Why Trans People Don't Want the Trans Wars | TaraElla Films

Background

You know, as a trans person, I’m truly sick and tired of the trans wars! Being trans should be a simple thing. Back when I came out, the mind-body mismatch narrative was common, and it got the point across. I know it’s a gross simplification, and there are more nuances on a scientific level, but still, it was easy to understand, and it got us the understanding we needed. It also fit right into the ‘born this way’ narrative that was a large part of the LGBT message at that time.

Nowadays, the talk around trans stuff is stupidly complicated, and counter-productive to letting others understand trans people. Let’s start with the whole debate around whether gender is a social construct. Just two or three years ago, I wouldn’t even have known what a ‘social construct’ was. It’s not like I majored in radical philosophy or anything like that. Anyway, there’s now a false view in some circles that trans people believe that gender is a social construct. Perhaps some activists actually believe that, but I don’t, and my friends don’t either. I mean, I didn’t choose to be trans, I was born this way. There’s nothing socially constructed about my gender. Seriously, not only do I not believe that gender is a social construct, because it contradicts everything I’ve learned in biology, I also don’t know why this question has been seen as relevant to trans issues at all!

On a related note, let’s move to the transmed wars. Those of us who believe that gender is rooted in biology are called transmedicalists, or transmeds, in trans circles nowadays. Apparently, the dividing question is ‘do you need dysphoria to be trans’, and we on the transmed side are supposed to believe that you do. But I think it’s a kind of pointless question to define ourselves around. The fact is, I don’t care if there are one or two outliers, but the vast majority of trans people transition because they have dysphoria. It’s just fact, it’s not even a debate! What I’m more concerned about is that trans issues continue to be examined through the lens of science and medicine, to ensure that we get the best medical care. What I’m worried about is a move by some to turn being trans into a philosophy thing, which it is clearly not. I mean, I knew I was trans when I was three years old, I certainly didn’t understand any philosophy back then. This, for me, is the clearest proof that it is all biological, and not philosophical at all.

And then there’s the pronoun wars. Of course us trans people would love to be referred to by our preferred pronouns. It also makes social situations less awkward. I mean, it’s weird to see a trans woman, clearly presenting as a woman, being referred to as a ‘he’ all the time. However, pronouns are not one of the biggest issues in life, not even for trans people. Between jobs, relationships, life goals, doing interesting things, and of course seeking health care, pronouns really aren’t high up on the ‘things that matter’ list. That is, until some people decided to assign prime importance to it. This has led to the misperception that trans people are obsessed with pronouns. The truth is, we’re not. Or at least I’m not, I can’t pretend to speak for every trans person in the world. But many of us are just content with living normal lives, and wouldn’t feel comfortable making a big fuss about our preferred pronouns anyway. Many of us just want people to treat us like normal, and we don’t want people to feel like they are stepping on seashells when they are talking with us. And there’s also the related issue of free speech. Ever since pronouns somehow became a big thing, there’s this idea that trans people want to compel people to use their preferred pronouns, and people are now accusing us of supporting ‘compelled speech’. Let me say this loud and clear: I have no intention to compel anyone’s speech. I’m a big supporter of free speech, and I will always be. The pronoun wars are not my wars, never have been, never will be.

I guess what I’m most concerned about is, everything around being trans is now highly politicized, and that people are using us as a political football. Suddenly, we aren’t seen as human beings with needs to be accommodated anymore. People are using us for political point-scoring, without even trying to understand us. Everyone, from the religious right who are still upset that they lost the gay marriage wars, to the different factions of radical feminism that have been at war with each other for decades, to postmodernists with their radical social agenda, want to use a piece of the trans wars, to help advance their political goals. Meanwhile, the humanity of trans people is forgotten by all sides.

You know, it’s all a mess that I don’t want to be in. None of the trans people I know actually want to be in it. I bet that the silent majority of trans people hate this situation too. They’re probably too busy with other things in life to want to speak up publicly, so a loud minority is pretending to speak for all of us. I’m really frustrated with this, to be honest.

Is Gender a Social Construct

Looking back historically, the debate about whether gender is a social construct has never been a big part of the culture or dialogue of the trans community. After all, before the so-called ‘trans tipping point’ in 2014 or so, back when the outside world didn’t care much about trans people and trans issues, the trans community in general also didn’t care much about the larger questions of the outside world. The trans community I used to know was a small community of people who shared some needs, who came together to help each other out, focusing on those needs. To be honest, I actually really miss the way the trans community used to be. Pragmatic, less divisive, and certainly less politicized.

Anyway, back to the question of whether gender is a social construct. Trans people mostly didn’t care about the answer to this question, but one group of people certainly did: the subset of radical feminists who didn’t like trans people. I guess they would be what some would call ‘gender critical feminists’ and others would call ‘trans exclusionary radical feminists’, a.k.a. TERFs, nowadays, although these terms did not exist back then. Even back then, radical feminism provided the biggest non-religious justification for anti-trans attitudes, and it was all rooted in the idea that ‘gender is a social construct’.
Basically, the idea that gender is a social construct originated in second wave radical feminism. Its development was heavily popularized by the then-prevalent view that socially dominant cultural ideas were constructed to serve the interests of the powerful, or the oppressors in society. This view is in turn ultimately derived from Marxism, but that’s another long story. Anyway, the takeaway is that the origins of the idea that gender is a social construct has a lot to do with second wave radical feminism, and even something to do with Western Marxism, but it has absolutely nothing to do with trans people. Indeed, radical feminists who strongly believed that gender is a social construct tended to invalidate the experiences of trans people. Taking their beliefs to their logical conclusion, they believed that there is nothing to gender other than socialization, so people can’t really feel like the gender they weren’t socialized as growing up.

