Is 'Gender Ideology' Imaginary? | Re ContraPoints | An Asian Trans View

This is Part 1 of 2 of my response to the latest Contrapoints video about JK Rowling and her controversial comments about trans issues last year. I have talking about Rowling many times already, so here I will only focus on new things raised by Natalie in her video. In this first part, I will focus on the competing claims around the idea of 'gender ideology'. In the second part, which will logically follow on from the first part, I will discuss what I think 'bigotry' is, an area where I have some disagreements with Natalie.

In the video, Natalie talked about how anti-trans commentators often use terms like 'gender ideology' or 'LGBT ideology' to describe trans issues or even trans people, which I understand she sees as a form of 'indirect bigotry' against trans people. She then asserted that trans people are people, not an ideology, something I think everyone in these debates would do well to remember. We are indeed talking about issues that impact real individuals and real lives, not just theory or ideology. However, is there really such a thing as 'gender ideology'? And how can we prevent this idea of 'gender ideology' from derailing the discussion on trans rights? I actually wish Natalie could have explored this point more.

I guess, given the intentionally vague terminology, 'gender ideology' can really mean anything. Every time I see this phrase being used, and I see it a lot, given the mix of media I choose to consume, my heart sinks a bit. Firstly, it's so vague that the reader may not get what is intended by the author, which is always bad from an intellectual communication point of view. Secondly, some people do use it as a bigoted way against trans people as a whole, seeing trans people as the real life representatives of the so-called 'gender ideology'. As a trans person, I see this as an attack on my own humanity. It really is reminescent of the way some people used to rail on and on about the 'gay agenda', and see gay people who simply wanted to get married as real life representatives of the so-called 'gay agenda', when they only wanted to get married, like many straight people. I think this kind of behavior would have to fit the definition of bigotry, no ifs ands or buts.

However, there are other times when people complain about 'gender ideology', they mean something real and concrete. For example, the idea that gender is a social construct is certainly an ideology, and so is the idea that gender is performative. And so is critical gender theory, a way of seeing gender using a perspective that is ultimately rooted in Marxian and postmodernist ideology. Furthermore, gender critical feminism, or TERFism, is also clearly an ideology that is related to gender. Given that all the ideas above have something to do with gender, and they are all rooted in some kind of philosophical ideology rather than empirical science, they could rightly be seen as 'gender ideologies'. And as a scientific-minded person, I reject all of them. Of course, I still hope that people stop using vague terms like 'gender ideology' and be more specific about what they are referring to, but on the whole, I am very sympathetic to criticisms of the aforementioned unscientific ideologies.

From this vagueness of terminology, my worry is that, opposition to certain ideologies could become conflated with opposition to trans people or trans rights. This is further compounded by the fact that most people still don't have even a basic understanding of many trans issues. Last year, I saw two different polls in the UK describring the same reform with different terminology, and they yielded results of 28% and 55% support respectively. This kind of disparity usually means that there is a lack of understanding of the issues in the general public. You certainly don't see it in well-understood issues like gay marriage, where polling by different organizations in most Western countries generally yield results of around two thirds support. These figures also line up with actual referendum results as demonstrated in Ireland and Australia. What all this means is that, the public understanding about gay marriage is mature enough for most people to understand and take a consistent stance on the issue. The same cannot be said of trans issues. There is still probably one or two decades to go before that gap is bridged.

This is why I emphasize so much on educating people on the basic issues, talking about the science, and not pushing away people who aren't immediately accepting. What we need is more understanding, not more witch hunts. Indeed, at the time of the so-called trans tipping point, many trans people were worried that the new visibility was too much, too soon, and in hindsight, I can see that they were probably right. But there's no going back now, once that can of worms have been opened. Which only means it's even more important to have level-headed and respectful discussions aimed at fostering understanding now. People are understandably hesistant to support things that they don't fully understand. That is why, back when I was in college, only a third of people supported gay marriage, and more than 30 US states successfully voted to ban gay marriage. From those defeats, the marriage movement didn't become embittered. Instead, they set out to connect with people, and advance the discussion. Once people understood that gay marriage wasn't going to destroy the traditional family, they started to get on board. The whole 'gay agenda' playbook ceased to work, because people now understood exactly what marriage equality meant.

