From JK Rowling to Detrans: How Trans Activists Are Doing It Wrong | Trans Sandwiched #7

Dear fellow trans people: in this episode, I am going to talk about issues that have provoked strong feelings from some in our community. Please approach what I say with an open mind, and feel free to disagree. And remember that, ultimately, what we all want is to progress trans acceptance and make trans lives better. It is because of this goal, and concerns that we are not getting there, that I feel I have to say what I'm saying today.

Welcome back to Trans Sandwiched by TaraElla, where we talk about how trans people are now sandwiched between political forces with their own agenda on all sides, and what it means for us. Today, I want to talk about how trans activists are doing it wrong, by revisiting two topics: JK Rowling and the Detrans, or detransition, phenomenon.

Let's talk about JK Rowling first. The trans activist community has essentially defined JK Rowling as a transphobic enemy, and has put up a strong wall of resistance towards her. When this was first developing about two years ago, I cautioned against this approach, and I still stand by my views today. Let me explain. Let's start by analyzing this situation rationally. Right now, Rowling stands in opposition to some of the trans rights reforms many of us support. However, this does not automatically mean that she is transphobic. Being involved in gay marriage politics for over a decade has taught me that, sometimes, good people can and do disagree. And while it is natural to be disappointed when people take a stand against something you passionately support, such disagreements and disappointments are an inevitable part of a liberal democracy. As to whether Rowling is transphobic or not, I think we need to remember that disagreeing with, and disappointing, most trans people does not equal transphobic. I believe the question of whether someone is transphobic or not should be answered with reference to the commonly accepted standards in liberal democracy, not feelings-based responses, and certainly not justifications rooted in postmodern criticalism. And based on standards that are commonly applicable in liberal democracy, I do not believe that Rowling is 'transphobic', even though she disagrees with reforms we want. It's like how many people oppose gay marriage but are still not 'homophobic'.

The problem with the trans community's overreaction to people like Rowling is that, it doesn't do us any favors. Firstly, as many have observed, the trans community's overreaction has only pushed Rowling further into the other side, and she might have actually brought many people with her. Therefore, the whole exercise has only served to decrease trans acceptance. Secondly, perhaps even more importantly, in a liberal democracy, the undecided people generally make their minds up by observing the debate, and seeing which side makes more rational sense. Therefore, keeping calm and cool, arguing rationally, and being charitable to those who disagree with you are always good strategies to adopt. Sadly, the trans activist community is taking a maladaptive stance, a stance that would lose us support, and delay acceptance of trans people in the general community. It really is the opposite of how gay marriage was done, and this is why I'm so concerned.

Now, let's talk about the Detrans, or detransition community, people who once identified as trans but have gone back to their original gender. This has always been a sensitive issue in the trans community, but lately, I have been seeing a severe reluctance to even acknowledge the issue. As a result, Detrans people are often pushed into the arms of gender critical feminism, a movement that is eager to bring them on board and provide support and meaning for their suffering. This is why I have seen at least a few cases of Detrans people ending up completely anti-trans. I have argued in the past, and I will argue here again, that the trans community should provide acceptance and empathy towards Detrans people, and take their concerns on board where appropriate. Failing to do this adequately will almost certainly harm the credibility of the trans community in the long run.

Having examined these two examples, I think there is a common trend: the trans activist community is treating everything like a zero-sum game, where those who 'disagree' with the dominant trans narrative in any way are seen as threats or enemies. I think the recent rise of postmodernism and critical theory has a lot to do with this. During the gay marriage movement, there wasn't nearly as much influence from postmodern criticalism, but just in the past few years, the balance of forces among the activist community has drastically changed. The postmodern criticalism worldview is that all knowledge and discourse is shaped by power, which essentially has the effect of encouraging an attitude of zero-sum struggle against people who promote an alternative view of things. As a result, LGBT activism has become much more antagonistic to those who disagree, and this has caused a level of backlash that has not been seen for many years. This just shows how the rise of postmodernism and criticalism has made the LGBT community less effective in its pursuit of acceptance and accommodation from the general community. I really hope we can turn the ship around before it's too late.

Think You Really Understand Trans People? | Diary of a Trans Popstar

Do you think you really understand trans people? Do you think you already know everything there is to know about trans people, because the media already told you, or because you've heard it all from some source? Think again.