Meanwhile, trans people of course didn’t agree with this radical feminist position, because they knew that what they were feeling was real. Instead, most trans people believed that they were born with a brain more similar to that of the opposite sex, at least in some ways. This view, rooted in the work of doctors going back to the 1960s or even earlier, was generally supported by doctors who were sympathetic to trans people. Broadly speaking, anti-trans radical feminists had neo-Marxist theory and philosophy on their side, and trans people had evidence from clinical medicine, that gender dysphoria was real, and transition alleviates it, on their side. Looking back, the trans community of 15 or so years ago, while they didn’t consciously aim to do so, had actually provided a de-facto answer of ‘no’ to the question ‘is gender a social construct’.

Fast forward 15 years, and I’m still quite surprised that there are now trans people on both sides of this debate. I personally remain very strongly against the idea of gender being a social construct, firstly because I take the traditional view that this position totally invalidates the lived experiences and needs of trans people. Like gender critical feminists themselves, I believe that the lived experiences of trans people are simply irreconcilable with the idea of gender being a social construct. Unlike the TERFs, I believe that when their theory and my experience are in conflict, it would have to be their theory that is wrong, because actual experience trumps theory. My position is also informed by my scientific views, based on Darwinian evolutionary biology, which I have detailed in my previous work.

So right now, there are trans people on both sides of the social construction debate, just like in the general population. It’s like how there are Americans who are Republicans and there are Americans who are Democrats, and neither can claim to represent Americans as a whole. Stereotyping Americans as a whole as the typical Democrat or the typical Republican would be very inaccurate or unfair. Therefore, the stereotype that trans people believe that gender is a social construct certainly isn’t true. I myself am a living refutation of that. As to why there are people on both sides of the debate, I guess trans people are not that different from other people here. That is, I suspect it may be partially a political cultural thing, that is, what you believe on this question is often a matter of where your political and cultural influences come from.

But equally importantly, I think we should really separate the social construction debate from the discussion around trans issues. Most trans people actually want to resolve their gender dysphoria and get on with their lives, and don’t want to invite politicized discussions to complicated the matter. Besides, as we have examined, the debate over whether gender is a social construct doesn’t have much to do with the actual issues of trans people. This debate didn’t start with trans people, it really isn’t about trans people, and what I’m seeing is that it is being brought up by people who want to confuse the discussion about trans issues. It’s being brought into the debate by people who want to distract from the actual lives of trans people, to transfer the focus to this big, almost pointless, academic debate, either to advance their own agendas, or to make trans reforms sound too complicated. This is why I think we should demand that the debate as to whether gender is a social construct be kept completely separate from the discussion of how society can better accommodate trans people.

The Transmed Wars

One of the most confusing phenomenon in the contemporary trans world is the so-called transmed wars. On the surface, it looks like this: transmedicalists, transmeds for short, believe that you need the medical condition called ‘gender dysphoria’ to be trans. On the other hand, anti-transmeds, sometimes also called ‘tucutes’, believe that anyone who chooses to identify as a gender that is different from their birth gender is trans. Moreover, they believe that transmeds are exclusionary, because their criteria leads to the invalidation of some people’s claimed trans identity. Stemming from that, some anti-transmeds also believe in and perpetuate false stereotypes about transmeds, like how they are not accepting of non-binary people, or how they don’t accept trans people who don’t pass, which is clearly false information. Going even further, some anti-transmeds have sought to lump transmeds together with people who oppose trans rights, which is totally ridiculous.

As you see, the transmed wars are pretty confusing, and can be pretty toxic, especially in the way some anti-transmeds behave towards transmeds. On the surface at least, it seems to boil down to one single question: do you need gender dysphoria in order to be considered ‘trans’. Transmeds generally argue that you do, because that is the only way to prevent absolutely anyone from identifying as trans, which would distract from the needs of those suffering from gender dysphoria. But while this line of argument is valid, I think the transmed wars represent something deeper: it’s really the intra-trans community version of the argument over whether gender is a social construct. Put it simply: to believe that being trans is primarily defined by the medical condition of gender dysphoria is to effectively say that gender is rooted in biology. This position clearly refutes the idea that gender can be a social construct. On the other hand, if you believe that anyone can identify as whatever gender for whatever reason, that would strongly suggest that gender is infinitely malleable by human actions, which would logically have to mean that it is a social construct.

As we have previously established, the culture war over whether gender is a social construct is one that is being waged by particular factions of radical feminism, against the more traditional understanding prevalent in general society. The transmed wars thus represent the intrusion of this external culture war into the trans community. Moreover, it is very clear that the transmed wars are strongly linked to politics in the external world: almost every anti-transmed I know identifies with a branch of radical feminism that believes in gender being a social construct, which in turn also means being part of the postmodern critical theory far-left, because that’s where this branch of feminism came from. I have made another film about postmodern critical theory’s encroachment on liberalism, and I think all this strongly links into that too. But I’m not going to go into further detail here, because it’s outside the scope of this film. My point is simply that, the transmed wars are actually an appendage of a much bigger, much wider culture war being waged outside the trans community.

