Queer Theory is What Has Come Between LGBT and Free Speech | Trans Sandwiched #20

When objective reality ceases to be our common ground, there is no point in debate anymore.

Welcome back to Trans Sandwiched by TaraElla. Today, I want to explore how queer theory has essentially come between the LGBT community, particularly the trans community, and free speech.

I have often said that free speech and trans acceptance are always friends. After all, free speech increases understanding, which increases acceptance. Free speech has always been the friend of those who want to advance understanding and acceptance of minorities, and those who want social progress more generally. However, in recent years, some LGBT activists seem to not recognize this anymore. Incidents of LGBT activists attempting to 'deplatform' views they don't agree with seem to be increasingly common. Some veterans of the LGBT community have observed that there seems to be an increased emphasis on 'safety' at the expense of free expression in LGBT community lately, which goes against decades of LGBT history emphasizing the importance of being free to express who we are. What many of us can agree on is that, there is a very real shift happening here, and it's not a good one. So what is happening?

Let's start here. For those of us who believe in free speech, why do we believe in it? Basically, it all boils down to a belief that free speech, free discussion and debate leads us to the objective truth. This kind of thinking is indeed a core theme in the cannon of liberalism. The one thing most, if not all, branches of liberalism have in common is the belief that the discovery of the objective truth is better served by empiricism of some kind, rather than blind faith in revelations passed down through generations. In this view, one must be free to experiment, to trial and error, including through speech as well as action, to get closer to the objective truth. The value of allowing people to make errors, and to tolerate, and even embrace, emotionally upsetting and at times exhausting debate, lies in the hope that the exchange of ideas will ultimately lead to a better resolution of our differences. This hope works because there is only one objective reality, and even through our strong disagreements, we are still working towards understanding the same objective reality, usually in the hope of advancing some common good.

As a Moral Libertarian, my liberalism is geared towards the improvement of the morality of society over time, and I believe that free speech, as part of providing maximum moral agency to every individual to pursue what they believe is morally correct, and observing the results at the end, should be the method to get there. Other branches of liberalism might have different reasons for embracing the way of free speech, trial and error, and empiricism, including utilitarianism for John Stuart Mill and justice for the disadvantaged in the case of John Rawls, for example. In other words, we may ultimately value free speech for various reasons. However, it is implied that there must be an objective truth, an objective common ground that we share, and hence an ability to determine what is objectively good at the end of the process, for this logic to work. Those who don't believe in sharing a reality in the objective truth have much less reason to value free speech, logically speaking.

Queer theory insists that the existence of stable, meaningful notions of 'male' and 'female' is inherently oppressive to LGBT people, and LGBT identity should be defined by resisting this. This model positions LGBT lives, particularly trans lives, as the battering ram against long-standing mainstream understandings of 'male' and 'female', rather than as participants in a fair marketplace of ideas seeking to better our understanding of the objective truth. (In fact, the postmodern dogma behind queer theory would not entertain any notion of being committed to the objective truth anyway.) Queer theory makes it seem like the basic cultural structure of mainstream society is inherently oppressive to LGBT people, particularly trans people. Hence, there is no common ground to be found, and no point to debate. This logically leads to a narrative that prioritizes the need to protect LGBT 'safety' from the oppressive mainstream, over the importance of promoting understanding through free speech.

But what queer theory implies isn't true. There is no inherent opposition between being trans and stable, meaningful notions of 'male' and 'female', as long as the categories are not rigidly defined. And there is indeed plenty of common ground between trans people and mainstream society. It can be found in the commitment to objective reality, through commitment to good science and empiricism. Contrary to the ramblings of gender critical feminists and other anti-trans activists, the validity of gender dysphoria is well established, using the long-standing standards of clinical medicine. We might not know exactly what causes gender dysphoria yet, but its existence has been established repeatedly in different populations at different times. Furthermore, gender transition has been shown again and again to be effective overall in relieving gender dysphoria, and is the only solution that has been shown to be effective in relieving most cases of gender dysphoria. All this proves that trans people are not merely making a lifestyle choice, or worse, taking a political stance, in identifying as trans and undergoing gender transition. This is an argument we need to be making much more going forward. And as an argument rooted in facts and reality, it can withstand vigorous challenge in the marketplace of ideas. Given that the validity of trans lives is well established in facts and reality, there really is no reason to shy away from promoting understanding through free speech.

