Are TRUSCUM Evil? | Re ContraPoints "Transtrenders" | BreadBusting #9

Welcome to BreadBusting, where we attempt to examine the problematic ideas that come out of BreadTube, and the ideology of Breadism more generally. Basically, it's like Myth Busting, but for Breadism. Please note that, while I do have my personal political beliefs, all this is done in the name of intellectual discussion and seeing things from different perspectives. This is the second part of my response to the latest ContraPoints video, titled Transtrenders. Last time we looked at the conflict between assimilationist vs anti-assimilationist LGBT people; and this time we will take a look at the transmedicalists vs anti-transmedicalists conflict.

But then... Truscum Trouble?

Technically, 'transmedicalist' refers to trans people who believe that being trans has a firm basis in the medical condition called 'gender dysphoria'. 'Truscum' originally meant a transmed who acts exclusionary towards trans people who don't agree with them, but nowadays many people just use the term as a smear for transmeds in general. Based on the way Tiffany treated Baltimore in the video, Tiffany would fit both definitions of a 'truscum'. But then, as I explained last time, putting down people who disagree with your worldview is an attitude problem, not a belief problem, and since I have already dealt with Tiffany's attitude problem last time, I won't explore that again. Instead, I'm going to focus on the difference in belief between Tiffany and Justine, and that difference is the acceptance vs the rejection of the transmed idea. In the rest of this video, I will see if this incompatibility is the make or break for this potential couple.

Are TRUSCUM Evil? Let's Look Deeper.

So, the main conflict we are presented with is that, Tiffany, like all transmeds, believe that being trans is a medical condition, and Justine, like all anti-transmeds, is opposed to this idea. Well, then, people have different ideas about various things, and they disagree all the time. So what? But then, this is actually personal for both Tiffany and Justine, because they are both trans. Therefore, Tiffany's theory about trans would apply to Justine too, and Justine's theory about trans would apply to Tiffany too. This is why the argument between transmeds and anti-transmeds have gotten so toxic, and people on both sides have taken it so personally. But then, to be fair, if people like Justine hate being described by Tiffany's transmed theory, people like Tiffany hate being described by Justine's theory just as much. And what was Justine's theory? It's that gender is performative, a theory originally described by Judith Butler in her book Gender Trouble back in 1990. And from what I know, this view of gender is hated by the vast majority of trans people across the political spectrum. I am certainly very opposed to it myself, as I have described in my previous video, 'Are Transwomen Women'. So then, both Tiffany and Justine are promoting a theory of trans-ness that some other trans people hate. They need to recognize that, they have at least this in common.

If theories about being trans are dividing us, why can't we just not have them? Why do we need those theories anyway? As Justine said, there's no theory about being gay. But then, being trans affects one's identity and interaction with other people much more extensively than being gay does. It requires family and friends to get used to some serious changes when they interact with you, every single time. It can't just be put aside for a while, it is always there. Hence, most trans people feel the need to explain their circumstances to many people in their lives. And this is where theories about being trans come in. Tiffany believes that the transmed story is the one that represents her. Justine believes that the Butlerist performativity theory story is the one that represents her. It's like two people who have different religions, or two people who support different football teams. And within each camp, we can have further divisions. For example, I am a transmed too. But then, I don't share all of Tiffany's views, nor do most transmeds I know. For example, most of us have certainly evolved to be accepting of non-binary people. I don't like the label 'transsexual' and I prefer to reclaim HBS instead. I would classify gender dysphoria as an endocrine condition rather than a mental disorder. I also think the idea that seeking medical transition being what makes trans people valid is fundamentally wrong, because medical diagnosis should always be separate from what treatment choices the patient makes. Nevertheless, the thing we all agree on, as transmeds, is that being trans can be traced to a medical cause of some sort, and is not explainable by sociological theory.