This creates a dilemma for someone in my position: I believe in science and biology, I don’t believe that gender is a social construct, and I believe that gender dysphoria has biological roots. Hence, I’m a transmed. Now, I don’t really care about the ‘whether you need dysphoria to be trans’ question. I mean, the vast majority of trans people say that they transitioned to relieve dysphoria, and I really don’t care what the remaining small minority believe, because it’s really not that important to me. But I’m a transmed simply because my views of gender are rooted in science rather than philosophy. Furthermore, I believe that if we go down the path where gender is artificially redefined as a social construct that is infinitely malleable, then anyone could just declare themselves to be trans, and trans people, as people with particular needs due to their gender dysphoria, are effectively erased. Forget about conservative administrations supposedly defining trans people out of existence; it is postmodernism that might really end up doing that! Given that one must always stand up for what one believes to be true, and what one believes to be most moral, I have to just keep stating the transmed viewpoint, so it can be heard loud and clear in the relevant debates, both inside and outside the trans community.

On the other hand, I have come to recognize that, in the transmed wars, all of us are effectively being used as pawns, as part of a wider culture war that won’t benefit trans people at all. Therefore, the other thing I believe we must do is to transcend the transmed wars altogether. While I will keep stating my transmed views, and I don’t expect the other side to agree with us anytime soon, we all need to recognize that this disagreement shouldn’t form the core of the trans community. Instead, I firmly believe that the trans community’s discourse should be focused on the experiences, needs and bread and butter issues of everyday trans people. It would be in these places that both sides of the transmed debate would be able to find much common ground, and hence transcend the toxicity introduced by the transmed wars.

The Pronoun Wars

The pronoun wars are actually another way the outside world culture wars have invaded the trans community. I mean, trans people have always wanted to be referred to by their preferred pronouns, but it was just one issue among many, and not the most important either. The prominence of the pronoun issue is indeed something new.

Trans people want others to refer to them by their preferred pronouns for several reasons. The chief one is probably acceptance and blending in: that is, they would feel like they are simply accepted as a member of their identified gender, and could live a life blending in as such. This is why, for many trans people, other people using their preferred pronouns makes them happy only if it is done on the same basis as for all other people. If people instead have to make deliberate efforts to use the pronoun, that would defeat the purpose of the exercise, and could even make things worse. Last year, a prominent trans icon raised the issue of pronoun rounds and the way they are applied, which kicked off a fierce debate inside the trans community. One important theme that came out of that was how some trans people could indeed feel embarrassed more than anything, if others were deliberately treating them differently when it comes to pronouns. A trans friend once confided to me, how bad someone made her feel, when they apologized for using the wrong pronoun. As she said, hearing the wrong pronoun once felt like a slap on the wrist that she could just ignore, but hearing the deliberate apology felt like a kick in the guts!

As you can see, the relationship between trans people and pronouns is complicated. Most importantly, trans people usually want to blend into society as just another member of their identified gender. If the way others use pronouns signal that this is happening, this would make them happy. However, if a preferred pronoun is used but in an artificial or forced way, this would not be what most trans people would want! Which would logically mean that, trans people want to encourage others to use their preferred pronouns, but probably wouldn’t want it to feel forced or deliberate in any way.

The fact is, much of the recent pronoun drama have not focused too much on what trans people actually want. As previously mentioned, the recent phenomenon of pronoun rounds have made many trans people uncomfortable, especially if they believe it is only done when they are there. Even pronoun rounds that are routinely conducted, for example as a formality required at certain events in recent years, can make trans people especially uncomfortable, because it reminds them of their trans status and hence their dysphoria in an area of life they wouldn’t normally expect. High profile public debates about pronouns, for example during debates about what would constitute ‘hate speech’ in the law, have been especially hard on trans people. Some trans people also feel like these debates make it harder for them to blend into society, making them less confident in their everyday lives. Needless to say, some trans people would prefer if none of this was happening, and they could just go back and live their lives as it was, before the so-called ‘trans tipping point’.

So if the pronoun drama ain’t really rooted in the wishes of trans people, what is it rooted in? I think it is actually rooted in postmodern philosophy. In postmodern thinking, there is no objective reality that can be known, so only the social construction and perception of reality matters. Therefore, language takes on a heightened importance, because it is the way reality is socially constructed. In other words, language is reality itself. Which in turn means that, for example, if we all use a trans person’s preferred pronouns, it would somehow make their gender identity more real. This is why enforcement of pronouns has been equated with trans acceptance. Of course, this is totally inconsistent with most trans people’s views. Trans people generally believe that gender identity is innate. But then, the postmodernists, who subscribe to the Marxian view of identity being determined by external conditions, don’t really accept this view either. For example, many postmodern feminists believe that gender is a performance, which would invalidate trans people’s views that they have always been their identified gender. The point is, the whole pronoun exercise has so far been rooted in postmodern ideology, which is actually not very compatible with trans people’s own views and wishes.