Being trans is not a fashion statement. Being trans is not a political movement. Being trans is not a product of some academic ideology. And being trans is certainly nothing like the sensational stories you hear too often in the media.

The truth is, much of the conversation around trans people these days is strongly colored by people with an agenda. Their agenda comes from both extremes of the political spectrum, but what they have in common is they want to paint trans people in a certain way, to justify their doctrines. As a result, there's a lot of misinformation around trans people and trans lives out there right now. You might think trans people have come a long way in terms of visibility, but unfortunately, much of it is tied with misinformation, which is actually worse than no visibility at all.

Being trans is an inborn immutable characteristic, like race or sexual orientation. However, it comes with its own set of experiences, needs and challenges. What we ask for is understanding, fair treatment, and compassionate accommodation from society. This is what we want you, society, to see.

Dave Chappelle, Trans Issues and Free Speech | Trans Sandwiched #6

Today, I want to talk about the recent uproar over the new Dave Chappelle Netflix special that some people have described as transphobic. I then want to expand the discussion into the wider issue of trans issues and free speech, something that is close to my heart.

I actually don't want to go into the content of the Dave Chappelle special. I personally find most of Dave Chappelle's stuff to be in bad taste, and I'm definitely not a fan. However, I think, as a society, we have been overly focused on finding racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia and so on in what people say. The problem is, this has not only not been effective in reducing discrimination and bigotry in society in general, it probably contributed to a substantial backlash towards the concept of social justice. Given that I believe the practice could be harmful, I'm not going to engage in it.

Having said that, I'm going to make just one comment: I believe we shouldn't throw the term 'TERF' around carelessly. Of course, it probably began with activists who like to inappropriately describe people like JK Rowling as 'TERFs'. Anyway, we should all stop doing it. TERF refers to gender critical feminism, a very specific left-wing ideology with a very specific form of anti-trans politics, and its meaning shouldn't be diluted. There is already enough misunderstanding as it is.

Anyway, what I found most important about this episode is that, once again, some people are out to pit free speech and trans people against each other. It really feels like last year's Harper's Free Speech letter drama is being replayed all over again. It appears that, the people behind the cause of 'cancel culture' are finding trans people to be good fuel for their cause. And I am indeed describing 'cancel culture' as a political cause: its roots go all the way back to the logic found in Herbert Marcuse's infamous 1965 essay Repressive Tolerance. Its objective is to change the way we think about free speech, free debate and freedom of conscience. Indeed, I believe that cancel culture is ultimately about cancelling liberalism itself, something in line with the objectives of radical critical theory.

Most people are passionately opposed to cancel culture, and with very good reason. My concern here is, if trans people are seen as supporters of cancel culture, we will bear the brunt of the backlash. While I am certain that the majority of trans people don't support cancel culture, I am concerned that we are being portrayed that way by the actions of certain activists. I don't think it's fair to us that this is being done to us.

As a trans person, I believe that free speech is the key to resolving issues and improving society in general. I also believe that free speech has been instrumental to the advancement of LGBT acceptance in particular, you just need to look at the gay marriage experience to see that. Free speech and the LGBT community have always been great friends, and they should remain great friends. It really pains me to see the inability of some trans activists to deal with speech they don't agree with. The point is, debate happens by people alternately agreeing and disagreeing with each other, and ultimately finding common ground where they can. We should all participate in this process in good faith. We should meet people where they are, and work out our disagreements. When we encounter ideas we disagree with, we raise our alternative viewpoint. What we should never do is to go around and demand that people be de-platformed, because that would disable the debate entirely, and lock everything in a permanent stalemate.

Revisiting Trans Empiricism | Trans Sandwiched #5

Today, I want to talk about the idea of 'trans empiricism', which I first raised earlier this year. Back then, I outlined how a 'trans empiricist' approach could put the focus of the trans conversation back on the experiences and needs of people who suffer from gender dysphoria, and end the dominance of academic debates of gender philosophy that have nothing to do with the everyday lives of trans people. Today, I will clearly explain what a trans empiricist approach looks like, and how it can help us put the conversation around trans issues back on track.