Hence, for the sake of advancing trans understanding and acceptance, we need to move away from the queer theory philosophy, and return to a place where we can find common ground with mainstream society, so productive speech is possible. We can do so by focusing on the facts and the actual reality behind trans lives. We have a robust case to make for our acceptance, and we need to do it before the gender critical feminists and other anti-trans activists combine with queer theory activists to bury it for good. It is our responsibility to speak up before it's too late.

End the Trans Wars: Compassion Builds Bridges | Trans Sandwiched #19

Today, I want to continue to reflect on my own experience of living for more than a decade as a trans person in society. This time, I want to talk about the need to build bridges between trans people and the rest of society, and the important role of compassion in this process.

One thing I often say is that, in culture and politics, we must always avoid tribalism. In recent years, I have become concerned that the discourse around trans issues has become similar to the wider political environment, with increasing tribalism, black-and-white thinking, and echo chambers. The main reason why I have started speaking up about trans issues again after not talking about them for a decade is because I want to counter this trend. I want to build bridges between the trans community and different parts of the wider society, to increase mutual understanding, so that our views of each other aren't dominated by stereotypes and biased perceptions. I believe this is the key to building trans acceptance, because it is what I have found in my own life experience. Most people don't have a problem with trans people, but they might not understand us very well. This can lead to difficulties when we ask for accommodations to be made. But the thing to remember is that, most people aren't actually against us. Rather, it's a problem of understanding.

When I say I want to break the echo chambers and build bridges, I mean that I want to do so on both sides of the divide, i.e. the trans community as well as society at large. In recent years, trans representation in mainstream media has improved, and most people out there probably have at least a rudimentary understanding of trans people. This stands in contrast to when I first came out in 2006, where the first reaction from people sometimes ranged from an awkward curiosity to not knowing how to respond at all. However, the kind of trans representation out there is often stereotypical in one way or another, and does not reflect the diversity of trans people out there. This must change, and I am hopefully helping to change it. On the other hand, the trans community increasingly has its own echo chamber, and it too must be challenged. For example, it is common for trans activists to paint an overly negative picture of various people or groups out there who might not always understand or support us, and this overly negative attitude often goes unchallenged in the trans echo chamber. The problem with this is, if you start out by deciding that some people are the enemy and their attitude is not changeable, it creates a self-fulfilling prophecy, and the trans community will never gain any more allies than we currently have.

Bridge building is not always an easy exercise, especially when there are already a load of stereotypes, emotions and historical grievances built up on both sides. I believe the key ingredient for successful bridge building is compassion. The ability to see the other side as human, and the ability to stand in their shoes. This, of course, must go both ways. To increase compassion, we must challenge the stereotypes and tribalist attitudes that stand in the way of recognizing each other as human. This, again, is a core part of my mission, in the work I am doing.

Trans people often have difficult lives, and bear the psychological scars of struggles related to both innate gender dysphoria and social discrimination. In particular, many trans people feel like they are constantly worried about potentially losing civil rights, and recent events in several places have shown that this fear is not unfounded either. I hope that wider society can see the trans community's tendency to overreact to certain things in light of this context, and be more forgiving and less judgemental.

On the other hand, many people out there still have a lot of gaps in terms of understanding trans lives, our experiences and our needs. Making demands of others and expecting that they be accepted by everyone almost overnight is unrealistic. We need to understand where other people are coming from, and allow them the time to go through the process of understanding on their own terms.