What I’m most worried about is that, trans people are effectively being used as the thin end of the wedge, in postmodern critical theory activists’ war on liberal free speech norms. While liberals have long believed in free speech as a core value, postmodern critical theory believes that, as per Michel Foucault, speech is power, and that as per Herbert Marcuse, unfettered free speech leads to the domination of the oppressive ideas of the status quo. Trans people are being used by these activists to demonstrate that they are right, and the liberals are wrong. But then, this would just be a logical fallacy, because while the basic position of free speech liberalism is that it would not compel anyone to use any pronoun, many liberals would also encourage others to be decent and compassionate in their treatment of all minorities, including trans people. This approach, rooted in an ‘organic’ compassion, appears to me to be closer to what most trans people want. I mean, at least this is what I want, and what many trans people I know want.

My conclusion is that, the pronoun wars, it’s complicated. Trans people do want people to use their preferred pronouns, but only where it doesn’t seem forced. An approach to pronouns that negates free speech is certainly not in line with trans people’s wishes. I think it’s time this message was heard loud and clear. The bottom line is, trans people don’t want to wage a culture war over pronouns, it’s postmodern activists who are doing that in our name.

Theory Over Lives

You know, I really miss the days, back when the trans community was a small group of individuals who had some common needs, who came together to help each other, and also provide emotional support to each other. While that was just less than 10 years ago, it may as well be ancient history now. The politicization of trans issues, in its rapidness and severity, really has no historical parallel. No other community in the history of humanity has ever gone from being absolutely obscure to being a hot button issue in this timeframe. And we must remember that real trans people have suffered, and are still suffering, because of this change. One thing I hate about political activists is that they never stop to consider how they are trampling on the lives of real people.

As for why trans issues became polarized, well, as we have seen in this film, much of it is due to the culture wars happening in the outside world. People with agendas, from both the Left and the Right, have sought to use this latest hot issue, to make their case, recruit supporters, and advance their cause. It’s quite easy to do too, because trans people and trans issues were very obscure just a decade ago. Most people didn’t already come with pre-established positions on trans issues, which meant that there were many hearts and minds that could be turned using trans issues. And so, they came, far-left and hard-right alike, as well as people in between.

There’s the postmodern critical theory people, who want to use trans people as a justification to deconstruct gender, all the social norms around gender, and even wider liberal norms like free speech. Their agenda, which was first promoted in the 1960s New Left, and was soundly rejected by the mainstream by the 1980s, is clearly incompatible with traditional trans narratives like the mind-body mismatch model. But this wouldn’t deter them, because trans people are so few in number, and they could just shout over them, and pretend to speak for them. As a result, radical postmodernism now enjoys an increasing popularity among people who want to be LGBT allies, which is a big slice of the younger generations. On the flip side, there are now people out there who think that being trans is a political thing, rooted in the idea that gender is a social construct. This is literally as wrong as thinking that the sun is a big disco ball, and it rises in the West.

And then there’s the anti-gay marriage movement, overlapping with the so-called ‘religious right’, who, after having fought a generational battle over gay marriage and lost, were almost desperate to continue their movement in some other issue. Some of the infrastructure that was used to fight against gay marriage are now being squarely aimed at trans people. It is no accident that anti-trans ‘bathroom bills’ started to appear everywhere after gay marriage became legal throughout the US in 2015. If you remember, unconditional and immutable biological sex differences were a very big part of the argument against gay marriage. So what they are doing now is essentially fighting for that argument, just to retrospectively justify their fruitless 20-year crusade. Perhaps they think that, if they win on this point, gay marriage would be exposed for being a sham, and they will still be able to claim the ultimately moral victory.

What they fail to notice is that, the scientific understanding about sex and gender has long since advanced beyond their mid 20th century understandings, and it is this advance that has in part helped make the case for gay marriage. Which means, their attitude is actually similar to those who believed the Earth was flat in the face of new scientific evidence to the contrary. However, they have the money, they have the organization, and they will continue to be a force to be reckoned with. Moreover, the rise of postmodernism on the Left has lent credence to these gender flat-earthers, because they at least claim to believe in science, even if it is the science of 70 years ago.

Finally, there’s the so-called ‘gender critical feminists’, who have sought to use trans issue to highlight their belief that gender is a social construct that only exists via socialization. The scientifically invalid idea that only physical sex is real, and that gender is only a social construct, which had previously been long rejected by the mainstream, has proven to be increasingly popular with those who want to invalidate the existence of trans people, including people from the anti-gay marriage movement. This, ironically, means that a certain faction of conservatives are now promoting radical ideas rooted in second wave feminism and Marxism. It’s literally conservatives embracing radical far-left ideas to own the LGBT community. I never thought I would see this in my lifetime, but it’s really happening.

So, in all this, who are the winners? I guess everyone on both the far-left and the hard-right. Those who oppose gay marriage get another shot at relitigating a lost battle, and those who want to push radical theories into the mainstream get a very good opportunity to do so. But there has to be losers. Who are the losers, then? Trans people, of course! Our voices get drowned out, our issues get confused, and we get to be used as pawns in political battles that we won’t benefit from in any way, shape or form. We get to suffer all the backlash too! So yes, trans people are the biggest losers in all this.

Conclusions

As we have seen, much of the trans wars actually don’t have anything to do with trans people or trans issues. Instead, what we are seeing is that actors with bigger agendas are using trans people to push their views into mainstream society. In the end, though, it is trans people who suffer from the backlash to those unpopular agendas.