So what is trans empiricism? Basically, it's taking an empirical approach to the phenomenon of transgenderism, for lack of a better term. To be empirical is simply to be committed to the objective truth, and base our claims on observable evidence. In the empirical approach, observable evidence is taken to be the best representation of the truth. Empiricism is useful because it grounds our thinking in objective reality, and arguably protects us from sophistry. Using an empiricist lens, we can observe the following facts, regarding the trans phenomenon:

Firstly, trans people exist, and they comprise less than 1% of the population.
Secondly, the vast majority of trans people suffer from gender dysphoria, and transition because they want to alleviate their gender dysphoria.
Finally, gender is correlated with genetic sex in more than 99% of cases in the general population.
An extension to this point is that, there is a clear difference between trans people, and non-trans people, therefore the experiences of one group cannot be generalized to the other. This is a very important point I will come back to.

The aforementioned empirical observations form the foundation of the trans empiricist argument. This is a strong foundation for effectively untangling some of the most heated debates around gender and trans people today. This will help us move on from such arguments, so we can focus on more constructive discussions.

In the past three episodes, I discussed how certain radical feminists and postmodern activists have been pushing the idea that 'gender is a social construct', and tying this idea to their support or rejection of trans people. As a result, the trans discourse has been needlessly tied into this pointless philosophical question. A trans empiricist approach would overcome this in multiple ways. Firstly, the validity of trans people can be established simply by their continued existence in a similar pattern across time (at least several generations) and culture (trans people are present in every part of the world). Therefore, trans people are valid regardless of whether gender is a social construct. Secondly, the empirical fact that gender is correlated with genetic sex in more than 99% of the general population provides strong evidence against gender being a social construct.

Perhaps most importantly, the fact that gender is correlated with genetic sex in the vast majority of people, but not in trans individuals, mean that there is a very significant difference between the two groups. This, in turn, means that the experiences of trans people cannot be generalized to the general population; that trans people must be understood as a minority group with special accommodation needs. Recognition of this fact is good in two ways: firstly, it stops the postmodernist agenda of using trans people to demonstrate that gender is a social construct, or to deconstruct gender in general society. Secondly, by preventing trans people from being used like this, we can reassure the general public that trans rights do not amount to a radical change for the rest of the population, rather it is aimed at making life easier for a small minority of the population. This move would be analogous to when the gay marriage movement pointed out that legalizing gay marriage would only allow gay couples to get married, and not 'destroy marriage as we know it'. This realization, I believe, led to high levels of support for gay marriage in the general public.

Another thing is, postmodernists have been preventing a focus on gender dysphoria by participating in the long-standing 'transmed vs tucute' debate, and marginalizing voices in favor of centering dysphoria. Basically, transmedicalists believe that being trans is rooted in gender dysphoria, and that you need gender dysphoria to be trans. Tucutes believe that this view is judgemental, and amounts to gatekeeping. Postmodernists have made centering gender dysphoria impossible, by encouraging this divide, taking the side of the tucutes, and sometimes even resorting to baseless accusations of the transmed camp, e.g. that they are discriminating towards non-binary people, which most of them clearly aren't.

Trans empiricism overcomes this situation, by eliminating the need for this argument in the first place. An empiricist approach is agnostic about whether one 'needs gender dysphoria' to be 'validly trans', because it always accepts people as they are. However, the empirical evidence does clearly point to gender dysphoria being the main driver of trans identity and gender transition. Therefore, even without establishing whether gender dysphoria is a necessary feature of being trans, we can still establish that gender dysphoria is the most important feature of trans lives in general. This way, a trans empiricist can justifiably argue for much more attention to be placed on gender dysphoria, and the needs of people struggling with gender dysphoria, without being entangled in other philosophical questions.

In conclusion, a trans empiricist approach, one rooted in the observed objective reality, can help end the entanglement of trans issues with pointless philosophical debates that have little to do with trans people. It can help prevent trans issues from being taken advantage by those with an agenda, and restore the struggles of gender dysphoria back to the center of the conversation. I believe this would greatly help to advance the understanding and acceptance of trans people among the general public.

The Philosophy Wars Over Trans Lives and Truth | Trans Sandwiched #4

Today, I want to talk about the philosophy wars that are confusing the public discussion over trans issues, how it harms trans people, and the broader implications for society.

