My Thoughts on Dr. Debra Soh (and Ben Shapiro) | An Asian Trans View

NOTE: I strongly disagree with 'Blanchard typology' because I don't think it's good science.

Welcome back to TaraElla TV, where we examine cultural and political issues from a truth-orientated and constructive problem solving perspective. Today, I want to talk about my thoughts on Dr. Debra Soh, who has written a book about gender issues including trans issues, and has been going to many media outlets to talk about her views on these matters. I haven't read the book, so I will focus on her media appearances.

I have been following Dr. Soh's media interviews for a while, and I honestly have mixed thoughts so far. On one hand, I appreciate that she is basing everything in the science and the facts, and is not refering to any sociological theory or postmodern philosophy. While there are still scientific disagreements in some areas, and I don't necessarily agree with all of Dr Soh's views, her basic facts appear to be sound. I totally agree with the need to stress that reproductive sex and gender are both biological, they are not social constructs. I also agree with starting from the fact that, for the vast majority of people, their genetic sex accurately predicts their gender, so it's clearly very related, the existence of trans people notwithstanding. Furthermore, I strongly appreciate the assertion that, even though trans people have a gender identity that is opposite to their genetic sex, this is still a biological phenomenon, not a social construct. I think these statements are all very clear reflections of the empirical facts. Coming from an Asian cultural background, I especially appreciate people basing their arguments on the facts, because scientific facts, especially those coming from experts, are very well respected in modern Asian culture. Philosophical fluff, on the other hand, is generally dismissed in our culture. Talking about the science certainly helped to bring my family along, back when I had to come out to a family who didn't even know that trans people existed at all.

On the other hand, I am slightly concerned that Dr. Soh has been mainly talking to conservative media outlets, some of whom are known for not being very trans friendly, and that she hasn't been pushing back much in those interviews. For example, what I got out of her interview with Ben Shapiro, was that while she plainly stated her differences with Shapiro, she also sort of minimized them, and didn't go on to further explore those differences enough, which could have been educational for his audience. If I were in that interview, I would probably have challenged Shapiro a bit on his views, which certainly don't make any sense to me.

I mean, I respect Shapiro's right to free speech, and hence his right to believe that pronouns must be based on biological sex, but I really don't see the point of this. On the other hand, I really can't fathom why someone would be so reluctant to do some ultimately harmless accomodation to a small minority of suffering individuals, to allow an exception to the rigid rules that are making a few people suffer. It certainly doesn't mean agreeing that gender is a social construct, or giving up on the biological facts. Perhaps it's an imaginary slippery slope thing. But then, the slippery slope argument was applied to gay marriage, and it scared people for a while, but guess what, there's been gay marriage in the majority of the West for several years now, and the sky hasn't fallen in. Similarly, reasonable accomodation for trans people are a very rational thing to do, they certainly make society function better, so why not?

The TRUTH About Trump vs Trans Community | Re Blaire White | Skeptic TaraElla 2020

Welcome back to Skeptic TaraElla. Today, I'm going to sort of respond to a recent Blaire White video titled 'The Truth About Trump and the Trans Community'. In the video, Blaire discussed her views about President Trump's trans policies. She noted that the trans community seems to be used by both sides of politics as a political football, and that trans issues should be seen as a medical issue, not a political issue. This, of course, I totally agree with. In fact, I think I can speak for the majority of the trans community when I say that we are sick and tired of the over-politicization of everything trans. There's clearly something very wrong when, as a trans person, I felt more comfortable with the state of society back in 2007 compared to now! I really don't know how I would have handled coming out in this toxic environment. Looking back, I'm glad that I did it more than a decade ago.

I think the reason for this politicization is because there are groups with shady agendas gaining ground on both sides of politics, and they want to use the trans issue as a wedge to advance their projects of social control over the wider community. On the Right side, there are signs that the authoritarian right is gaining ground again, due to the weakening of libertarianism over the past few years. We see it in things like the big Ahmari vs French debate of last year. On the Left side, there is a radical critical theory faction that is essentially pushing a feeling of oppression onto trans people, as well as other minority groups, in order to both recruit and radicalize these groups. Furthermore, both sides also appear to want to increase the level of cultural conflict in society, which they believe will help achieve their goals. The authoritarian Right is probably thinking of using trans people as a wedge issue for their benefit like they used gay marriage 15 years ago, and the Marcusean Left is probably trying to use trans issues, in combination with other cultural issues, to create a sense of extreme social struggle, to create the oppressor vs oppressed dynamic that is needed to fulfill their own theories. Trans people are simply caught in the middle of these two camps. A real trans ally, I think, would condemn both camps equally, and encourage a rational conversation, which would put the emphasis back on the genuine needs of trans people, and how society can best accomodate those needs, while also considering the concerns of other people.