It would indeed help the situation if more trans people spoke up. While one lone voice may not change much, if we can get a chorus of trans voices talking about their actual everyday issues, perhaps we would be able to move the discussion back towards the needs of actual trans people. However, given that only about 1 in 500 or so people are trans, trans people are a very small minority in society, and real trans voices are easily drowned out by those who are determined to use the trans community for their own ends. Therefore, I think it would really help if more people in the wider community became aware of the current hijacking of the trans discussion, and if people started to consciously listen to the voices of everyday trans people over the louder activist class.

I’m hopeful that, one day, the trans wars will be over. We can get closer to that day by building constructive dialogue, encouraging mutual understanding, and most importantly, cutting through the ideological agendas on all sides.

 

Candace Owens is So Ignorant About Trans People! | An Asian Trans View

 

 

Welcome back to TaraElla TV, where we examine cultural and political issues from a truth-orientated and constructive problem solving perspective. Today, I want to briefly respond to a few ignorant comments made by Candace Owens on the Rubin Report recently.

Firstly, she said that she hopes black people will be at the forefront of pushing against the 'trans stuff'. What 'trans stuff' is she refering to? I mean, trans people have in common certain medical needs, and probably also have in common the problem of facing discrimination in some areas of life, and that's about it. Beyond that, trans people are a diverse bunch. We're pretty diverse in our politics, our values, our commitments, our lifestyles, and so on. So there's really no package deal of 'trans stuff' like she was talking about, because there really can't be. I mean, she should know better, having debated Blaire White on the same show three years ago. You know, how Blaire's opinions are taken controversially among trans people, some love her, others really dislike her. It's the same for Contrapoints, who gets cancelled by other trans people every now and then. And it's similar for most other prominent trans people too.

Secondly, she said that gay people should expel the 'trans stuff', like drop the T or something. So that would mean telling gay people to not welcome trans people into their circles, which would break with decades of tradition since Stonewall, not to mention being like really bigoted. Horrible idea indeed.

I think the problem is that Candace Owens appears to be confused. In case she still doesn't get it, here it is: trans people are people with shared medical needs and social issues. Get this into your head: we are not a political party, we're not a political movement. We can't be, because we are too diverse. Among trans people, there are conservatives, moderates, liberals, and socialists, just like among non-trans people. We don't think like a hive mind, and we aren't a 'thing' in a collective sense. I mean, what would it take for people to just understand these very basic facts?

The Trans Community's Divergent Views on JK Rowling - A Philosophical Analysis | An Asian Trans View

 

 

Welcome back to TaraElla TV, where we examine cultural and political issues from a truth-orientated and constructive problem solving perspective. Today, I want to do some thinking on the divergent opinions on JK Rowling within the trans community. Specifically, I want to hypothesize about why some trans people, like myself, are more accommodating, and why other trans people are less accommodating, to our disagreements with Rowling and other people with similar opinions. As I said before, I don't actually agree with some of Rowling's views on trans issues, but I am granting her the good faith of being constructive, and I am open to continued conversation with her, and other people with views similar to hers. On the other hand, other trans people, especially trans activists, have been quite hard on Rowling, often calling her transphobic, which I don't believe is justified at all. I explained why I didn't think Rowling is transphobic in previous videos, and I still stand by those views. Anyway, today's theme is a deeper philosophical exploration of our divergent views, where I will talk about different models of social change.

Let's start with this suggestion from a friend: perhaps it's my wish to avoid conflict. I guess that's part of my upbringing, a big part of Asian culture in general too. I've heard several other Asian LGBT people say that they don't feel entirely comfortable with LGBT activist circles as they currently exist. I mean, there are many of us who would prefer a more bringing people across, a more consensus approach to social reform and change. And then, on the other side of the spectrum, are people who believe that it is conflict that drives change. Right now, LGBT activist circles in the Western world are quite heavily influenced by critical theory, which in turn borrows heavily from Marxian philosophical concepts. One such inheritance is the idea that conflict between groups or classes is what drives social change. Now, that's one view, but that's a view that I certainly don't agree with. Instead, I believe the opposite, that conflict often derails meaningful conversation and the development of balanced and satisfactory change. It's certainly a very different theory of change, but I think the historical evidence is on my side. Many meaningful reforms, from women's suffrage, to the civil rights movement, to gay marriage most recently, were ultimately won by people who sought to bring people together, including to reach out in good faith to those who have strong disagreements with us at the beginning. This is why I'm strongly against pushing people like Rowling away.

And there's really nothing wrong with preferring a less conflict-driven approach to change. In fact, that's been the more traditional way people conceived of change, before critical theory became dominant in certain sections of academia, which was only due to certain circumstances of 20th century politics anyway. I mean, Asian culture has long held that it's best to bring people together in harmony to resolve issues, and Western Enlightenment has generally seen sound ideas, ideas that are consistent with the science and the facts, as the driver of productive progress, and such ideas will generally prevail in rational debates. Between these two strands of my cultural inspiration, I think there's a very valid model to achieve the needed social change, without tearing the social fabric apart, without feeling like one group is overpowering another, or that it is a zero-sum game of any kind. Thinking of culture as a zero-sum game is especially stupid, because unlike in economics, where a lot of these zero-sum ideas emerged, there is no problem of scarcity of resources in culture, and our 'interests' are not necessarily at odds with each other as a result. I mean, frankly I believe that the basic reason critical theory is unsound, is because it attempts to borrow a model that Marx applied to political economy, and force-fit it to cultural issues. I think there's really no logically reasonable justification for that at all. Instead, cultural change is better served with a more humanitarian attitude, one that focuses on our common humanity, our common needs, and our common aspirations.