With trans issues, there is still a lot of misunderstanding and confusion. Add to that the recent popularization of certain gender theories that both challenge people's own sense of identity, and are also inherently scientific questionable, that mix can certainly make some people very anxious. Those opposed to trans rights can then make every proposed reform about 'gender ideology', and sink them one by one. This is why I have long argued that we need to focus on the science, the fact that trans people are 'born this way', indeed the traditional narrative of the trans community, and completely separate the real lives and needs of trans people from any sort of gender theory. Just like gay people deserved marriage because it was simply the fair thing to do, and this needed no appeal to any postmodern theory, the case for trans rights will not be helped by gender theories. Indeed, trans rights can only be hindered by scientifically invalid ideas like how gender is performative. This is why we should try out best to cut through the noise that is the gender theory coming out from certain thinkers of non-scientific background, and present the scientific facts about trans people. It is in establishing an understanding of trans people, trans lives, and by extension the social issues trans people face, that we will gain support for much needed reforms.

I also think that, given the stage of the conversation we find ourselves in, and the objective we want to pursue, it would be counterproductive to treat people's words harshly and call them out for bigotry on the basis of that, as the trans community has done to Rowling. I mean, I certainly don't agree with a lot of what Rowling has said, but I also think there is so much misunderstanding that you can't conclude that people are being bigoted, even when they say hurtful things. If someone is still saying that gay marriage is part of a subversive 'gay agenda' in this day and age, I think its fair to say that that's bigoted, but you really can't treat the trans conversation with the same standard, given the lack of a mature public understanding at this stage. In other words, more patience and allowance is needed.

The Problem with Trans / LGBT Culture | An Asian Trans View

Welcome back to the TaraElla Report. Today, I want to talk about the main problem I see with trans culture and LGBT culture in general, especially the direction in which it has evolved in the past few years. I will also look at where it all came from, and hence how we can shake it all off. And before you jump to conclusions, please listen to what I have to say in full, because there are a lot of things to talk about in this topic. It is a complicated topic, with twists and turns everywhere.

I have three main problems with LGBT culture as it stands. Firstly, it limits the life potential of LGBT people. Secondly, it encourages a hostile worldview about the rest of the world. And finally, it leads to an inability to rationally communicate our needs to the wider world, resulting in unnecessary conflict. As I will explain, a lot of these features can be explained by historical political influences, influences that I strongly believe we should shake off as soon as possible.

The thing is, LGBT culture, as it stands, tends to exaggerate how much the whole world is against LGBT people. I mean, there are indeed individuals with homophobic and transphobic attitudes, but things have much improved over the past 50 years, and there really isn't a conspiracy to keep LGBT people down. Ideas like how capitalist systems have to inherently oppress LGBT people also have no basis in reality, they are purely rooted in some of the critical theory that came out in the 1950s and 60s. Furthermore, it is unhealthy to think that the whole world is against you. It leads to people not pursuing their dreams and taking advantage of life's opportunities to the maximum. This is why any true friend of the LGBT community would want to get rid of the victim mentality from the culture.

Another important point is that, this attitude also leads to a degradation of the discourse around LGBT issues to an us vs them fight. After all, if one, by default, believes that the world is out to oppress them, they are not going to take other people's words in good faith. This is why, some LGBT activists in particular, have a habit of interpreting others' words and intentions in the worst light possible, which unfortunately tends to set the tone in the LGBT community, because of how well organized they are, and how loud their voices are. This, in turn, has paralyzed much needed debates and discussions, and has led to things often standing in a stalemate, with LGBT people being the ultimate losers.

To understand where all these unhelpful attitudes come from, I think we need to look back to the 1960s or 70s, when they began to influence the LGBT community. I think it all came from the long-68 mentality, in turn deeply rooted in critical theory, particularly the works of Herbert Marcuse. Of course, Marcuse himself wasn't responsible for all the so-called radical ideas of that era, because the student activists, who read a lot of his works, then went on to vastly expand his ideas into even more radical forms. In those ideas, one would find negative thinking, the conflict theory of change, the blaming of capitalism for anti-LGBT attitudes, the idea of the 'great refusal', and the celebration of being an outcast outside the so-called system. In other words, all the ingredients required to cook up the problematic attitudes I previously described.

