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 briefly respond to a few ignorant comments made by Candace Owens on the Rubin Report recently.
Firstly, she said that she hopes black people will be at the forefront of pushing against the 'trans stuff'. What 'trans stuff' is she refering to? I mean, trans people have in common certain medical needs, and probably also have in common the problem of facing discrimination in some areas of life, and that's about it. Beyond that, trans people are a diverse bunch. We're pretty diverse in our politics, our values, our commitments, our lifestyles, and so on. So there's really no package deal of 'trans stuff' like she was talking about, because there really can't be. I mean, she should know better, having debated Blaire White on the same show three years ago. You know, how Blaire's opinions are taken controversially among trans people, some love her, others really dislike her. It's the same for Contrapoints, who gets cancelled by other trans people every now and then. And it's similar for most other prominent trans people too.
Secondly, she said that gay people should expel the 'trans stuff', like drop the T or something. So that would mean telling gay people to not welcome trans people into their circles, which would break with decades of tradition since Stonewall, not to mention being like really bigoted. Horrible idea indeed.
I think the problem is that Candace Owens appears to be confused. In case she still doesn't get it, here it is: trans people are people with shared medical needs and social issues. Get this into your head: we are not a political party, we're not a political movement. We can't be, because we are too diverse. Among trans people, there are conservatives, moderates, liberals, and socialists, just like among non-trans people. We don't think like a hive mind, and we aren't a 'thing' in a collective sense. I mean, what would it take for people to just understand these very basic facts?
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 do some thinking on the divergent opinions on JK Rowling within the trans community. Specifically, I want to hypothesize about why some trans people, like myself, are more accommodating, and why other trans people are less accommodating, to our disagreements with Rowling and other people with similar opinions. As I said before, I don't actually agree with some of Rowling's views on trans issues, but I am granting her the good faith of being constructive, and I am open to continued conversation with her, and other people with views similar to hers. On the other hand, other trans people, especially trans activists, have been quite hard on Rowling, often calling her transphobic, which I don't believe is justified at all. I explained why I didn't think Rowling is transphobic in previous videos, and I still stand by those views. Anyway, today's theme is a deeper philosophical exploration of our divergent views, where I will talk about different models of social change.
Let's start with this suggestion from a friend: perhaps it's my wish to avoid conflict. I guess that's part of my upbringing, a big part of Asian culture in general too. I've heard several other Asian LGBT people say that they don't feel entirely comfortable with LGBT activist circles as they currently exist. I mean, there are many of us who would prefer a more bringing people across, a more consensus approach to social reform and change. And then, on the other side of the spectrum, are people who believe that it is conflict that drives change. Right now, LGBT activist circles in the Western world are quite heavily influenced by critical theory, which in turn borrows heavily from Marxian philosophical concepts. One such inheritance is the idea that conflict between groups or classes is what drives social change. Now, that's one view, but that's a view that I certainly don't agree with. Instead, I believe the opposite, that conflict often derails meaningful conversation and the development of balanced and satisfactory change. It's certainly a very different theory of change, but I think the historical evidence is on my side. Many meaningful reforms, from women's suffrage, to the civil rights movement, to gay marriage most recently, were ultimately won by people who sought to bring people together, including to reach out in good faith to those who have strong disagreements with us at the beginning. This is why I'm strongly against pushing people like Rowling away. And there's really nothing wrong with preferring a less conflict-driven approach to change. In fact, that's been the more traditional way people conceived of change, before critical theory became dominant in certain sections of academia, which was only due to certain circumstances of 20th century politics anyway. I mean, Asian culture has long held that it's best to bring people together in harmony to resolve issues, and Western Enlightenment has generally seen sound ideas, ideas that are consistent with the science and the facts, as the driver of productive progress, and such ideas will generally prevail in rational debates. Between these two strands of my cultural inspiration, I think there's a very valid model to achieve the needed social change, without tearing the social fabric apart, without feeling like one group is overpowering another, or that it is a zero-sum game of any kind. Thinking of culture as a zero-sum game is especially stupid, because unlike in economics, where a lot of these zero-sum ideas emerged, there is no problem of scarcity of resources in culture, and our 'interests' are not necessarily at odds with each other as a result. I mean, frankly I believe that the basic reason critical theory is unsound, is because it attempts to borrow a model that Marx applied to political economy, and force-fit it to cultural issues. I think there's really no logically reasonable justification for that at all. Instead, cultural change is better served with a more humanitarian attitude, one that focuses on our common humanity, our common needs, and our common aspirations.
Preferring a non-conflict approach to change also doesn't mean we cannot achieve the meaningful change that would be required to bring about justice. There's nothing really to justify the claim that conflict-driven methods produce more profound social change. Rather, I believe conflict often leads to less adaptive social change, which also means it's less durable, and I think there are plenty of historical examples to justify my view. The reason why a high level of conflict leads to maladaptive change is because people often don't think rationally in the moment of conflict. People focus too much on the specific circumstances at the height of the conflict, and don't think enough about what is needed in the longer term. There's also an irrational dislike of those on the opposite side of the conflict, which is never good for rational thinking. I think these two reasons explain why so-called solutions that emerge during times of high conflict are often not conducive to the well functioning of society in the longer term. And I think this could be the best case we can make, to justify a more conflict-averse approach to social progress.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