Preferring a non-conflict approach to change also doesn't mean we cannot achieve the meaningful change that would be required to bring about justice. There's nothing really to justify the claim that conflict-driven methods produce more profound social change. Rather, I believe conflict often leads to less adaptive social change, which also means it's less durable, and I think there are plenty of historical examples to justify my view. The reason why a high level of conflict leads to maladaptive change is because people often don't think rationally in the moment of conflict. People focus too much on the specific circumstances at the height of the conflict, and don't think enough about what is needed in the longer term. There's also an irrational dislike of those on the opposite side of the conflict, which is never good for rational thinking. I think these two reasons explain why so-called solutions that emerge during times of high conflict are often not conducive to the well functioning of society in the longer term. And I think this could be the best case we can make, to justify a more conflict-averse approach to social progress.

My Thoughts on Dr. Debra Soh (and Ben Shapiro) | An Asian Trans View

NOTE: I strongly disagree with 'Blanchard typology' because I don't think it's good science.

Welcome back to TaraElla TV, where we examine cultural and political issues from a truth-orientated and constructive problem solving perspective. Today, I want to talk about my thoughts on Dr. Debra Soh, who has written a book about gender issues including trans issues, and has been going to many media outlets to talk about her views on these matters. I haven't read the book, so I will focus on her media appearances.

I have been following Dr. Soh's media interviews for a while, and I honestly have mixed thoughts so far. On one hand, I appreciate that she is basing everything in the science and the facts, and is not refering to any sociological theory or postmodern philosophy. While there are still scientific disagreements in some areas, and I don't necessarily agree with all of Dr Soh's views, her basic facts appear to be sound. I totally agree with the need to stress that reproductive sex and gender are both biological, they are not social constructs. I also agree with starting from the fact that, for the vast majority of people, their genetic sex accurately predicts their gender, so it's clearly very related, the existence of trans people notwithstanding. Furthermore, I strongly appreciate the assertion that, even though trans people have a gender identity that is opposite to their genetic sex, this is still a biological phenomenon, not a social construct. I think these statements are all very clear reflections of the empirical facts. Coming from an Asian cultural background, I especially appreciate people basing their arguments on the facts, because scientific facts, especially those coming from experts, are very well respected in modern Asian culture. Philosophical fluff, on the other hand, is generally dismissed in our culture. Talking about the science certainly helped to bring my family along, back when I had to come out to a family who didn't even know that trans people existed at all.

On the other hand, I am slightly concerned that Dr. Soh has been mainly talking to conservative media outlets, some of whom are known for not being very trans friendly, and that she hasn't been pushing back much in those interviews. For example, what I got out of her interview with Ben Shapiro, was that while she plainly stated her differences with Shapiro, she also sort of minimized them, and didn't go on to further explore those differences enough, which could have been educational for his audience. If I were in that interview, I would probably have challenged Shapiro a bit on his views, which certainly don't make any sense to me.

I mean, I respect Shapiro's right to free speech, and hence his right to believe that pronouns must be based on biological sex, but I really don't see the point of this. On the other hand, I really can't fathom why someone would be so reluctant to do some ultimately harmless accomodation to a small minority of suffering individuals, to allow an exception to the rigid rules that are making a few people suffer. It certainly doesn't mean agreeing that gender is a social construct, or giving up on the biological facts. Perhaps it's an imaginary slippery slope thing. But then, the slippery slope argument was applied to gay marriage, and it scared people for a while, but guess what, there's been gay marriage in the majority of the West for several years now, and the sky hasn't fallen in. Similarly, reasonable accomodation for trans people are a very rational thing to do, they certainly make society function better, so why not?

The TRUTH About Trump vs Trans Community | Re Blaire White | Skeptic TaraElla 2020

Welcome back to Skeptic TaraElla. Today, I'm going to sort of respond to a recent Blaire White video titled 'The Truth About Trump and the Trans Community'. In the video, Blaire discussed her views about President Trump's trans policies. She noted that the trans community seems to be used by both sides of politics as a political football, and that trans issues should be seen as a medical issue, not a political issue. This, of course, I totally agree with. In fact, I think I can speak for the majority of the trans community when I say that we are sick and tired of the over-politicization of everything trans. There's clearly something very wrong when, as a trans person, I felt more comfortable with the state of society back in 2007 compared to now! I really don't know how I would have handled coming out in this toxic environment. Looking back, I'm glad that I did it more than a decade ago.

I think the reason for this politicization is because there are groups with shady agendas gaining ground on both sides of politics, and they want to use the trans issue as a wedge to advance their projects of social control over the wider community. On the Right side, there are signs that the authoritarian right is gaining ground again, due to the weakening of libertarianism over the past few years. We see it in things like the big Ahmari vs French debate of last year. On the Left side, there is a radical critical theory faction that is essentially pushing a feeling of oppression onto trans people, as well as other minority groups, in order to both recruit and radicalize these groups. Furthermore, both sides also appear to want to increase the level of cultural conflict in society, which they believe will help achieve their goals. The authoritarian Right is probably thinking of using trans people as a wedge issue for their benefit like they used gay marriage 15 years ago, and the Marcusean Left is probably trying to use trans issues, in combination with other cultural issues, to create a sense of extreme social struggle, to create the oppressor vs oppressed dynamic that is needed to fulfill their own theories. Trans people are simply caught in the middle of these two camps. A real trans ally, I think, would condemn both camps equally, and encourage a rational conversation, which would put the emphasis back on the genuine needs of trans people, and how society can best accomodate those needs, while also considering the concerns of other people.