Right now, there are several different factions involved in the debate over trans issues, all with their own rationale for supporting or opposing trans rights to certain degrees. However, two of the loudest are the gender critical feminists, sometimes known as trans-exclusionary radical feminists, and the postmodern feminists. The former are staunchly against trans rights, while the latter are theoretically for them. Note that when I say 'gender critical', I mean the activist movement that is committed to that particular ideology, not just anyone who may be questioning certain trans issues.

What makes these two factions so important is that their views of trans people have become disproportionally influential in the general public, probably because they have the most dedicated activists. What I'm most concerned about is that, this essentially philosophical war over trans people, one that is not fought on scientific grounds but rather on philosophical grounds, is confusing the important issues, and leading to unwarranted backlash against trans people.

What may surprise many people is that, the gender criticalists and the postmodernists actually share a fundamental worldview, that is, gender is a social construct created by the patriarchy to oppress women. In turn, this is a particular expression of the general critical theory worldview: that the ideas held to be true by most people are often a social construct to serve the oppressors of society. Now, this might make sense if we were talking about laws or political systems. But to apply the idea to the realm of biological science is, I believe, basically no different from religious fundamentalism. As I previously pointed out, even if we separate gender out from genetic sex, there is still plenty of evidence that gender, defined as the social and psychological aspects, is mostly rooted in biology, and therefore not a social construct. Indeed, this biology based understanding of gender had been the basis of how many understood trans people for many decades. There is also no scientific reason as to why it should be abandoned.

For many decades, gender critical feminists, who believed that gender is a social construct, and therefore could be abolished, had been at odds with trans people, who believed that gender is innate and rooted in the biology of the brain. After all, if the gender critical feminists were right, then trans people would be basically invalid. If trans people were right, then the gender criticalist goal of abolishing gender would be impossible. This has always been the root reason of why gender critical feminism opposed trans rights. More recently, a third faction emerged, the postmodern feminists. The postmodernists hold that gender is a social construct, and the best way to essentially abolish it is to disrupt and deconstruct it. Therefore, they welcome trans people as disruptors of the gender binary. As you can see, the postmodernists' view is much closer to the gender critical than to old-school trans people, but their different theory of how to disrupt gender has led them to support trans rights.

I believe the rise of the postmodernist narrative is not because it is valid or logical. Like everything else postmodern, it is clearly not very logical. However, it is convenient. Especially by the 2010s, feminism was enjoying a resurgence, and trans rights had become a prominent issue, because of the rise of LGBT civil rights. If there were a conflict between the two, the progressive side of politics could descend into deep crisis. The conflict could have been resolved by adopting liberal feminism, but many people on the Left refused to do that because they connect liberal feminism to capitalism, which they see as inherently evil. Instead, they adopted postmodernism, which meant that they could continue the work of social constructionist radical feminism while also supporting trans rights. Very convenient, but not scientific or even logically consistent.

Ultimately, relying on postmodern philosophical sophistry to build the New Left's latest coalition has served to harm trans people and trans rights. People on the Right in particular love to constantly point out the multiple logical inconsistencies. There's a glaring inconsistency between the idea of gender being a social construct, and the idea of gender identity being innate to trans individuals. There's also the question of, if it is valid to be transgender, why is it not valid to be transracial, which would after all be no different under the postmodern worldview. All this time, our supposed community leaders have not been able to provide a response to these very valid points, as they have become beholden to the nonsense that is postmodernism. In turn, this has allowed both the anti-trans conservatives and the gender critical feminists to look more reasonable than us, which has meant increased support for their worldviews, and increased resistance to trans rights.

I believe, to get anything resolved, the most important thing is to uphold the truth. To deny fundamental facts using philosophical sophistry, like postmodernism essentially seeks to do, or to build shaky coalitions of political convenience, like so-called intersectionality seeks to do, can only create confusion. Ultimately, the truth trumps all philosophical sophistry. As trans people, we should return to the truth we have always known: that we are living proof that gender is not a social construct. The fact that so many trans people suffer from such intense gender dysphoria is the best proof that gender is biological, that it is in the brain rather than constructed by society. We need to uphold this truth, and tell it loud and clear to the world. The truth we know about ourselves will gain us respect, understanding and acceptance. Allying with one side in a philosophical war that doesn't even authentically respect our existence will not do us any good.