So how can we shake it off? I guess just to be aware of this influence, and why it's ultimately bad for LGBT people, is the first step. The next step then is to think about LGBT progress from a more old-school liberal point of view. After all, classical liberal values are the best guarantor of liberty, especially for minorities. Indeed, the 1990s and 2000s saw a collapse in critical theory-based activism due to political circumstances, and the gay marriage movement that existed in that era was based largely on old-school liberalism instead. Instead of conflict, the marriage movement focused on liberty and equality, and won the hearts and minds of many people in a relatively short amount of time. It's certainly much better than anything the radical long-68 had ever offered to the world.

The Transmedicalist Case for Non-Binary Acceptance | An Asian Trans View

Today, I want to talk about the actual transmedicalist view on non-binary people. This is in response to the rumor prevalent in some circles, like Breadtube for example, that transmeds don't accept non-binary people, or somehow think of them as invalid. In turn, this has made transmedicalism unpopular in these circles, even leading to hostility towards our ideas in some cases. As a transmed, I have been nothing but supportive of non-binary people, and this is fully consistent with my transmed beliefs. Therefore, those rumors are completely rubbish. In today's episode, I will fully explain everything, in detail.

Let's start with this: what are transmed views? Basically, taking the word literally, transmedicalism is a belief that the root cause of someone being trans lies in the medical, or biological science, realm. It's simply a belief that the trans phenomenon should be explained using medical science, and not postmodern philosophy or the radical feminist branch of critical theory. Now, I'm not denying that there are a few transmeds who judge other trans individuals' validity by how much dysphoria they experience, but that's not how scientific transmedicalism should actually be practiced. Nor is that attitude representative of transmeds at all!

So what's the medical science view we are talking about here, and what are its implications? Traditionally, a slightly over-simplified way to talk about it is the so-called mind-body mismatch, that is, female brains in male bodies, and vice versa. Of course, there's much more complexity to it, from genetics, to hormone receptors, and other aspects of molecular biology. But the picture is that, because of the complexity of genotype to phenotype translation, and the complexity of human development, especially in the fetal stage, there is a very real chance that one may end up with an incongruent set of gendered characteristics. This incongruency can cause gender dysphoria, including physical dysphoria and relational dysphoria, and it can be debilitating. The only way this dysphoria can be substantially relieved appears to be via gender transitioning in many cases.

Now, once you understand and accept this picture, there really is no reason to not accept non-binary people. Given that the whole medical science view of the cause of being trans is essentially rooted in the body being part-male and part-female to some extent, acceptance of the validity of non-binary people is a very logical extension. There's no reason why a transmedicalist view could lead to non-acceptance of non-binary people.

What transmeds refuse to accept are justifications of non-binaryness rooted in postmodernism or critical theory, for example the idea that gender is a social construct, or that gender is performative and that one can reconstruct gender simply by altering the performance of gender, or that gender is a class in a Marxian sense. However, this is not being applied specifically against non-binary people. Transmeds also cannot accept binary trans narratives, or even cisgender narratives, that are rooted in postmodernism or critical theory. Like elsewhere in life, science and postmodernism just aren't usually compatible. Those of us who value science must therefore oppose postmodernism. This does not mean we don't accept non-binary identity however. As we just saw, the science alone is enough to justify the acceptance of non-binary people, there's no need for postmodernism at all.

Michael Knowles Upset About Just Asking for Pronouns? | An Asian Trans View

Today, I want to talk about Michael Knowles, among other conservatives, being upset about President Biden's new White House website apparently asking for preferred pronouns on its contact form. Let's be clear here. They have very appropriately allowed people not to answer the question. It's just there for people who want it. There's no attack on free speech here. There's no compelled speech of any kind.

I have always been 100% pro free speech, and 100% against punishing people who refuse to use preferred pronouns. Remember, I was one of the minority of trans people who agreed with Jordan Peterson on this issue (about the compelled speech issue in general, not the effects of the Canadian law specifically), when it came out. I was also staunchly against social media banning people for using the wrong pronouns. However, this is not the issue here. Nobody is compelling Michael Knowles, or anybody else, to use anyone's preferred pronouns. Knowles is apparently offended by the question just being there at all! On top of this, he is essentially calling the Biden team divisive just because of this! So Knowles, apparently, doesn't think President Biden has the freedom to do things his own way. This is nothing but hypocrisy.

