Harry Potter, JK Rowling & the Social Justice Generation | Skeptic TaraElla 2020

Welcome back to Skeptic TaraElla. Today's episode is basically a follow-up on my comments about the outrage over JK Rowling's alleged transphobia, which as I explained last time, isn't even true from what I see. But regardless of the validity of those claims, I want to talk about somthing else today: why there has been particular upset at Rowling's comments. After all, whether we like it or not, it's not like her opinions on this topic are not common out there in the general population.

It appears to me that Rowling is actually being held to a higher standard than most other people. I think it has to do with her being the writer of the Harry Potter series. I remember about two years ago, I read an article about Gen-Z or Zoomers being the 'social justice generation', and how Harry Potter's message about good vs evil was a core inspiration for this generation. Besides Gen-Z, I guess it also applies to younger Millennials, because from what I see, they have also been massive Potter fans since they were kids. Now, I am a bit too old to have read Harry Potter during my childhood, and I don't exactly know that experience. I guess reading Harry Potter for the first time when I was a teenager would be a different experience. So forgive me if I say something that you don't like. I don't mean to spoil anyone's childhood memories.

The Harry Potter universe is a typical fantasy universe in one major way: it has a clear demarcation between good and evil. You know who the good guys are and who the bad guys are, perhaps with the rare exception of a few characters like Snape. The other thing about the Harry Potter universe is that it is, from what I see, quite political, which is unusual for a fantasy book series, especially one for kids. There are clear analogies to racism, sexism, and other forms of bigotry. People have also talked about whether the four houses are sort of analogous to political parties in the real world with their distinct ideologies, something which I can certainly see myself. It is therefore likely that, at least for some people, the Harry Potter universe represents an idealized version of our own reality, where the good guys and bad guys are always easily identifiable, and the good guys always win. Rowling, being the author of all this, has to be one of the good guys, and because the good guys always agree in the Potterverse, this sort of creates a psychological expectation that Rowling has to agree with you the reader, in your view of social justice issues. Therefore, when Rowling turns out to not entirely agree with you, there is some cognitive dissonance.

The fact is, we don't live in the Potterverse, nor can such a world even exist. In the real world, there isn't a clear demarcation between the good guys and the bad guys, because things are so complex that even people with good intentions often disagree. In the real world, it is rare that a social conflict comes down to the good guys vs the bad guys. Much more often, it's actually people with good intentions disagreeing with how to approach a problem, because they have different prior knowledge and life experiences, and perhaps a different prioritization of various values. Furthermore, there are rarely only two sides or two standpoints to a real world conflict. Which is why the Harry Potter model simply can't be applied to real world social justice problems.

I guess this latest Rowling drama is a good reminder that the real world is nothing like the Potterverse. Still, some people who vehemently disagree with Rowling have called on people to drop Harry Potter and read another book. The trouble is, that is not a solution at all. From what I see, that is just escapism, the refusal to deal with the imperfections of the real world, and the desire to escape into another fantasy of clear-cut good vs evil, now that Harry Potter has been ruined for some of you. The problem with this attitude is, if we really want to help improve the world, we should leave all those good vs evil fantasies behind, because they not only fail to help us understand the real world, they can even hinder effective conversation, by encouraging us to imagine people who disagree with us as the bad guys. I mean, it's good to read a fantasy book about some good vs evil battle once in a while, but as mature adults dealing with real world problems, it's important to remind ourselves that reality simply isn't like that at all. So, my advice is, read Harry Potter, read some other books you like, but don't expect the real world to be anything like those books at all.

Libertarian DEBUNKS Steven Crowder Psuedo-Science Transphobia | Skeptic TaraElla 2020.8

Welcome again to Skeptic TaraElla, where we take a stand against biased beliefs that not only defy facts and logic, but also make effective political consensus and action difficult. Subscribe if you are interested.

Today, I am going to respond to a recent Steven Crowder video, where he showcased a few examples of trans people behaving violently, and sought to make a general point about trans people and hormone therapy.