The Many Ways Queer Theory Hinders Trans Acceptance | Trans Sandwiched #18

How queer theory basically puts LGBT people on another planet.

Welcome back to Trans Sandwiched by TaraElla. Today, I want to go deeper into the ways queer theory actually hinders mainstream society's understanding and acceptance of trans people. As I previously described, queer theory is anti-essentialist in a fundamentalist way, and insists that all categories of gender and sexuality are entirely socially constructed. As such, its mission is to challenge, and actively 'deconstruct' in a postmodern sense, all stable meanings of terms like 'male' and 'female'. While some may say that queer theory is about questioning established norms around gender and sexuality, it actually goes much further than that. The problem with queer theory is not with rejecting rigid binaries and categories. The problem is that is takes its anti-essentialism way too far, to the point that it simply can't accept any essential core meaning in terms like 'male' and 'female'. This means that, ultimately, no shared meanings are possible, which severely hampers meaningful conversation and understanding.

Queer theory's refusal to accept at least some level of essential meaning for 'male' and 'female' hampers both trans people's formation of a stable identity in themselves, as well as our communication with broader society. Many trans people, like myself, understand our identities as not feeling comfortable living as 'male' and more comfortable living as 'female', and vice versa. For me, I formed this view from a very young age, and it has been a stable part of my reality. Even non-binary people often form their identities in relation to not fitting with 'male' and 'female' as pre-existing concepts. If 'male' and 'female' were empty categories that meant nothing at the core, statements like these wouldn't even make sense! By rejecting all essential meaning for 'male' and 'female', queer theory invalidates the stable self identity of trans people. Instead, it reduces trans identities, and indeed all LGBT identities, to opposition to stable meanings of 'male' and 'female'. Not only is this not our authentic sense of self, and not how most of us arrive at our own understanding of what being trans is, it also has important harmful consequences for trans understanding and acceptance in wider society.

Queer theory robs trans people of an important way to build understanding and find common ground with the mainstream. Fundamental understandings of 'male' and 'female' are part of the common shared meanings of society going back to before civilization. This understanding isn't always best reflected in rigid categories, but the basic archetypes of 'male' and 'female' are basically eternal. The old-school trans narratives that were rooted in our relationship to the widely understood archetypes of 'male' and 'female' thus provides a way to build a bridge between mainstream understandings and the trans experience of life. Even such oversimplied statements like 'a woman trapped in a man's body' were often useful to help people understand us. In a way, this is similar to how gay and lesbian people gained understanding and acceptance through the marriage equality campaign. Through striving for marriage, which has a widely understood meaning, gay couples were able to demonstrate their shared values and shared humanity with mainstream society, thus building a bridge between mainstream understandings and the gay experience of life. Queer theory activists are now trying to deny trans people the same opporunity to build bridges with the mainstream, because of their ideological commitment to anti-essentialism and deconstruction. This, in my opinion, is unfair and cruel!

Another particular concern is that, in reducing LGBT identities, particularly trans identities, to opposition to stable meanings of 'male' and 'female', it distracts from the actual experience of trans lives. Instead of discussing the challenges faced by trans people in our everyday lives, with a particular focus on the needs of people living with gender dysphoria, and how trans people can be accomodated, queer theory makes the trans discourse all about opposing stable meanings of 'male' and 'female'. Queer theory activists are essentially turning trans people into a chess piece for their radical objectives, and in the process displacing the meaning of trans identity from one based in lived reality to one based in ideology.

Queer theory activism has already had harmful effects in the real world. For example, the media discussion of trans people rarely focuses on gender dysphoria and the needs of trans people anymore. There is also not much talk about the validity of trans identity from a scientific or empirical point of view. Indeed, I think the way mainstream media portrays trans lives nowadays sometimes makes being trans look like a lifestyle choice. All this allows the pseudo-scientific talk of anti-trans activists, including gender critical feminists (sometimes known as TERFs), to sound 'more scientific' than us, and hence more credible to many observers.

