth', 'everything is a social construct' way. I guess I'm too committed to empirical science to have any room for postmodernism in my thinking.

Now, let's apply this to models of transness. There are four main models of how 'sex', as in genetic or reproductive sex, and 'gender', as in the social and behavioral aspects, are related. The first is the traditional model, where sex and gender are both biological reality and are strongly bound together, with gendered behavior explained by neurological differences.  This model can be split into where sex and gender are always correlated, which is how many religious conservatives believe, for example, and where there could very occasionally be a mismatch between sex and gender, which is the transmedicalist model. The next model is the second wave feminism model, where sex is a biological reality but gender is a social construct, i.e. gender behavior is entirely due to social expectation and modelling. The final model is the postmodern model, where both sex and gender are seen as social constructs or at least linguistic constructs, and neither is inherently natural or biological. Hence people should be free to redefine sex and gender as they see fit, and anything less would be oppression.

If you examine these models, two of them are incompatible with trans identities being valid at all. The model where sex is always consistent with gender is self-explanatory in this regard. The model where sex is real but gender is a social construct also leaves no room for trans people being a natural occurrence, and would suggest that it is a mere lifestyle choice. Indeed, this is the model of gender critical feminists who are trans-exclusionary. There is no way I would accept these two models, because they go against my own lived experience, as well as that of the many, many trans people who have ever existed. An honest scientific empiricism would have to reject these models.

So we are left with two models: one where both sex and gender are biological but there is allowance for mismatch, and another where sex and gender are both social constructs and people should be liberated from all of it. However, the second only makes sense if you accept postmodern philosophy, and all its metaphysical consequences. Which means an anti-postmodernist trans person, or a facts over feelings, science over philosophy type trans person, can only believe in the first model, that is, the transmedicalist model.

There is also another good reason to choose one model over the other: the transmedicalist model provides a very plausible explanation about why there are trans people, and justifies the reasonable societal accommodation of trans people. The postmodernist model is much weaker here, in that it ultimately does not explain transness, does not differentiate it from a pure lifestyle choice at all, and merely demands societal accommodation in the name of liberation. It is no different from demanding societal accommodation for any lifestyle choice, whether reasonable or not, and is therefore rather weak in terms of arguing for trans acceptance, unless the whole world also adopts postmodernist philosophy.

In conclusion, we can see that, at least in my case, I identify with the transmed model simply because it is the only one that makes sense to me, and because it provides a firm reasoning for transness, which would also be an argument for trans acceptance and reasonable accommodation.

AT: Sometimes, if a label becomes a mental roadblock to understanding, then maybe we need to find another one. What would you think about that? Is there an alternative label for the 'transmed' model?

TE: Given that it is an argument that comes from a medical and scientific reasoning point of view, it rejects postmodernism in the name of upholding the principles of scientific empiricism, including a demand that all claims be based upon observable evidence, I think that we may as well call this model the Trans Empiricist model from now on. Therefore, perhaps from now on, I think I will say that I am a Trans Empiricist.

AT: Sounds like a good idea!

Is the Trans Community Really Going Over A Cliff? | TaraElla & Friends #1

TE: Welcome to the first episode of TaraElla and friends. Today, I'm going to examine in depth my view in recent years that the trans community is going over a cliff, and the reasons for that. My regular audience would know that it's something that I'm personally very worried about, as a trans woman. I'm increasingly worried about the misunderstanding and backlash that is developing, and frankly I sometimes feel at a lost about what we can do to change course. So today, I'm having a discussion with my friend, Alternative Thoughts, about this.

AT: Firstly, let's talk about your view that the trans community is going over a cliff. While I understand your concerns, I think the reality is more complicated. I mean, trans acceptance is also advancing in some ways too. For example, when the US House of Representatives passed the Equality Act again earlier this year, President Biden tweeted that transgender rights are human rights. He singled out trans rights to be mentioned, and this was also echoed by Taylor Swift. In a way, there has never been that much positive attention on trans people and trans rights.

TE: I'm a natural pessimist, and I tend to look on the pessimistic side of things. But even granting progress happening in some areas, there is also increasing backlash in many other areas. I feel that the whole trans discussion is becoming too divisive, and that isn't generally good news for any minority group looking for acceptance and accomodation. I am also worried about the way trans people are being linked to postmodern ideology in the minds of some people. That is both extremely unfair to anti-postmodern trans people like myself, and also creates a major roadblock for trans acceptance going forward.

AT: I guess these concerns represent real things that are happening, at least to some extent. However, have you thought about the fact that it may only be happening among a small segment of society, like the saying 'a storm in a teacup'? I mean, there are all sorts of discussions about trans people and trans issues, particularly in the 'extremely online' world, but if you look at the discussions people are having at their local bars and clubs, I doubt trans issues even feature there. And I doubt that they even know what postmodernism is, either.

TE: Thanks for the reality check. The 'extremely online' world doesn't really reflect the real world at all. Political events of the past few years have reminded us of this again and again. However, the divisive debate is already clearly affecting politics in many US states, and in the UK, and often not in a very good way. This is something that we really need to change.

AT: I get your concerns. However, political debates and even policy can be affected by noisy minorities on both sides beating their chests, even as everyday people don't actually understand the issues let alone take a strong stance. In situations like this, what we need to remember is that there are still many hearts and minds left to be won out there, so it's not too late to change the debate. Remember that most people out there have never been affected by the toxic debate in the 'extremely online' world, so a healthier discourse in the wider community is still possible. It is still something that could exist in the future, a future yet to be created.

TE: I agree wholeheartedly with that. The future is still to be created, and a healthy, rational discussion on trans issues is still very possible in the wider community. The future will all depend on what direction we take now. That's why I'm trying hard to be 'the change I want to see' in the trans community. To be honest, it's lonely and frustrating at times. But if nobody even tries, then we are truly doomed.

AT: So what change exactly do you want to see?

TE: I want a more constructive dialogue. I want us to consider all good faith viewpoints, from all stakeholders, in a good-faith and rational manner. I want people, from all sides, to actually come up with workable solutions, rather than just dismiss the voices that don't agree with you. I want everyone to have an attitude where we attempt to build workable solutions together, rather than to 'own' the enemy. While agreement may not come overnight, having the right attitude to everything is the first step. The first positive step to a brighter future.