The movement for free speech must not allow itself to be made a mockery by this kind of hypocrisy. If we are for freedom, we are for freedom for everyone to do their own thing. Not just freedom for conservatives who don't like the idea of preferred pronouns. Freedom for everyone is the Moral Libertarian way, indeed, it's the Enlightenment way. Anything else is not!

And no, this is certainly not so-called 'radical gender theory'. It's just the way some people want to do things now, and they certainly have the right to do so. To call every such thing 'radical gender theory' is just lighting the flames for an us vs them culture war, the last thing people need in 2021. Indeed, this smells just like the anti-gay marriage culture wars some conservatives raised 20 years ago. I guess, just like back then, we need to call out the people who won't live and let live. It's time we make a stand for true liberty, not reactionism.

On Harry Potter vs Animorphs | An Asian Trans View

Today, I want to talk about something that's been on my mind for the past six months: the great Harry Potter vs Animorphs debate. Now, this is some cultural controversy around books people feel passionately about, so if that's not something you want to hear, then this episode is probably not for you. Also, there are several spoilers for both series, so don't listen if you don't want that.

Back in the middle of this year, when JK Rowling made her controversial comments regarding certain trans issues, some people were saying that we should all drop Harry Potter and read another book. Now, I don't support what's essentially cancel culture, so of course I didn't participate in any of that discussion. I strongly believe that people can disagree while not cancelling each other. Besides, the whole point I wanted to make was that Rowling and trans people weren't enemies, so of course I wouldn't be telling people to drop Harry Potter. However, what interested me was that one of the book series people suggested was Animorphs, my favorite books back when I was 13 or so. Back then, I decided to say nothing, because I don't want to be seen as yet another trans person participating in the mob cancellation of Rowling in any way. But since six months have passed, I think we can talk about this now without all that controversy.

The time was the late 1990s, or perhaps the year 2000, which felt like the 90s anyway. It was the golden era of tech, you know, when CPU speeds increased more than 10-fold in just a few years, and when many people began to have the internet at home, and perhaps a mobile phone. Back then, something like an iPad or a Kindle Reader couldn't even be imagined, and people still read paper books, and there was no shortage of young adult book series for middle school aged people like myself. Even back then, Harry Potter, which had only been out for a couple of years or so, was getting all the hype, but my favorite had to be Animorphs.

In fact, I didn't begin to like Harry Potter until 2003, when the fifth book came out, and I was already in college. Perhaps it was just my 13-year-old attitude, but back then I thought the first Harry Potter book must have been written for someone much younger than myself, and I was too old for that. I certainly didn't feel that way with Animorphs. I didn't understand why even some adults wanted to read Harry Potter back then. Back then, the Harry Potter books were released once a year, and Animorphs was released almost every month. That all came to an end in 2001. The last Animorphs book, the 54th in the series, was released in April 2001, and people soon stopped talking about it, while Harry Potter took a three year hiatus, and didn't appear again until 2003, when I was already in college. Of course, the world was a very different place by 2003, and I was in a very different phase of life by then. I went out and got the 5th Harry Potter book, the Order of the Phoenix, because of all the hype, even though I didn't particularly like the first four as a kid. And surprisingly, I really, really liked this one. The final two Harry Potter books were released in the next four years, and I also liked them so much that I finished them within a week of release. By the final Harry Potter book, I was almost 21, and I finally realized why adults like Harry Potter: in a world of disappointments, moral ambiguity and alliances of convenience, the Potterverse provided an antidote to all this, with its moral clarity, its clear-cut good vs evil, and the loyalty of its characters. Besides, wouldn't it be great to be in a house with people just like yourself? By the way, the official sorting hat decided that I was a Ravenclaw, and I generally agree with its assessment.