The Trump administration is one site where both sides want to play the game to their advantage. Based on my own assessment, I actually agree with Blaire that Trump is likely neutral in regards to LGBT issues. He has never shown much care, positive or negative, regarding LGBT people and issues. However, there are undeniably elements within his administration that are not LGBT friendly, because they have a more authoritarian or religious right politics. I think this is where quite a few of the anti-trans proposals have originated, but most were ultimately not adopted by the Trump administration. In fact, I sense that the religious right is not very happy with Trump not doing most of the anti-LGBT things they want. The trans military ban was probably the minimum he had to do to satisfy this group, but they apparently don't think it's enough. I think we shouldn't have illusions about the clearly anti-LGBT agenda of this group.

On the other hand, the radical critical theory faction of the Left, which is overrepresented in LGBT activism these days, have latched onto every one of these leaked anti-LGBT proposals, as if they were actual Trump policies being implemented. It's a pattern I've also been seeing in other Western countries with conservative governments. This has actually been bad for the trans community, because it means that trans people are having unnecessary worries about what may happen to them. As Blaire said in the video, there was widespread fear about a leaked 2018 policy that would have prevented trans people from updating their documents, which was simply never implemented, and a lot of trans people were essentially made to feel severe anxiety over nothing. My thinking is, there really is no point in exaggerating the harm being done to LGBT people by conservative administrations, because at the end of the day, this is essentially making people feel oppressed, at the expense of their own health and wellbeing. The truth is, there is often a tug of war between the authoritarians and the libertarians on the right, which means that some things are simply rumors that will never become actual policy.

Furthermore, the radical critical theory Left doesn't just exaggerate the harmfulness of conservative politicians to LGBT people. They also often encourage LGBT pessmism about left-leaning politicians. Throughout last year, during the Democratic primaries, there were people playing up Tulsi Gabbard's previous stance against gay marriage, something she clearly changed her mind on several years ago. In fact, all the evidence points to her being completely LGBT friendly nowadays. Early this year, they even attempted to sow doubts about Bernie's allyship, simply because he accepted an endorsement from Joe Rogan. More recently, they have turned their attention to Joe Biden, painting him as not a true ally of the LGBT community because he voted for the Defense of Marriage Act in the 1990s. Of course, Biden has changed a lot too, he was the first to support gay marriage in the Obama administration, and he talked about trans rights in 2012, way before most people out there were even aware of this issue. Just like there really wasn't any reason to worry about Tulsi's past record, there really isn't any reason why we shouldn't think of Biden as anything but a strong ally. Similarly, British Labour leader Keir Starmer has shown himself to be a strong ally, and has committed to trans rights, but some in the far-left in Britain are still sowing doubts about his allyship. I think the truth is, the Marcusean Left would prefer LGBT people to not have any feeling hope at all, so all their negative energies can be directed into Marcusean Left activism, whatever that entails at the time. What they are essentially doing is making LGBT people feel oppressed, at the expense of their own health and wellbeing, to serve a political agenda. This is actually highly immoral, in my opinion.

JK Rowling, Trans People, Free Speech and Truth | TaraElla Report S6 E16

Welcome back to TaraElla TV, where we examine cultural and political issues from a truth-orientated, non-factional, and constructive problem solving perspective. Subscribe if you're interested. Today, I'm going to revisit my views on the JK Rowling trans issues controversy. Given that this is a complex and sensitive topic, please listen to what I have to say with an open mind, and don't jump to conclusions right away.

Last month, when the issue was dominating social media, around the time Rowling published her controversial essay, I put out a video saying that, as a trans person, I don't think she's transphobic. Since then, I've been accused by some of agreeing with what she wrote. What I want to clarify is that I don't, actually. There were certainly quite a few things I didn't agree with in that essay. What I actually said was that Rowling isn't transphobic, and has even shown a basic level of sympathy to trans people, points which I still stand by. All this doesn't necessarily mean I agree with her. It just means that I have taken her concerns from a good faith point of view, I don't believe she has acted in hostility towards trans people, and she shouldn't be just labelled a bigot and pushed away.

The fact is, there's disagreement, and then there's bigotry, and the two are very different things. For example, someone who actively wants trans people to not exist in mainstream society would definitely be transphobic. On a lower level, I think someone who mercilessly makes fun of trans people could also be said to be transphobic, because there is a malicious intent to harm trans people there. But having views that many trans people find disappointing is another thing altogether. It may not be what some people want to hear, but it's not the same as bigotry. The problem with treating disagreements as bigotry is that it essentially hampers free debate. This extends even into debates within the trans community. Even trans people sometimes feel like we aren't able to freely voice what we think on some trans issues, or what solutions or compromises we would be willing to accept to improve our lives, just because other trans people may not like what we have to say. I know that there are many trans people who feel like we're under the boot of some orthodoxy upheld by certain activists, and that this orthodoxy may not end up serving the needs of trans people well either.

