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.

Why This Trans Woman Opposes Canceling Joe Rogan | Skeptic TaraElla #3

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 recent drama surrounding Joe Rogan's announcement of his support for Bernie Sanders, the Bernie campaign's decision to publically acknowledge this, and the unexpected backlash it generated. I've already talked about the political aspects of this story elsewhere, but here I will focus on the role of trans politics in this story. Basically, one of the accusations leveled at Rogan is that he said some anti-trans things in the past.

Now, we all know that Rogan is very politically incorrect, to put it mildly. He doesn't plan or refine his speech, and he is certainly prone to be blunt. But then, from what I see, he generally doesn't mean harm. And this applies to trans people too. I haven't seen any evidence that Rogan wants to hurt any one of us. I think he's generally a live and let live guy. Of course, when he was talking about certain topics where he had passionate views, he may have used language that would hurt some trans people psychologically. You can say that he's not very sensitive. But overall, I can't see that he means to actually harm people. This is why, I think we shouldn't treat him as the enemy. In fact, I suspect he would be open to having a rational discussion about trans issues. I would certainly be happy to have this discussion with him, if I ever had the opportunity. I'm certain it would be constructive.

Of course, the trans community, as a minority, is often quite on-edge when it comes to what people out there say about us. And given that there is still so much misunderstanding about trans issues out there, some insensitive things are bound to be said from time to time. I think it's something that free speech, rational discourse, and patience will resolve eventually. All this shall pass, too. It will get better. For now, I recommend not caring too much about what people out there say, except to correct misconceptions where necessary. It's much healthier for us, at least.

What I'm most concerned about is that we are being used as political pawns. Right now, in this Bernie drama, we are already being used as a political pawn. I really miss the good old days, as recently as 2012 in fact, where trans people and trans issues simply didn't get used as political footballs. To bring that back, I think we should actively resist being used as political pawns. Especially by the postmodernist and postmodern-adjacent activists, who use us as a pawn to fight their culture wars. Postmodernists don't want to cancel people like Rogan because they care about us. They want to cancel Rogan because his tell-it-like-it-is attitude, even if he sometimes says outrageously wrong things, threatens to expose the lies of postmodern thought. Postmodernists are uncomfortable with such free speech for a very simple reason. If it can be shown that objective reality is not dependent on discourse, and in turn discourse is about discovering truth and not about power struggles, then it is conclusively proven that postmodernism, as well as postmodern-adjacent theories like Marcusian critical theory, are invalid and should have no place in our culture or politics. Of course, discrediting these theories can only be good for trans people, because we can return to the biomedical model of trans health, which focuses on improving the quality of life of people with gender dysphoria, and rejects our being used as political pawns.

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.

Trans Woman Defends Pete Buttigieg From The "Marcusean Left" of the LGBT Community | LGBT News

With the recent increase in popularity of 2020 presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg, there has been renewed criticism of his candidacy's effects on the LGBT community from some sections of the community. These criticisms come in a few forms: firstly, that as a white gay man he can't understand or represent non-white trans women; secondly, that his candidacy as a family friendly married gay man serves to marginalize those with alternative lifestyles; and finally, that his refusal to be militant on certain LGBT matters means that he is the 'wrong kind of gay representative'. As I will show, all these criticisms are totally invalid. Furthermore, they tell us how much LGBT activist circles continue to be influenced by Marcusean ideas, passed down from the 1960s and 70s, and why this has an unhealthy effect on us all.

Let's begin with the idea that Mayor Pete, as a white gay man, can't represent non-white trans woman. This really is peak identity politics. Moreover, this assumes that people are primarily defined by their status in the so-called hierarchy of oppression, an idea with roots in critical theory as well as postmodernism. However, this hierarchy doesn't exist in a solid form in real life. Furthermore, people's preferences are informed by many other factors. For example, as a trans woman with a more traditional lifestyle, I tend to identify more with those icons of our community who share this with me. I feel like I can relate much more to Mayor Pete than say, a trans woman who is like the Tabby character in the ContraPoints videos. In fact, I can relate much more to most straight people than someone like Tabby. I think we are ultimately more united by things like personal values, lifestyles and social circles, than by sexual orientation or gender identity.

Which brings me onto my next point. Some LGBT activists who have chosen to live an alternative lifestyle feel like the candidacy of Mayor Pete and the spotlight on his religious and pro-family lifestyle serves to marginalize them. Of course, this is silly. In a free society, we all have the right to choose our lifestyle based on our own values and preferences, and nobody is marginalized by another's choice. This is what makes it a free society. The problem is, there is a faction of the left that is strongly influenced by the ideas of 20th century critical theorist Herbert Marcuse, and this faction is quite prominent within LGBT activism, probably because Marcuse specifically told his readers that the outcasts of society are where his revolution could be started, causing his followers to infiltrate the LGBT community back in the 1970s. Marcuse believed that people were sexually repressed in advanced industrial societies, that the then-dominance of family values were the cause of this, and this so-called repression could lead to bad political consequences. Furthermore, he also believed in advancing his own brand of radical beliefs by the suppression of traditional beliefs, as outlined in his famous essay on 'repressive tolerance' written in the mid-1960s, which showed that he essentially believed the cultural space to be a zero-sum game. Therefore, it is unsurprising that the Marcusean left would be suspicious of someone like Mayor Pete, who they probably fear would take away the so-called 'revolutionary potential' of the LGBT community. Of course, none of Marcuse's theories are proven or well grounded, and therefore Marcusean views are basically no more than subjective thoughts. The LGBT community would do well to avoid such divisive nonsense.

Finally, several LGBT activists have taken issue with Mayor Pete's lack of militancy on LGBT issues in general, including his refusal to boycott a certain fast food chain. This is, of course, the polar opposite of my own view that Mayor Pete's refusal to be divisive is a strength in that it brings people together and allows problems to be solved in a better way. However, those who subscribe to the conflict theory of sociology take the opposite view, that conflict and associated struggle is good for resolving cultural contradictions. The conflict theory of sociology is closely associated with critical theory, which is why the Macusean left generally holds this view. The fact is, this view is clearly disproven by history. History shows that intense conflict rarely resolves problems satisfactorily, and even risks prolonging mutual animosity for generations. On the other hand, the best way to resolve difficult issues has always been to bring people with all sorts of views together, and this is why it's important for a leader to be able to do that.

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.