Anyway, this sums up my relationship with my two favorite young adult franchises of all time. And yes, both these series were special. But they are also very different. The fundamental difference is that, the Potterverse is actually much more of an idealistic world, while Animorphs operates much closer to real world conditions. You go to Harry Potter for emotional therapy, to feel like there are still good guys in this messed up world, that everything will be alright. On the other hand, Animorphs is much more honest about how the real world is. It is very clear that there ain't happy endings to wars, and the so-called good guys may still betray you in the end, if it suits them. You can't imagine, for example, Harry killing 17,000 of Voldemort's people and being accused of being a war criminal, struggling with his conscience for years afterwards, or that he would have to bargain with some of the so-called good guys to not destroy the whole wizarding world, just so they can defeat Voldemort cleanly. You certainly can't imagine Hermione dying in the last book, essentially condemned to that fate by Harry himself. Harry Potter wouldn't be Harry Potter if it ended like that, it would destroy the magic of Harry Potter. On the other hand, Animorphs wouldn't be conveying the deep anti-war message it has, if the main characters all survived, and just went on to live happy, normal lives afterwards.

I guess we need a bit of both. The emotional reassurance that there are still good guys out there, and the good guys will win in the end, is a powerful motivator to fight another day. However, we can't be all that naive when we are operating in the real world. It is, after all, a world full of imperfection, betrayal, and people with their own agendas, and if we don't operate with this in mind, we end up being used as a political football by others. We need to remember that, while the bad guys are out to get us, the seemingly good guys can also betray us at any minute like the Andalites planned to betray Earth, to satisfy their own agendas. Given that people with agendas on all sides want to use trans people as a political football, we really need to remember this at all times. While Voldemort's people in the Potterverse and the Yeerks in Animorphs clearly represent the bad guys, there is nothing like the Andalites in the Potterverse. Of course, in real life, especially in politics, it is much more likely that we are dealing with Yeerks vs Andalites rather than Voldemort vs Harry. In real life, to mistake the former for the latter is very dangerous indeed.

Abigail Shrier, Detransition & the Coming Trans Crisis | An Asian Trans View

Today, I want to talk about something I've become very worried about. This is a rather controversial topic, so I wish you could listen to the whole thing before jumping to conclusions.

Let's start with the recent drama surrounding journalist Abigail Shrier, and her book about the recent spike of teenagers presenting as trans, specifically who identify as trans men or transmasculine. Many trans people have accused it of being biased in its interpretation of the available research and data. Now, I haven't read the book, so I won't comment on it either way. However, from the interviews I've seen, it is clear that Shrier is not transphobic, that she doesn't have an agenda against trans people at all. Still, the trans community seems to be unable to have a productive conversation with her. It has again turned into an us-vs-them war, just like with JK Rowling, Joe Rogan, Jordan Peterson and most recently Tulsi Gabbard. It really isn't an exaggeration to say that the trans community is an epicenter of the cancel culture crisis, especially when actual trans people like ContraPoints have been targets of cancellation too.

Whether Shrier has been biased is another matter, but the increase in young people identifying as trans is very real. An associated phenomenon that is equally as real, is the increase in the number of young people who end up regretting their transition, and detransitioning. Where this phenomenon was once quite uncommon, it's not so uncommon anymore, especially among younger transitioners. The trans community has so far treated this topic as taboo, and we haven't had much of a conversation around it. This, in turn, means that the gender critical people and their ideas have become established, without much opposition, in the detrans community. This, as you may know, has started to come back to bite the trans community.

Let's be frank about what's happening here: the trans community has become unable to have difficult conversations. Instead, led by misguided activists, there is a default reaction of us-vs-them, to assume people who disagree in any way are acting in bad faith. This development is, I think, caused by another development: the trans conversation isn't as based in the facts, the science, and the empirical data, as much as it used to be. As I have said repeatedly in the past two years, this is the result of the shift of the balance of influence in the wider world out there, especially among progressive activists.

You see, the Western world is effectively in this long-standing philosophical battle between those who believe in empiricism, science, objective reason and positivism, descended from Enlightenment thinkers going all the way back to figures like John Locke on one hand, and those who believe that everything is socially constructed to serve the interests of the powerful and oppressive, that objectivity hides power dynamics, and radical subjectivity is liberating, descended from a particular strain of Western Marxism that turned to cultural explanations after their revolution failed to materialize in the West, as Marx had predicted. You could call this the Enlightenment liberals vs the postmodern criticalists. Since around 2009, as a result of a combination of factors, including the Global Financial Crisis, the postmodern criticalists have gradually gained an upper hand in progressive activist circles. Given the vast expansion of the trans activists sector during this time, it was inevitable that the postmodern criticalists would gain a foothold here, and even displace the original trans narrative, like a big tsunami crashing into a small town and almost wiping the whole town out.