And trans theories are very personal for many of us. In the video, Tiffany seems to say that she favors the transmed theory because it can be more readily accepted by others, but I don't think this is the reasoning for most transmeds, but rather, just Natalie's idea of how we think. For most of us, it isn't about which theory gets acceptance at all. For me, the transmed narrative accurately represents my story, and I feel that other narratives such the Butlerist performativity theory or the gender as a social construct idea don't speak to me at all. For me, only the transmed narrative adequately explains my onset of gender dysphoria the very first time I learned that the world was divided into genders, my feelings of missing out on things throughout childhood, my experience of awkwardness with puberty and so on, and any sociology-based narrative wouldn't represent my history adequately. Sociology theories also can't explain physical dysphoria. For me, I feel as though the sociology based narratives invalidate a large part of my past 30 years. It feels like some so-called expert in an ivory tower, often a radical feminist theorist, tries to fit my existence around her own view of what the world should be, and not caring that it invalidates me as a person in the process.

The LGBT Assimilation Question | Re ContraPoints "Transtrenders" | BreadBusting #8

Welcome to BreadBusting, where we attempt to examine the problematic ideas that come out of BreadTube, and the ideology of Breadism more generally. Basically, it's like Myth Busting, but for Breadism. Please note that, while I do have my personal political beliefs, all this is done in the name of intellectual discussion and seeing things from different perspectives. Today, I want to respond to the latest ContraPoints video, titled Transtrenders. This will be the first part of a three part response, looking at the conflict between assimilationist vs anti-assimilationist LGBT people; transmedicalists vs anti-transmedicalists; and the left-wing stereotyping of centrists respectively. I will try to balance out my discussion so that left-wing theory, classical liberal values and more conservative concerns are all examined.

Today, I will focus on assimilationist vs anti-assimilationist LGBT people. In the video, the character Tiffany Tumbles represents a stereotypical assimilationist, and the character Baltimore Maryland represents a stereotypical anti-assimilationist. One important thing to note is that, while Tiffany was also transmedicalist and Baltimore was also anti-transmedicalist, I think this should be treated as a separate issue, and I will examine this in part two. One thing I didn't like about the video is that it contained all jumbled up stereotypes, for example I'm still unsure whether Jackie Jackson is supposed to be a classical liberal or a centrist, but she actually sounds more like a conservative to me. But let's leave that for part three. Anyway, Tiffany Tumbles wishes to be accepted in mainstream circles, and is therefore inclined to present herself according to conventional expectations of what a woman should look like. On the other hand, Baltimore is happy not to fit into traditional expectations. Tiffany wanted to make the point that she and Baltimore are very different and have very different life circumstances, which is actually true. But then, Tiffany kind of insulted Baltimore when making her point, painting them as a 'transtrender' who is a fashion disaster. Baltimore probably got offended, and like many leftists, responded with indirect insults at what they saw as right-wing judgemental attitudes, the way gay activists have long responded to religious right commentary. As you can see, it's all very stereotypical. Tiffany Tumbles didn't actually sound like your average assimilationist, but rather the left-wing stereotype of one.

But let's look past the stereotyping for now, and let's look deeper as to what is really going on. Tiffany is worried that the existence of people like Baltimore is going to make it difficult for her to explain her circumstances to her social circle, to get them to understand and accept her. From Tiffany's point of view, acceptance from her social circle, which probably leans conservative, is very important to her, and if she doesn't make a case for acceptance that will resonate with conservatives, she has a lot to lose. This is very real indeed for Tiffany. Of course, the case for conservative acceptance will inevitably rest on accepting the conservative social contract, and promising to not upset the conventional order. Baltimore probably can't understand it, because they probably don't interact much with conservatives. In other words, Tiffany has a lot to lose from immediate conservative rejection, but Baltimore probably doesn't. The stakes are different on both sides here.