This, in turn, has led to a false narrative of trans identity being able to be 'resolved' by reducing gender stereotypes, as if issues like physical dysphoria did not exist at all. This narrative is now suprisingly prevalent, especially in certain circles, like IDW fans, and 'anti-woke' socialists. I think this just shows how queer theory and gender critical feminism ultimately have the same aim, i.e. gender abolition, and they are just using trans people in a different way to achieve their aim. Different methods but same goal. One might even observe that queer theory and gender critical feminism are actually playing out a false dialectical narrative that ultimately moves towards the 'abolition of gender' and the necessary erasure of trans people and gender dysphoria in the process. If one takes this view, the dominance of queer theory on one side of the trans narrative, and gender critical feminism on the other side, is indeed a scary situation for trans people, and one that we must urgently seek to change.

We Don't Need to Erase Differences to Gain Acceptance | Trans Sandwiched #17

Why History Has Made Queer Theory-inspired LGBT Activism Obsolette

Welcome back to Trans Sandwiched by TaraElla. Today, I want to explore the likely historical motivations of queer theory-based activism, and why the experience of the past two decades has proven these motivations to be misguided.

Queer theory is a set of philosophical theories about gender and sexuality that is rooted in the idea that both gender (male and female) and categories of sexuality (e.g. straight, gay and bi) are entirely socially constructed. According to queer theory, the deconstruction of these categories is key to liberation of humanity, especially LGBT people. I have previously criticized this view, on the grounds that the total denial of stable identity categories ultimately denies LGBT people a clear and understandable identity. This makes us less able to effectively promote understanding and argue for acceptance in wider society. My concern is that queer theory-based LGBT activism essentially makes LGBT identities not understandable for mainstream society, which I strongly believe is bad for us.

I think that, to understand where queer theory-based LGBT activism is coming from, and why it is so ill-suited to the needs of LGBT people today, we need to understand its historical context. Queer theory was born in the 1980s-90s, and was highly influenced by postmodern thinkers (particularly Michel Foucault) who wrote their works even earlier. Thus, the historical context in which queer theory arose was one that was highly hostile to all things LGBT. You have to remember that, for example, homosexuality remained an offense in parts of America until 2003. Even outside America, things weren't much better, with parts of Europe and Australia banning homosexuality well into the 1990s. Until quite recently, LGBT acceptance was often a very difficult and hopeless campaign.

It was in this context that the queer theory idea of erasing the distinction between 'categories' of sexuality like straight and gay looked like the way forward for some. This was to be done by promoting a variety of philosophical theories and practices to 'deconstruct' gender. I think the logic is basically that, if there was no difference between male and female, it would logically follow that there was no difference between straight and gay, and any discriminatory laws and practices would become untenable. Of course, back in the homophobic 1990s, those interested in anything 'queer' were in the very small minority, and queer theory did not have any impact on wider society. Still, the idea lived on.

Meanwhile, the history of the past two decades has shown us that LGBT acceptance can come about, even without erasing differences that are scientifically established as well as objectively evident. Today, more than 60% of the population in most Western countries support gay marriage. The fundamental difference between male and female, and hence between straight and gay, is still widely acknowledged, yet this has not hindered the acceptance of gay and lesbian relationships at all. In other words, there was no need to erase our differences all along, they simply needed to be accepted. Promoting understanding, not erasing differences, is the key to LGBT acceptance.

In a way, queer theory-based activism has a similar difference-denying mentality to the 'stealth model' that was historically standard for trans people, and both were ultimately rooted in the same unaccepting social context. The difference was mainly that the 'stealth model' required only effort from the trans person, and some cooperation from government policies. Therefore, the 'stealth model' was at least sustainable until there was widespread awareness of trans people. On the other hand, the queer theory model would require a very fundamental change in the worldview and culture of the whole society. Moreover, the queer theory model would also require widespread challenge to established science to succeed. This, I believe, is the biggest fault in the queer theory model.