The Trump administration is one site where both sides want to play the game to their advantage. Based on my own assessment, I actually agree with Blaire that Trump is likely neutral in regards to LGBT issues. He has never shown much care, positive or negative, regarding LGBT people and issues. However, there are undeniably elements within his administration that are not LGBT friendly, because they have a more authoritarian or religious right politics. I think this is where quite a few of the anti-trans proposals have originated, but most were ultimately not adopted by the Trump administration. In fact, I sense that the religious right is not very happy with Trump not doing most of the anti-LGBT things they want. The trans military ban was probably the minimum he had to do to satisfy this group, but they apparently don't think it's enough. I think we shouldn't have illusions about the clearly anti-LGBT agenda of this group.

On the other hand, the radical critical theory faction of the Left, which is overrepresented in LGBT activism these days, have latched onto every one of these leaked anti-LGBT proposals, as if they were actual Trump policies being implemented. It's a pattern I've also been seeing in other Western countries with conservative governments. This has actually been bad for the trans community, because it means that trans people are having unnecessary worries about what may happen to them. As Blaire said in the video, there was widespread fear about a leaked 2018 policy that would have prevented trans people from updating their documents, which was simply never implemented, and a lot of trans people were essentially made to feel severe anxiety over nothing. My thinking is, there really is no point in exaggerating the harm being done to LGBT people by conservative administrations, because at the end of the day, this is essentially making people feel oppressed, at the expense of their own health and wellbeing. The truth is, there is often a tug of war between the authoritarians and the libertarians on the right, which means that some things are simply rumors that will never become actual policy.

Furthermore, the radical critical theory Left doesn't just exaggerate the harmfulness of conservative politicians to LGBT people. They also often encourage LGBT pessmism about left-leaning politicians. Throughout last year, during the Democratic primaries, there were people playing up Tulsi Gabbard's previous stance against gay marriage, something she clearly changed her mind on several years ago. In fact, all the evidence points to her being completely LGBT friendly nowadays. Early this year, they even attempted to sow doubts about Bernie's allyship, simply because he accepted an endorsement from Joe Rogan. More recently, they have turned their attention to Joe Biden, painting him as not a true ally of the LGBT community because he voted for the Defense of Marriage Act in the 1990s. Of course, Biden has changed a lot too, he was the first to support gay marriage in the Obama administration, and he talked about trans rights in 2012, way before most people out there were even aware of this issue. Just like there really wasn't any reason to worry about Tulsi's past record, there really isn't any reason why we shouldn't think of Biden as anything but a strong ally. Similarly, British Labour leader Keir Starmer has shown himself to be a strong ally, and has committed to trans rights, but some in the far-left in Britain are still sowing doubts about his allyship. I think the truth is, the Marcusean Left would prefer LGBT people to not have any feeling hope at all, so all their negative energies can be directed into Marcusean Left activism, whatever that entails at the time. What they are essentially doing is making LGBT people feel oppressed, at the expense of their own health and wellbeing, to serve a political agenda. This is actually highly immoral, in my opinion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

AND

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

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

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

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

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

Cringe vs Cope? On ContraPoints vs Rose of Dawn | Trad Trans Rants

Welcome back to Trad Trans Rants by TaraElla. Today, we have some interesting trans personality drama. As I understand it, it all began when Natalie of ContraPoints talked about the work of Rose Of Dawn, characterising it as posting cringe about trans people, and questioning her motives in posting a whole series of videos on a particularly obnoxious Canadian. Rose then replied, essentially saying that it is an unfair mischaracterization, that she was talking about important issues that need to be discussed, and that Natalie was avoiding that conversation, if I understood the point correctly.