Let's start with this. The fact is, while Crowder could find a few examples of trans people behaving badly, and I'm sure you can find even more examples out there, they clearly don't represent the vast majority of trans people. As even Crowder knows, there are at least more than 1 million trans people in America alone, so even if you can find a few dozen cases of trans people behaving badly, that's like less than 0.01% of all trans people. As for his claim that trans people are more likely to behave badly than others, he pulls a few statistics to justify his claim, but those weren't presented objectively. For example, the higher incarceration rate of trans people includes those who have been forced by economic circumstances into sex work to pay for their treatments, which is illegal in most places. Comparing these people to violent criminals is clearly unfair.

The other thing is, what Crowder was essentially doing was taking a few bad apples of the trans community, and using them to paint all trans people with a broad brush. He even made a highly unscientific hypothesis, that trans hormone therapy is responsible for making those people act violently. At this point, I should say that this claim is simply based on speculation justified by pseudo-science, coming from somebody who has no medical training and doesn't fully understand how HRT works. Needless to say, it is also not backed up by any clinical studies, which means it's essentially no better than that anti-vax stuff. Shameful indeed.

But let's get back to the point. Crowder's approach of trying to generalize the bad behavior of a few individuals to trans people as a whole is not only statistically and scientifically invalid, it is also against the fundamental values of classical liberalism. As classical liberals and libertarians, we are individualists. We believe in individual responsibility, and we believe each individual should be judged on their own character alone. That's why, for example, when some radical feminists say that men as a group are responsible for toxic masculinity, we rightly say something like 'not all men' in return. There's no reason why your average decent family man should be responsible for Harvey Weinstein's crimes, for example. Similarly, there's no reason why your average decent trans person should be responsible in any way for the bad eggs of the trans population, or be judged because of their behavior. That would simply not be in line with the personal responsibility we all champion. It would indeed be much closer to judging people as a class, just like those radicals who blame 'straight white men' for everything. As libertarians, we should condemn this kind of behavior every single time.

Real Libertarian Talks Sense To Kaitlin Bennett & Liberty Hangout | Skeptic TaraElla 2020.7

Welcome again to Skeptic TaraElla, where we take a stand against biased beliefs that not only defy facts and logic, but also make effective political consensus and action difficult. Subscribe if you are interested.

Today, I will be talking about Kaitlin Bennett again. Last time, I spoke of how I sort of admired her at first for having the guts to stand up to political correctness, but on further thought I didn't admire her anymore because I believe she was only going to make things worse in the end. The thing I now worry most about is that, part of Kaitlin's brand is standing up for liberty, and she even uses the yellow and black colors, which means she could be seen as representing libertarianism. This, I fear, could reflect badly on libertarianism broadly and liberty activists more generally.

Which is why I think it's time to rescue the libertarian brand from Kaitlin Bennett's so-called activism. I guess the ideal thing to do would be to get Kaitlin herself to have a rational conversation, to point out why we real libertarians disagree with her quite a lot, and why her project could only backfire on liberty. But since I think she wouldn't agree to such a request anyway, we'll have to settle for the next best thing: responding to comments she's already made elsewhere.

"This is me. I'm Kaitlin Bennett, I'm the most hated person on the internet."

The problem is, you seem to enjoy the attention that comes with the hate. And that gives you a conflict of interest in our goal of restoring free speech on college campuses. Because, if you think about it, if campuses became bastions of free speech overnight, your voice would be reduced to just one more opinion in the peaceful free market of ideas. No students would try to stop you from saying anything, which means you won't get to be a political celebrity anymore. This conflict of interest means that I just can't trust you to really work hard for free speech.

"What do you think about starting an intitiative here on campus to be more inclusive to trans women, and put urinals in the women's restroom for them?"

You know that's a troll question, and a silly one because trans women don't use urinals. By the way, real libertarians have consistently supported LGBT rights as long as they don't infringe on other freedoms. For example, the Libertarian Party supported gay marriage long before the Democrats! You will also find many pro-LGBT articles on respected libertarian sites like Reason and Cato. Anyone who has a basic libertarian understanding would know that, from the libertarian perspective, the bathroom issue should be treated as a private property issue, which means that it is not even a political issue at all! The fact is, real libertarians don't have a problem with LGBT rights as long as they don't infringe on free speech or religious liberty. Conservatives who keep using LGBT issues as political wedges aren't real libertarians. They are just the mirror image of the authoritarian SJWs you despise so much. And at least back when I was in college, we real libertarians despised them, and their dear leader President Bush, just as much.