The Pointless, Dangerous Alliance of the Transphobic | Trans Sandwiched #3

Today, I want to talk about the unprincipled and pointless alliance of two groups: the gender critical feminists on the Left, and the reactionary anti-LGBT faction of the Right. Note that when I say 'gender critical', I mean the activist movement that is committed to that particular ideology, not just anyone who may be questioning certain trans issues.

First of all, let me make it clear: this alliance clearly doesn't make sense at all, except to oppose trans people and trans rights. Gender critical feminism is a very Left-wing revolutionary ideology that seeks to radically change society, while the reactionary faction of the Right are opposed to LGBT rights as part of their broad resistance to all social change. They literally belong on the extreme opposite ends of the political spectrum! On one hand, if the gender critical feminists win, there will be social changes much more radical than the longest and wildest trans rights wishlist. On the other hand, if the reactionary Right wins, they will turn the clock back so far for women that trans people would be the least of any feminist's worry. In other words, gender critical feminists and the reactionary Right are essentially willing to enter a de-facto alliance with their worst enemies, the people who would destroy everything they hold dear, just to oppose 0.3% of the population!

Now, before you say that there is no alliance, I will acknowledge that there is no formal alliance. But it is clear that there is substantial cooperation going on, and it is clearly not accidental or subconscious either. For example, intellectuals on the Right who otherwise consistently oppose critical theory somehow often make an exception for gender criticalism. The same people who go on and on about why critical race theory and queer theory are so problematic and even dangerous often won't speak a bad word about gender critical feminism, even though they clearly share the same roots. Some of them might even try to paint the gender criticalists in a sympathetic light, saying that they are more 'reasonable' than trans activists because they 'acknowledge biology'. What they forget is that the fundamental worldview of gender critical feminism is the idea that 'gender is a social construct', which wouldn't be 'acknowledging biology' at all if we stick to the standards of empirical and evolutionary science. Opposing all other forms of critical theory while being sympathetic to one specific form of it, just to oppose trans rights, is the height of hypocrisy! Many gender critical feminists have also actively supported anti-trans rights campaigns that are clearly started by, and funded by, the Right. Some of them have even spoken at events held by famous Right-wing organizations! It's really a good example of 'cutting off one's nose to spite one's face'.

As to why a clearly unprincipled alliance like this can exist, without much challenge to it, I think it's due to several reasons. Firstly, most people don't really expect or require others to act in good faith anymore. Perhaps we are all jaded by the dishonesty of our politicians and leaders. However, we must not let our disappointment turn into justification of the unjustifiable. No matter how bad the reality is, we must not give up on demanding that people act honestly and in good faith. Secondly, the rise of critical theory and postmodernism has put a major dent in the need to be righteous and truthful in public life. After all, if even some of the most respected philosophers and academics think that sometimes the ends justify the means, maybe there are times when the ends do justify the means, even if they are unscrupulous means? That's the problem with postmodern morality. For those of us who don't want to go down that rabbit hole, we must remember that, no ends can be justified by dishonest means. Finally, perhaps people are just too busy to think deeply anymore. Thinking deeply and clearly is required to expose the hypocrisy. I'm really worried that the world of social media, the world of 15 second videos and 280 character statuses, is making people superficial and dumb.

So what can we do about this? I think that, as people who are awake to this hypocrisy, and especially as trans people who are caught up by this hypocrisy, we have a unique opportunity to expose it, and hence to help restore the expectation of honesty and good faith. We just need to speak up. Be brave enough to speak the truth loud and clear. Speak the truth loud and clear until they hear us. There is no other way, really.

How Theory Harms Trans People and the LGBT Community | Trans Sandwiched #2

Welcome back to Trans Sandwiched by TaraElla, where we talk about how trans people are now sandwiched between political forces with their own agenda on all sides, and what it means for us. Today, I want to talk about how theory, specifically the various theories that can be largely grouped under the umbrella of postmodern critical theory, is harming trans people and the LGBT community, in more ways than one. I believe theory is the biggest obstacle we have in front of us right now, which is why we must discuss it.