On the other hand, Baltimore feels as if Tiffany is making her own case for acceptance at the expense of them. And it certainly comes across this way in the video. I mean, Tiffany came across as quite rude in the video, unlike most assimilationists I know, and I certainly don't agree with the way she treated Baltimore. I suspect this portrayal may reflect Natalie's own view of assimilationist LGBT people from her own radical-leaning point of view. But then, as I said earlier, there is indeed a practical need for assimilationist LGBT people to separate themselves from the anti-assimilationist. One group has agreed to live within the conventional social contract and the other is actively tearing it apart, so for the narratives of either to work, they must both deny being similar to the other. There's nothing wrong or condescending about that in priniple. However, I do believe, as a general principle, that people should make their point without putting down other people. For example, as an assimilationist, I would point out that people like Baltimore are in fact very different from people like myself when it comes to our narrative, our life circumstances, our expectations of society, and our desires, but as someone who actually follows real classical liberal values as they were defined by people like John Stuart Mill, as someone who actually celebrates individual freedom, I can have nothing against Baltimore being 'different'. I will try my best to use their pronouns out of respect, and I'm certainly not going to be judgemental about the way they live their life. I also think the assimilationist community has been moving in this direction for some time now. Crude rhetoric like that of Tiffany Tumbles used to be very common 15 years ago, but it's certainly less common now.

I also think respect is a two-way street, and radical anti-assimilationists should look at if they have treated assimilationists with adequate respect. For example, I have to say that Natalie seems not to have enough respect for assimilationists at this point, seeing how Tiffany is portrayed as a crude stereotype rather than a character with real nuance and real needs in life. While assimilationists and non-assimilationists can be friends and allies, anti-assimilationists need to respect that assimilationists have an inherent need to explain their differences clearly. For example, during a recent LGBT politics debate, a conservative assimilationist trans person tried to make the point that she doesn't have much in common with politically radical non-binary people, only for her point to be rebuked. I mean, if someone says their life experiences are inherently different from yours, then you need to respect it. It's just like if an African American person told me I wouldn't know how it's like to grow up black in America, then I have to just accept it. Challenging that would be rude indeed!

While in the ContraPoints universe it is Baltimore who suffered at the hands of Tiffany, in the real world it is often the other way around. For example, I often get the feeling that anti-assimilationists somehow think they're superior to us, and won't ever see us as equals. This bias is probably based in leftist critical theory, which justifies the belief that the non-assimilationists are de-constructing the gender binary and therefore bringing about real liberation, whereas the assimilationists are almost like class traitors who are happy to be slaves living in the master's house. Again, I doubt we can ever get along well if that's what you think about me. As I said, assimilationists have real, material reasons to be assimilationist, and we choose this out of our own agency. Furthermore, many assimilationists have said that they regularly see this condescending attitude on display from radical anti-assimilationists, including when they speak to the media, pretending to speak for all LGBT but ignoring the assimilationist faction completely, or even making a comment about how sad it is that we even exist. It appears that they are all too willing to let their political radicalism stand in the way of mutual respect and allyship. As a Moral Libertarian, I believe the most important thing is for everyone to have equal and maximum moral agency, and that means I respect you being you, and I equally expect you to respect me being me. All healthy relationships have to have this equal respect built into them. Let's use another example. Interfaith cooperation among religions only work on the basis that they can put aside their differences and respect each other. Catholics and Hindus can and do work together, but only on the basis that Catholics don't force Hindus to agree with the Christian Bible, and vice versa. Similarly, radicals and assimilationists can work together, but only on the basis that you stop telling us to read Judith Butler or bell hooks.

That's all for today. I'll be back next time to discuss another big idea. Subscribe if you want to follow our story. The transcripts are available on my website. And remember to resist the hive mind and stay individualistic. The world depends on it.

Happy Pride Month!

The BreadPill Trap: How ContraPoints and BreadTube are Changing the LGBT Community | BreadBusting

Welcome to the first ever episode of BreadBusting, where we attempt to examine the problematic ideas that come out of BreadTube, what I call Breadism. Basically, it's like Myth Busting, but for Breadism. TransTella Mag has become BreadBusting, because the world around us is changing. When this project started last year, my intention was to provide an alternative LGBT voice to counter the growing dominance of radical discourse. In the past few years I had been increasingly concerned about the change in the LGBT community. Gone are the days when practical and realistic goals like gay marriage were the focus. Instead, I think the community has turned to escapism, with the help of postmodernism, itself born of historical escapism of a different kind.