"You guys want to pick fights about my content, you don't know a damn thing about my content."

But the problem is, a lot of your content is about confronting college liberals. You don't talk enough about liberty, what is liberty, how do we restore or ensure it, you don't have enough intellectual talk on these matters. And you don't even explore the origins of the free speech problem on campus. You know, there was once a radical thinker called Herbert Marcuse, who in 1965 published an essay titled 'Repressive Tolerance', in which he called for the suppression of conservative ideas. Marcuse became very influential among the student activists of the late 1960s, who went on to have a huge impact on intellectual culture throughout the West. The fact is, college SJWs only act the way they act because they have been unknowingly encouraged by radical baby boomers. But that's probably too much history and too much intellectualism for your style. So you just blame immature college students for a conflict that is way beyond their ability to create, and ignore the real roots of the problem.

"What's it like being conservative on campus?"

You and I both know it's difficult. I'm not a political conservative, but I am a philosophical conservative, in that I admire great thinkers like John Locke, Adam Smith, Edmund Burke, and the like, and I strongly reject thinkers like Nietzsche, Sartre, Marcuse and Foucault, who were all what I would call atheist fundamentalists looking for chaos. The campus conversation around the humanities is now so imbalanced that it simply rejects people who think along the more conservative or classical liberal cannon, with all the associated political implications. But I think people like you are only making the problem worse, because your confrontational attitude makes conversation impossible, and conversation is needed to fix this bias.

"You got to speak out. Come on, look, you get a lot of fans if you speak out."

Yeah, but I'm not after political celebrity like you. I actually want to have the necessary conversations to fix things, and as things stand, I'm not able to have that conversation started. Even if I speak out, and be completely honest about my thoughts, I feel like I'm just going to be misinterpreted, and used to further the polarization. I guess what we need to do is to have the necessary conversations, do the necessary work to restore free speech and respect for diversity of thought on college campuses and elsewhere, so that when people do speak up, they are properly understood, and we can have constructive debates in the free market of ideas. But then, in that case, you wouldn't be a political celebrity anymore, so you personally might not want that to happen.

The bottom line is, we desperately need a new intellectual culture that is wrapped around the basic ideals and intellectual canon of classical liberalism. The rise of such a culture is the only hope of restoring balance to the intellectual discussions on college campuses. However, your crude activism is part of the problem preventing that from happening.

Why Not Dating Trans People IS NEVER Transphobic | Skeptic TaraElla 2020.5

Welcome again to Skeptic TaraElla, where we take a stand against biased beliefs that not only defy facts and logic, but also make effective political consensus and action difficult. Subscribe if you are interested.

Today, I am going to respond to yet another video that claimed that not dating trans people is somehow transphobic. I truly thought we were over and done with this topic. Yet it refuses to go away. It is my view that, should this idea be allowed to continue to spread unchecked, it will only bring hostility from others to us trans people. Therefore, let's start debunking this all over again. This time, in the form of a video from trans BreadTuber Gutian.

Basically, Gutian asserts that, if you are initially attracted to someone, then you find out they are trans, and this one fact makes you no longer willing to date that person, then you are transphobic. And when I watched it, it had a like-to-dislike ratio of 592-69, which means that, sadly, 90% of people who watched the video were buying this argument. Of course, it's completely unreasonable.

Why? Because attraction is ultimately biological, and not sociological. Transphobia is a sociological concept, not a biological one, because it is something people do socially rather than having anything to do with biology. Therefore, the concept of transphobia cannot apply to anything that is purely biological, like attraction. Explaining this more in layman's terms, people don't generally have a choice over their biological reflexes, like who they are attracted to, and under what circumstances. On the other hand, transphobia is an attitude that people can choose to have or not have. Attraction is scientific fact that generally cannot be altered by human will, but tranphobia is a social relational condition that can indeed be altered by human will.