The problem of treating disagreement on certain issues as bigotry is not limited to the trans community, it's actually part of a wider problem. It really didn't use to be this way, and it really shouldn't be this way. For example, if you oppose gay marriage, I certainly strongly disagree with your position, but I wouldn't label you a homophobe just for that. Instead, I may invite you for a discussion or debate. As an active supporter of the marriage equality movement for over 10 years, this had always been my position, and I think this respectful attitude won us a lot of support over the years. However, this method has been supplanted by a much more militant form of activism, one that takes people who disagree in bad faith right away, and sees those in the way of desired progress as enemies and oppressors. The logical conclusion of this attitude would be essentially, agree with me right now or you're the enemy. I think last year's cancelling Contrapoints drama is the fullest manifestation of this attitude, and if things don't change, more of this kind of madness will be coming in the future.

As I often say, free speech works to resolve social issues and bring much needed progress, and there's a historical track record to prove that. Naysayers to free speech often take the position of Herbert Marcuse's 1965 essay Repressive Tolerance, in which he argued that universal tolerance of all ideas is repressive, because the status quo always wins out. However, if that is the case, we wouldn't have women's suffrage, the civil rights movement, gay marriage, and more. In particular, the whole gay marriage movement, from start to finish, has occured during my own lifetime, and I've seen how quickly attitudes can evolve when there is good faith and respectful discussion. Yes, the world is still imperfect, and there is still more to do for justice. But things have indeed come a long way, and rational discussion will certainly take us much further. This is because justice cannot exist without truth, and rational discussion will bring us further to the truth. This is the big idea behind the Enlightenment after all.

To foster rational discussion, we need to stop seeing each other as the enemy. The critical theory inspired attitude of oppressor vs oppressed needs to go. The postmodern idea that speech and discourse are devices of power needs to go. Instead, we all need to work on a mutual commitment to finding the truth, and finding the best solutions for every problem.

Harry Potter, JK Rowling & the Social Justice Generation | Skeptic TaraElla 2020

Welcome back to Skeptic TaraElla. Today's episode is basically a follow-up on my comments about the outrage over JK Rowling's alleged transphobia, which as I explained last time, isn't even true from what I see. But regardless of the validity of those claims, I want to talk about somthing else today: why there has been particular upset at Rowling's comments. After all, whether we like it or not, it's not like her opinions on this topic are not common out there in the general population.

It appears to me that Rowling is actually being held to a higher standard than most other people. I think it has to do with her being the writer of the Harry Potter series. I remember about two years ago, I read an article about Gen-Z or Zoomers being the 'social justice generation', and how Harry Potter's message about good vs evil was a core inspiration for this generation. Besides Gen-Z, I guess it also applies to younger Millennials, because from what I see, they have also been massive Potter fans since they were kids. Now, I am a bit too old to have read Harry Potter during my childhood, and I don't exactly know that experience. I guess reading Harry Potter for the first time when I was a teenager would be a different experience. So forgive me if I say something that you don't like. I don't mean to spoil anyone's childhood memories.

The Harry Potter universe is a typical fantasy universe in one major way: it has a clear demarcation between good and evil. You know who the good guys are and who the bad guys are, perhaps with the rare exception of a few characters like Snape. The other thing about the Harry Potter universe is that it is, from what I see, quite political, which is unusual for a fantasy book series, especially one for kids. There are clear analogies to racism, sexism, and other forms of bigotry. People have also talked about whether the four houses are sort of analogous to political parties in the real world with their distinct ideologies, something which I can certainly see myself. It is therefore likely that, at least for some people, the Harry Potter universe represents an idealized version of our own reality, where the good guys and bad guys are always easily identifiable, and the good guys always win. Rowling, being the author of all this, has to be one of the good guys, and because the good guys always agree in the Potterverse, this sort of creates a psychological expectation that Rowling has to agree with you the reader, in your view of social justice issues. Therefore, when Rowling turns out to not entirely agree with you, there is some cognitive dissonance.

The fact is, we don't live in the Potterverse, nor can such a world even exist. In the real world, there isn't a clear demarcation between the good guys and the bad guys, because things are so complex that even people with good intentions often disagree. In the real world, it is rare that a social conflict comes down to the good guys vs the bad guys. Much more often, it's actually people with good intentions disagreeing with how to approach a problem, because they have different prior knowledge and life experiences, and perhaps a different prioritization of various values. Furthermore, there are rarely only two sides or two standpoints to a real world conflict. Which is why the Harry Potter model simply can't be applied to real world social justice problems.

I guess this latest Rowling drama is a good reminder that the real world is nothing like the Potterverse. Still, some people who vehemently disagree with Rowling have called on people to drop Harry Potter and read another book. The trouble is, that is not a solution at all. From what I see, that is just escapism, the refusal to deal with the imperfections of the real world, and the desire to escape into another fantasy of clear-cut good vs evil, now that Harry Potter has been ruined for some of you. The problem with this attitude is, if we really want to help improve the world, we should leave all those good vs evil fantasies behind, because they not only fail to help us understand the real world, they can even hinder effective conversation, by encouraging us to imagine people who disagree with us as the bad guys. I mean, it's good to read a fantasy book about some good vs evil battle once in a while, but as mature adults dealing with real world problems, it's important to remind ourselves that reality simply isn't like that at all. So, my advice is, read Harry Potter, read some other books you like, but don't expect the real world to be anything like those books at all.