Let's start here. In recent years, I have noticed a decline in the level of psychological wellbeing in the LGBT community. Despite things having objectively improved throughout the Western world for LGBT people in the past 20 years, I have never seen so much anger, frustration and pessimism among my fellow LGBT people. During the time I was in college, conservatives in most US states and several other countries like Australia actively moved to ban gay marriage, but even then LGBT people weren't so angry and frustrated. From my high school days to the present, gay marriage went from being legal in zero countries to being legal in most of the West; anti-discrimination laws have been gradually extended, you can no longer be fired for being LGBT, but LGBT people seem to be getting angrier all the time. And this doesn't make sense to me. Digging deeper, I came to the conclusion that postmodern theory was the culprit of this change.

Back in the 1950s, the psychologist Julian B. Rotter developed the idea that people could be placed on a spectrum of having an internal locus of control on one end, vs an external locus of control on the other end. People with an internal locus of control believed that they were in control of, and responsible for, the successes or failures in their lives, and Rotter observed that they had high achievement motivation. This, of course, is an essential ingredient for success in life, as well as a key factor in psychological health. On the other hand, postmodern critical theories teach women and various minorities, including ethnic minorities and LGBT people alike, that our fate is being determined by an oppressive system that won't let us succeed, and this doesn't really change even with the various aforementioned legal reforms, which I think is nonsense, but it's what they would have us believe. Postmodern criticalism is effectively encouraging us to develop an external locus of control, which is both bad for our mental health and make us less successful in our own lives. I therefore like to argue that these theories are actually more effective at oppressing minorities and keeping us down, than whatever the most bigoted reactionaries out there can dream of.

Similarly, another 20th century psychologist Abraham Maslow, most famous for his 'Maslow's hierarchy of needs', observed that self-actualizing individuals, people who were able to reach the highest level on his pyramid model of development, shared several important characteristics. Among them was being grounded in reality and being committed to the truth, things that are actively discouraged by postmodernism. Self-actualizing people were also spontaneous, creative, and not rigidly bound by social conventions, the opposite of what postmodern criticalism would impose on us in the form of making everything problematic, telling us to 'check our privilege' all the time, and forcing a whole new and unnatural way of speaking and relating onto all of us because they believe that language shapes reality. In other words, postmodern criticalism actively prevents us from reaching our full development according to the Maslow's hierarchy of needs, which means that it is literally regressive!

Besides acting to harm our psychological health, theory also exerts a negative effect on the conversation around trans issues in the wider world, leading to fewer successes and more backlash when it comes to trans rights. This also happens in multiple ways. Firstly, postmodern theory essentially teaches us that we don't have to work with reality. As if reality itself is simply a social construct that can be altered at will, simply by changing our language, or forcing other people to change their language. However, human beings are just like any other living being on this planet, and are completely subject to the basic rules of biology, especially evolutionary biology. Certain things, like our sense of gender both in ourselves and in the outside world, or whether one is attracted to another person or not, are hardwired into all of us, because it would be evolutionarily adaptive to do so. No language games can change that. This is why, when it comes to nature vs nurture, I come down strongly on the nature side, and I believe there is plenty of empirical evidence supporting my stance. Anyway, the important thing to know is, life is full of inherent limitations, and effective solutions need to take these limitations into account. We need to take empirical reality as it is, and compromise with reality's limitations to reach effective solutions. The trans community of 10 years ago understood this, but today's trans activists seem not to.

Secondly, the very presence of theory, much of it unscientific, has served to confuse the fundamentals of the conversation on trans issues. For example, there has been a fixation on the question of whether gender is a social construct, which is a core belief of the postmodern criticalist worldview. I personally strongly disagree with the idea of gender being a social construct, because I think the empirical science says otherwise. However, that is not the important point. The important point is that, we shouldn't be focusing on these pointless philosophical debates. We should be focusing on the reality of trans lives, and what could be done to make those lives better. We should be focusing on the actual difficulties faced by people who are suffering from gender dysphoria, rather than the philosophy of what gender is. Trans lives are real lives, not some hypothetical academic question. We want practical solutions that work, not philosophy or theory that only works on paper.