I guess this confusion ultimately stems from the postmodern and postmodern-adjacent theory that is popular in some circles. In those theories, the biological and the sociological are often confused, and the sociological is sometimes mistakenly thought of as having powers over the biological, as in for example how gender is mistakenly viewed as a social construct that can be altered or even abolished. This is probably because the people who came up with those theories didn't have any college-level biological training, and because of the distrust of the neutrality of empirical science that is the hallmark of the work of postmodernists like Foucault. However, there is no reason to doubt the neutrality of empirical biological science or to see any sociological bias in that science; to do so would indeed be paranoid. In fact, this paranoia comes not from any scientific perspective, but rather it comes entirely from the sociological tradition of critical theory, which strongly upholds Karl Marx's idea that the dominant ideas of every era are the ideas that serve the ruling class. But to apply this idea to scientific facts is just hopelessly paranoid.

The fact is, if somebody isn't attracted to trans people, then they are just not attracted to trans people, period. There's nothing they can do about it, and there's nothing more to examine. Making people feel guilty over something that is biological and hence outside their control is the worst form of cultural totalitarianism.

Finally, just some extra comments on Gutian's video. She also sort of dealt with the argument around fertility, unconvincingly in my opinion, and she ended up limiting her argument to hook-ups, which I find offensive because it could be seen as painting a picture of trans people settling for hook-ups if they can't have permanent relationships, and I'm morally against hook-ups personally. Anyway, my point is that, this was what she argued, and my view is that, even if I accept her conditions, the argument is still inherently wrong.

Is Michael Bloomberg Transphobic? | Skeptic TaraElla 2020.4

Welcome again to Skeptic TaraElla, where we take a stand against biased beliefs that not only defy facts and logic, but also make effective political consensus and action difficult. Subscribe if you are interested.

Today, I will be looking at the recently circulating talk that Michael Bloomberg is transphobic. I will be looking at this impartially, separate from Bloomberg's political platform. Some people are accusing Bloomberg of being transphobic based on comments he made in England in late 2016, where he said something along the lines of the average person in the midwest wouldn't understand trans rights; that they would think it was about allowing men in dresses to use women's locker rooms. Bloomberg was probably refering to the North Carolina bathroom bill debate, which was a hot topic at the time. Taking these comments out of context, some have accused Bloomberg himself of saying that trans women are men in dresses.

Now, this is clearly ridiculous. It is clear from the comments that Bloomberg was talking about what he thought the average guy in the midwest was thinking, not what he himself was thinking. I think it is symptomatic of the wider trend among trans activists in recent years, of seeing enemies everywhere even though they're only imaginary. I think it's in the same vein of trans activists recently condemning JK Rowling as transphobic, by over-interpreting the words used in one tweet, even though Rowling clearly took a live and let live attitude. Of course, there was also the false accusation that Hillary Clinton was pandering to TERFs, when all she said was that there are issues that needed time to sort out. Overall, these incidents paint the trans community as paranoid about society, and unable to engage in rational conversation. To be honest, I am thorougly disappointed in our so-called community leaders and activists. If they aren't in the right state of mind to engage in open-minded and constructive discussion, then they should step down from their role and let someone else do it. The way they are acting now is very damaging to the conversation.

I guess another reason why trans activists were quick to condemn everyone from Bloomberg to Joe Rogan, from JK Rowling to Jordan Peterson, even from Hillary Clinton to Bernie Sanders as transphobic, is because they simply can't face the reality. The fact is, if you think the whole world is against you, then it's much more likely that you yourself are the problem. For example, what Bloomberg said is certainly true of many people out there. Many people simply don't understand what trans rights is at best, and even fear that trans rights may endanger parts of the community at worst. It's simply what some people are thinking out there. Do I wish it were different? Of course I do. But we live in this world, in the here and now, and if there is widespread misunderstanding and even fear of trans rights out there, it is up to us to have the necessary conversations, to fix this problem. Refusing to face the reality doesn't help. Similarly, Joe Rogan's concerns about trans people in MMA, Rowling and Peterson's concerns about free speech, and Hillary's view that both sides need to work out their differences in time, are all very valid. If trans activists keep labeling people with legitimate concerns as transphobic, the term 'transphobic' will become meaningless. Besides, this kind of bad faith activism is simply not in keeping with the good faith engagement that the civil rights movement and the gay rights movement have long engaged in.