And then, there is the rise of the Lobster Queen herself, ContraPoints, aka Natalie Wynn. Don't get me wrong, I love watching her content, it's quite entertaining. But like all infotainment, ContraPoints, and the rest of BreadTube, are here to spread ideas, and somewhere in all the fun and games, there are certain ideas that I just can't agree with. I first became concerned when Natalie's views on gender and trans issues began to become mainstreamed in certain sections of the LGBT community, at the expense of our more traditional, and more realistic, narrative. You can watch my other videos to see where we disagree. Basically, I can't accept the idea that gender is a social construct, or that it is performative. Even Judith Butler herself has said that she didn't understand trans issues well when she wrote Gender Trouble. But on a deeper level, it is the supplantation of one worldview by another altogether. Let's get directly to the point. I am concerned that the ideas of BreadTube, which Jordan Peterson seems to have a controversial name for, but I will just call Breadism, will lead us to a place where we believe that everything is socially constructed, and that we are the victim of such social construction. Somehow, we don't have much individual agency anymore. And, somehow, everything is also linked to capitalism too, which is so large and so powerful that we may as well be completely powerless. My first concern is, I don't think this worldview is either realistic or healthy, especially for LGBT people and other minorities who already stuggle to stay afloat, living in the here and now. My other concern is, adopting this worldview has led the LGBT community to abandon its successful strategy of gradual reform, which culminated in the legalization of gay marriage among other things, and instead regressing to the hopeless nihilism that characterized the gay community of the 1970s.

Let's put it this way. Breadism sometimes sounds like escapism, but with real world consequences. I mean, I watch a lot of political videos, which focus on real world news events. They talk about real world issues like health care and free speech. On the other hand, BreadTube is often more like Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings, or perhaps Game of Thrones. It likes to focus on a particular version of history, particular intellectual theories, and uses language that is only understood by people who are fans, essentially. It's very similar to a fandom, in other words.

My point is, BreadTube is, on some levels, escapism, and I think people are taking the Bread Pill to escape from a reality that they don't like. Which would explain the high proportion of LGBT people in BreadTube Land. But the thing is, BreadTube is a mind-altering drug, and people who take the Bread Pill too much will develop an altered sense of reality, which has real world consequences. And I have seen some of these real world consequences in the LGBT community recently. I won't sugercoat it. Ever since 2015 or so, there has been a great increase in victim mentality justified by critical theory, there has been a focus on fantasy-world theory and fantasy-world issues like Marxist gender theory rather than practical issues like helping other countries legalize gay marriage, and there has been an inability to debate people who disagree with us, which stems from a loss of faith in free speech. The LGBT community has been in a downward spiral, and frankly I'm sick and tired of it. That's why I started this channel to provide an alternative LGBT commentary. But then, I have come to realize that the recent developments are the result of the spread of Breadism, and if we want to reverse course, we need to confront Breadism itself. Furthermore, Breadism is also spreading in non-LGBT spaces, so it's not just an LGBT problem. Hence, from now on, I will critique Breadism broadly. I will show you why an ideology based on postmodernism is no less than Opium of the Mind, because it drains individual agency. I will show you how Breadism promises impossible utopia to its followers, in turn making them unnecessarily angry at the status quo. I will show you how Breadism, by developing and enforcing oppressor and oppressed binaries and hierarchies of privilege, essentially end up enforcing this privilege as a self-fulfilling prophecy. All this will be explored in the coming weeks and months.

My intention is to use this space to voice my disagreements with Breadism. Don't get me wrong, I like watching BreadTube, I am subcribed to most BreadTubers, but there are certain concerns I have. And, by the way, I will not use BreadTube style lighting and aesthetics, because I'm talking about something serious, and I don't want any distractions.

That's all for today. I hope you subscribe if you are interested. See you next time!

Why Pete Buttigieg could lead the LGBT Community back to Sanity

Democratic 2020 presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg is the first openly gay presidential candidate to have achieved a high profile, and he has been warmly embraced by many people in the LGBT community. Of course, Mayor Pete's support isn't limited to the LGBT community, but there has been particular interest about his run in the LGBT community.

So why do I think that Mayor Pete is a good role model? Because he's reasonable, and he deals in good faith with all sides. His recent comments about Chick-Fil-A demonstrate this. While he doesn't agree with the politics of Chick-Fil-A, he also thinks that all the talk about boycotting Chick-Fil-A is perhaps a little too much virtue signalling and a litte too 'santimonious'. Instead, he has suggested that perhaps a bridge should be built here.