As somebody who is subscribed to both of them, I think the problem is that they are essentially talking past each other. This problem is unfortunately common in our current landscape of cultural and political polarization. I actually think both Natalie and Rose have a point. I think Natalie is right to question the purpose of focusing on the most obnoxious and weird characters of the trans community, and I think Rose is right to question the set of beliefs about gender that Natalie appears to have. Don't get me wrong, as a trans person I of course support trans rights, and I very much appreciate Natalie's commitment to improving trans acceptance. However, where I disagree with her is that I really don't think the unscientific idea that gender is a social construct is good for trans acceptance or social justice at all.

I think the problem is that, both sides currently have an attitude that prevents constructive dialogue. Rose and others on her side often see themselves as defenders of every day common sense. They use particularly obnoxious and weird characters, the trans 'cringe' that Natalie was talking about, as examples of people who are outside the common sense, and use them to show how rejecting the common sense leads to social harms. While I'm sure that Rose and others mean well, and they do have a point as I will discuss later, I think this attitude can come off as both simplistic and judgemental to those on the opposite side. This is because, Natalie and others on her side, who come from a more philosophical tradition, tend to see the questioning of common sense as inherently enlightened and liberating. This can largely be traced to the tradition of critical theory, which holds that common sense is often a device to hold structures of oppression in place, and that the 'ruthless criticism of everything' is always justified. I, of course, have my own problems with the whole critical theory tradition and its impact on LGBT discourse, having written a short book on the subject recently. But let's leave that wider discussion to another video, and focus on the gender-related aspect here.

In her video, Rose called Natalie a 'gender radical'. Rose provided a definition for her use of the term, which, if I understand correctly, mostly fits with Natalie's beliefs. However, because that term is both vague and derogatory, I would instead refer to it as 'social constructionist' from here onwards. Rose essentially accused Natalie of refusing to deal with criticism of her social constructionist views on gender and the real world consequences of those beliefs, which are seen in people like that particular Canadian. However, given that these obnoxious characters aren't obviously motivated by social constructionism, I honestly don't think arguing this way is convincing for many people. After all, it's a bit of a leap to use the obnoxious behavior of one particular person to generalize that social constructionism is bad for society.

On the other hand, that doesn't mean social constructionism is OK either. My problem with social constructionism is that it is not grounded in commitment to objective reality, and often provides an illusion of escape from reality itself. Social constructionist theories, particularly when combined with postmodernism, often give the illusion of unlimited possibilities of social arrangements, which sounds fine as long as you don't have to face objective reality. It's like you can say the sky is green, as long as you stay indoors all the time. This is what I think of when some people say there could be a whole universe of genders. While I agree that there may not just be two genders, because there is some preliminary biological evidence for that, there certainly cannot be a whole universe of genders, because that wouldn't be compatible with the objective reality of evolutionary biology.

The fact is, conventional common sense may have its flaws, but it is at least tried and tested by centuries of living reality. Therefore, the wholesale rejection of common sense as 'social constructs' amounts to a wholesale denial of reality, and its real world consequence tends to be social chaos. Furthermore, society only works when everyone is committed to the same objective reality; if everyone lived only by their own subjective reality, the social contract would break down, and there would be chaos. Therefore, any modification to the shared common sense needs to be both rooted in objective reality and hence also acceptable to the general population. Within this framework, there can great potential for constructive social change. A good example would be how the finding that gay people are 'born this way' led to the widespread support for gay marriage. This is why any case for trans rights must be rooted in scientific reality. It must be based on objective reality rather than subjective feelings, and it must also adequately satisfy the competing needs of different parties. If we base the case for trans acceptance on subjectivity, it would never work, because nobody else is morally obliged to accept subjective or self-constructed identities. If we force trans acceptance while basing it on subjectivity, people could rightly classify that as tyranny, because it would be using the threat of social punishment to enforce something that most people wouldn't otherwise accept.

To build a workable consensus for trans acceptance going forward, a commitment to science above all else is needed. An openness to considering perspectives from all sides, and a constructive dialogue between different stakeholders is also needed. All this is, unfortunately, sorely lacking from both sides of the ideological divide right now. To get out of this pointless bickering, we need to stop shouting past each other, and start talking to each other effectively. This is the process I'm trying to facilitate here. I hope that more people can become just as committed to this ideal as myself.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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