As a result of the influx of postmodern criticalist views, the trans discussion has been increasingly moved away from the science and the clinical evidence, towards one based around power, oppression, social constructs, and so on. Less Harry Benjamin and more Michel Foucault, even though Foucault probably didn't understand trans people at all! The result is that, we have become unable to respond to people like Abigail Shrier, JK Rowling or Jordan Peterson with facts and logic, and instead have come to see everything as an attempt to oppress trans people. Hence everything became a struggle, and eventually became a stalemate. Meanwhile, anti-trans forces are certainly doing better to sound reasonable, which means that trans acceptance stands to be gradually rolled back, one drama at a time. The trans community is heading over a cliff, and our so-called leaders are only accelerating the process.

To save the trans conversation, I believe we need to turn back to the science and the facts. That's why I'm a transmedicalist: I base all my trans views on scientific and medical understandings, and not on postmodern philosophy. There's this myth that transmedicalists are gatekeepers, but we're not. At least I don't do any gatekeeping. Moreover, I am completely supportive of non-binary and gender non-conforming people. I believe they have as much of a case of medical and scientific validity as binary trans people. Indeed, I believe that non-binary acceptance could lead to fewer people jumping into full medical transition and regretting it, but that's a topic for another time. Anyway, I believe we should discuss the scientific view of trans people, non-binary people, and GNC people more, and that's what I'll be doing going forward. Sometimes, we should just focus on nothing but the science.

I believe that, once we regain the scientific grounding, we will be able to have a rational and productive conversation on many controversial trans related topics. The community won't need to revert to the us-vs-them drama every time. We will stop losing ground in terms of trans acceptance. And everyone, on all sides, will feel less angry and frustrated.

Reflections on Elliot Page | An Asian Trans View

Today, I want to offer some of my thoughts on actor Elliot Page coming out as trans, from the perspective of a trans person.

So far, there's all the predictable reactions. Hollywood has been as supportive as you would expect it to be, meanwhile people like Ben Shapiro and Steven Crowder have said what they would predictably say. There were also the trans-skeptical feminists who had their own, well, unusual views. And then, there were the socialists who used this occasion to reinforce the message that Page is a rich celebrity who has much more resources to deal with his transition than the average trans person, so class is still everything.

While I'm not a socialist, this last point is something I want to dwell on more. I remember how, back in 2015, when Caitlin Jenner came out, large sections of the trans community were worried that her perspective, as a rich trans person, would get the most airtime in the mainstream, and displace the voices of everyday trans people. I guess many of us are feeling something similar again right now. Thinking about it, the mainstream media likes to focus on trans people whose experiences are clearly very different from everyday trans people. You know, celebrities, sports people, beauty queens, politicians, and the like. It's not that I have anything against these people, it's that their issues are very different from everyday trans people.

With Elliot Page, I have one particular worry about the potential excessive weight being applied to his narrative. You see, Page is not only a rich celebrity, he has also been an activist with very strong political views for many years. Not that there is anything wrong with having strong political views; I do too. But I'm worried the way he sees the trans experience and the way he engages with the public as an ambassador for the trans community, whether he likes it or not, will be excessively colored by his activist beliefs. This, coupled with his lack of worry about the kind of financial matters that plague most trans people, means that his priorities could be very different from those of everyday trans people. I'm just worried that this would just further serve to paint a public image of trans people that is far removed from the struggles and priorities of everyday trans people. You know, it's time to return to the bread and butter issues, in this ongoing trans conversation.

Perhaps I'm just too worried. But trans people are already misunderstood enough as it is, with forces on both the Left and the Right wanting to use us as culture war political footballs. Just in the past year, everything from Trump vs Biden, to the Harper's free speech letter, to everything related to JK Rowling, had to have a trans angle to it. With the release of Jordan Peterson's new book next year, we are almost certain to get more unwarranted attention soon enough. All this builds up to a lot of misunderstanding about trans people in the world out there, with real trans people suffering all the consequences. We surely don't need yet more misunderstanding.