In recent years, we have seen a decline in rationality and civility in some parts of the LGBT community, which saddens me a lot. It looks like the activists who are supposed to represent us have decided to just abandon the successful methods of recent years, and go back to using the methods of the 1960s and 70s, which alienated so many people that we had to wait until 2003 for being gay to be legal across the Western world. The 1960s and 70s were a mistake, and it caused the prolonging of homophobia for three more decades, with even relatively young people today still suffering the consequences. On the other hand, if you look at how the marriage equality movement was able to win over hearts and minds everywhere in such a short time, you can see that they didn't do so by being angry and militant. Quite the opposite. So, in my view, the LGBT community needs to make a choice, to embrace the methods that got us marriage equality, or to needlessly re-learn the lessons of the 20th century.

This is where the emergence of Pete Buttigieg as a major figure in the LGBT landscape could be important. In my opinion, the recent activist tilt back to radicalism is driven more by a change in the balance of power between the factions than anything else, but some young LGBT people feel like they have no choice but to go whichever way the activists go. With the emergence of Pete Buttigieg, we have a clearer choice between the two paths. Mayor Pete's meteoric rise in popualarity shows that the path that brought us to marriage equality is still a very viable option in this day and age, and we can collectively decide to travel down this path if we want to. I don't know how far Mayor Pete's campaign will go, but just by being a candidate with a high profile, it is possible that he may change the course of the LGBT community going forward. And for that, future generations may have to thank him.

Gender and Language 2

Welcome to the third part of my response to the recent ContraPoints video titled Gender Critical, in which she addressed some of Gender Critical Feminism's talking points about the trans community. In my original response, I criticized Natalie for arguing her points in the ground that gender is a social construct, something that I have always vehemently disagreed with, because I think it erases the lived reality of trans people.

"But some trans people agree that gender is a social construct too. Basically, it is a foundational idea of radical feminism. Besides, people who believe that gender is a social construct are not always transphobic. Believing that gender is a social construct is not the same as being a TERF."

Yes, I get that. I guess our difference has come from the historically different ways the trans community and the feminist community have defined gender. For the trans community, up until very recently, gender has meant something like brain sex, and this is the view of gender I sought to explain in my video for gender dysphoria. It is under this definition that I began the exploration of my gender issues two decades ago. It is this definition of gender that I used when coming out to people. On the other hand, for the feminist community, gender means something like the gender norms and expectations of society, hence their wish to 'abolish gender'. This is just another example of a word being defined very differently in two different communities.

Therefore, I can accept that gender is a social construct, if it is agreed to be defined as social norms and expectations. I also have nothing against moves to critique and abolish unfair gender norms and expectations. However, this would be very different from the way gender is traditionally used among trans people, and we at least need to agree that there are two different things we're talking about here. Perhaps it's like ministers of religion vs ministers of government departments. To use the feminist definition of gender to talk about gender dysphoria makes no sense, like to use church law to talk about political ministers makes no sense.

"But if we accept that gender is a social construct, it means we can work to abolish it. Some feminists believe that if we abolish gender, then gender dysphoria won't exist anymore, because trans people would be able to express whatever gender they like."

I think Natalie actually addressed the 'abolish gender' idea, saying that because gender cannot be abolished anytime soon, feminists won't be able to help trans people anytime soon with this. But I would go further. Even if we abolish all gender norms and expectations, gender dysphoria would still exist, because the 'gender' in gender dysphoria is not the feminist type of gender. From my experience, gender dysphoria is basically dysphoria about the body, how it is seen both subjectively and objectively, plus dysphoria about the gender role taken in romantic relationships, and as you can imagine, these things are all closely related to each other. I cannot see how the abolition of gender norms and expectations can solve the problem of dysphoria.

"I have heard that some trans people have decided to reclaim the word transsexual for themselves, as that would end the confusion. Besides, bodily dysphoria can be more accurately termed sex dysphoria, right? So what do you think about that?"