Anyway, the point is, the aforementioned models of LGBT identity only make sense if one believed that the unaccepting social context couldn't be fundamentally changed. And history has already proven this to be wrong. Therefore, I think it's time we moved on from a difference-denying mentality, towards a truly open and proud mentality.

Let's Build Bridges & End Tribalism | Diary of a Trans Popstar

Music: Listen To My Heart by TaraElla

Why Queer Theory is Bad For Trans People | Trans Sandwiched #16

Welcome back to Trans Sandwiched by TaraElla. Today, I want to talk about why I have come to the conclusion that queer theory is bad for LGBT people, particularly trans people. I will also talk about what we might do in response.

The fundamental reason why queer theory is bad for LGBT people is because it is ideological, i.e. it is rooted in certain philosophical commitments rather than empirical reality or the actual lived experience of LGBT people. Queer theory is heavily influenced by the philosophy of postmodern thinker Michel Foucault, which means that it is fundamentally committed to a postmodern, Foucauldian worldview. Included in this package are very problematic ideas like how knowledge and discourse is fundamentally about power and oppression. These ideas have fueled an LGBT culture that is overly focused on matters of language, style and identity labels, which I believe is ultimately unhealthy for us. As a trans person, I can say that my life experience of the world does not agree with the postmodern worldview. I simply don't see how language games will change anything. Instead, I believe an obsessive focus on language unnecessarily divides us, and is not helpful for building bridges.

Another reason why queer theory is harmful for trans people is because of its deconstructive nature, again due to its philosophical inheritance. Queer theory sees both gender (male and female) and sexuality (e.g. straight, gay and bi) as entirely socially constructed, and to be deconstructed. As such, queer theory resists having stable definitions and identities for everything. It's really postmodern deconstructionism on steroids. In fact, some queer theorists even resist having a definition for queer theory itself, arguing that putting a definition on queer theory is limiting. In the world of queer theory, all definitions and limits are to be resisted and knocked down. The problem with this approach is that it practically denies the ability of people to have a stable identity with a stable meaning at all. Right now, what trans people need most is for the rest of the world to understand us better. An ideology that basically says trans people are not understandable is certainly not what we need right now.

It is not just theoretical either. The deconstructive orientation of queer theory has produced real world confusion about why people identify as trans, leading to accusations that trans people are doing it for political reasons. This, I believe, is behind the so-called 'trans ideology' moral panic. From what I see, what conservatives call 'trans ideology' is basically a blend of legitimate trans issues and queer theory ideology which has been blended into the trans discourse. This blending has created multiple points of contradiction (e.g. how 'gender is entirely a social construct' but also 'gender identity is innate'), which has undermined the general public's pre-existing understanding of trans people as being 'born this way'. This situation has been seized upon by reactionary forces to argue against trans acceptance, on the basis that trans people are supposedly politically motivated to identify as trans. In this way, allowing legitimate trans issues to be bundled with queer theory, which is actually a political ideology, has caused us to suffer undeserved backlash. The trans community doesn't have an agenda to promote a postmodernist deconstructive ideology, and it is only fair that this be made clear.

The problem is that, queer theory is way too disproportionately influential in the trans discourse at the moment. This is because of its dominance in the academic humanities, particularly the parts that have historically taken an interest in LGBT issues. I believe what we need to do is to create a counter-narrative, which is basically what I'm doing now. I believe we need to speak out continuously, and get our narrative heard in the mainstream media, which has until now acted as if the queer theory influenced academics and activists actually speak for all of us. We need to speak out continuously until the bubble of academic queer theory is popped, and our counter-narrative can no longer be ignored. At that point, we will hopefully have a level playing field, on which we can engage in rational debate against the tenets of queer theory. It will be an interesting debate indeed.

Positivity | Diary of a Trans Popstar

Music: Beauty by TaraElla