The other thing is, people who have concerns aren't necessarily our enemy. They are often good people with genuine concerns. It is up to us to engage in the conversation, and come up with solutions that adequately allieviate their concerns. I'm pretty sure most of them would agree to reasonable accomodations for trans people, if we come up with solutions that adequately allieviate their concerns. On the other hand, pushing people away, taking on a victim mentality, and treating the rest of the world like enemies is only going to make things worse for everyone.

Finally, I guess all this madness is ultimately rooted in negative thinking. This negative thinking is partially the result of the dark side of the activist culture of the past 50 years. For example, Herbert Marcuse, the thinker who had the most effect on the long 1968 movements, famously opposed positive thinking and championed negative thinking. Similarly, a lot of the postmodern and Foucaldian thinking that has affected activist communities is also very dark and paranoid. I think we all need to shake off these negative influences, and return to a more positive view of humanity. In short, we have to believe in the basic good of humanity. We got to have faith in humanity.

Why Trans Community Should Befriend JK Rowling (She's NOT Transphobic) | TaraElla LGBT News

Today, I want to examine the recent drama surrounding Harry Potter author JK Rowling and her recent controversial tweet in support of British feminist activist Maya Forstater, who lost her job after making some anti-trans comments publicly. The contents of Rowling's tweet was as follows: "Dress however you please. Call yourself whatever you like. Sleep with any consenting adult who'll have you. Live your best life in peace and security. But force women out of their jobs for stating that sex is real? #IStandWithMaya".

Taken literally, the first four lines confirm that Rowling takes a live and let live attitude, and for many trans people of my generation, that is enough for her not to be called transphobic. People may not always agree with you, but as long as they are tolerant, they pass the basic test. Besides, the important point is that we can have a conversation to work out our remaining differences. The last line, by itself, is also very okay, as most trans people believe that biological sex is real. Indeed, if biological sex was not real, trans wouldn't mean anything at all.

I guess the part where most people take issue with is in Rowling's defense of Forstater. For fairness sake, she didn't just say that 'sex is real'. She said some mean things about trans people. As a trans person, I am willing to have discussions about trans issues with people from all walks of life, and I am open to understanding and resolving any concerns anyone may have. In fact, if you look at my past videos, I have tried to address such concerns in what I consider to be a fair and balanced way. But the fact is, constructive discussions should be based on respectful language, something that many 'gender critical' feminists seem to lack when discussing trans issues. For example, while I can respect your refusal to use people's prefered pronouns (I don't agree but I always respect the right to free speech), there's really no reason to go around and call people mentally ill or delusional. It doesn't achieve anything except create conflict. There's really no room for a healthy discussion when one party uses derogatory language like this.

Having said all this, we still don't know where JK Rowling stands on trans issues. Therefore, I think it's a mistake for the trans community to have reacted so strongly this time. Yes, it appears that she may have a bit of concern about where trans activism is going, but so do even many of us trans people. For example, many of us wish the postmodern influence would go away. Even with the recent events, it is not a forgone conclusion that Rowling shares the animosity of the gender critical crowd. Instead, she may be closer to Hillary Clinton, who on one hand is committed to continue to help work out solutions to trans issues, while on the other hand is also mindful of the concerns from other parts of society, particularly from women. As I previously said, while I don't like Hillary's politics overall, I do think she has a fair and balanced approach to trans issues. Similarly, I think libertarian journalist Cathy Young also recently wrote a fair and balanced article on trans issues, while voicing her concerns about trans activism. The point is, not everyone with concerns about trans activism is automatically transphobic!

To help facilitate the much needed discussions to resolve various issues related to the acommodation of trans people in society, I think trans people should attempt to extend an olive branch to as many people as possible, as long as they don't clearly and openly hate us. We should meet people where they are, and work through the issues while sincerely taking in their concerns. I believe that, with some goodwill and some rational thinking, there can be satisfactory solutions for everyone.