I personally don't support this. Yes, it would end the linguistic confusion, but then the word transsexual has never been an accurate one, because human beings cannot physically change their sex. To identify as a 'transsexual' is basically to identify as something that is beyond the possibilities of reality, and therefore is like identifying as a 'unicorn' when unicorns don't even exist. It opens us to attacks that we are living in fantasy land. Therefore, I guess we are just stuck with being 'transgender people', and we are also stuck with the language of gender. As a result, I think we will just have to continue to uphold the 'brain sex' definition of gender, at least as one of the ways the word is used, and to prevent its confusion with the feminist definition of gender.

Gender and Language

To clarify the point of this episode: I personally strongly believe that trans women are women, but I do recognize that not everyone actually agrees with me right now. And I also recognize that, even though this is the case, it doesn't mean we can't have constructive discussions about how society can better accomodate trans people.

 

Welcome to the second part of my response to the recent ContraPoints video titled Gender Critical, in which she addressed some of Gender Critical Feminism's talking points about the trans community. I guess one important point that Natalie did sort of touch on, but in my opinion did not address quite convincingly, was the question of 'are transwomen women'. Natalie said that she sees herself as currently a woman but used to be a man, and if I understand it correctly, this is based on a performative view of gender, one that is rooted in the kind of gender analysis found in the works of Judith Butler. But in fact, the vast majority of people in this world would find this view of gender absurd or even offensive. On one side of the debate are the vast majority of trans people, who clearly don't share Natalie's point of view.

"I have always been a woman. I have never been a man, I have never identified as such, even if I was forced by others to present as such. To suggest that trans women used to be men is offensive! I am so disappointed! Natalie doesn't speak for us."

We also have, on the other end of the spectrum, the Gender Critical Feminists themselves, who believe that trans women are men, and will always be men. And then, you can also say that, both the GCF view and the most common trans view are at least consistent, because human beings cannot change their sex, and let's face it, gender is strongly related to sex. You are either always a male, or you are always a female or else these terms become confusing and dysfunctional. Let me give you an example. If gender is only performative, then a drag queen would be a woman when he is in drag, only to become a man again when his performance is over! Defining gender this way would only cause chaos for society. This renders, in my humble opinion, Natalie's view of gender basically invalid.

But between the two views I consider logical, namely, that of the trans woman saying that she was always a woman, and that of the GCF saying that trans woman are men, which one is the more valid one? From my point of view, it is basically a matter of semantics, a matter of language. Objective reality is absolute, but how people use language is not. The objective reality is that trans women are not the same as biological women, nor are they the same as what we typically consider a 'man', but how language reflect this reality is another matter. According to opinion polls, there are a substantial number of people who would say that trans people are their birth gender, and there are also a lesser but still substantial number of people who would say that trans people are the gender they identify as. Furthermore, both sides are very strong in their conviction, and neither is going to back down anytime soon. Like all semantic debates, short of limiting the free speech of one side, there is no end in sight to the debate. Furthermore, it is not uncommon for different communities to have different definitions for the same word. For example, a 'biscuit' is a completely different thing in Alabama vs in England. Therefore, as a Moral Libertarian who strongly supports free speech, all I have to say on this matter is people are free to use their words in whatever way they like, and I have no problems with it either way.

One reason I am not interested in semantic debates is because it needlessly divides people, and takes us further away from the discussions we need to have to accomodate the needs of people on every side of the matter. It is a fact that trans women are different from genetic women, but it is also a fact that people with gender dysphoria deserve reasonable accomodation in a society that otherwise values compassion and equal opportunity for all. While the activists' recent debates have focused on issues that put trans rights in conflict with other parties' concerns, I think there is a rational middle ground to resolve all those concerns, as I have discussed in a previous video. The key to having constructive discussions is to put our linguistic differences aside, and focus on the reality. After all, even if you believe 'trans women are women', you can still acknowledge that many straight men and lesbians aren't going to be attracted to trans women. And even if you believe 'trans women are men', it is still cruel and unreasonable to let them face social punishment and discrimination for not behaving like men. While language may divide us, the underlying reality is basically the same, and it is on the common reality that we need to find common ground and mutually acceptable solutions.

That's all for this installment. I will have even more to say on the Gender Critical video, as well as other ContraPoints trans stuff, later on.