Why Gender Performativity Is Wrong and Anti Trans | An Asian Trans View

Today, I want to talk about why the idea of 'gender performativity', the idea that gender is a performance, is wrong, and also transphobic. Gender performativity is part of the wider set of ideas that consider gender to be a social construct, and I have, in the past, repeatedly argued that the idea of gender being a social construct is wrong. But today, I will specifically focus on gender performativity.

Firstly, there is no evidence to support the idea that gender is a performance. In other words, this idea is not evidence-based, it has no observable evidence in the real world to clearly support it, and it is therefore incompatible with the spirit of empiricism. This is the problem with the 'academic left' in the late 20th and early 21st century West: a lot of their theories simply lack a solid foundation of observable evidence to back it up. This, in turn, reflects a rejection of the importance of empiricism, which is partly caused by the rise of unempirical philosophical schools like critical theory and postmodernism.

Secondly, I think it is reasonable to argue that a 'performance' is only a 'performance' if it is being deliberately 'performed', which implies that there must be a personal choice in it. The fact that trans people suffer from gender dysphoria is proof that we cannot choose the 'gender' that we 'perform'. Therefore, the very existence of trans people basically disproves gender performativity.

Finally, I believe the idea of gender performativity is inherently transphobic, at least to some extent. Firstly, it is simply incompatible with the trans community's long standing belief that gender identity is innate. Under gender performativity, a person is always, simply the gender that they are performing. Therefore, a trans person, before their social transition, is of their birth gender. Furthermore, there is nothing more to social transition than to take on another performance. Given that it is all a performance, there is nothing 'authentic' about either gender performance. Hence this could also imply that transition is no more than a lifestyle choice. This is why I believe that gender performativity is inherently transphobic, even if the people promoting this idea may not be transphobic themselves.

How This Trans Person Sees Trans Jokes | An Asian Trans View

Today, I want to talk about a controversial topic: trans jokes. Let's get some background first. People have been saying trans jokes, like, forever. I mean, stand up comedians essentially recycle the same jokes again and again until they aren't even funny anymore, that's just what they do, right? Based on this, I thought that trans jokes were just going to eventually die out simply because they're not funny for anyone anymore.

But somehow, trans jokes have become a big controversy, in the stand up comedy scene, in a way I honestly never expected. Just like I never expected we would have two consecutive US Presidents older than the one before. And just like I never expected that one day people would become addicted to their phones. And honestly, it's not what I wanted to see, either. I mean, there are enough controversies around trans issues, I don't think we need this too. I'm sick and tired of being a political football. Or should I say, political basketball, because we are thrown around quite a lot these days.

Another thing is, some things are like, the least said the better. There's this old saying that you shouldn't rub salt into a wound, or something like that, right? Perhaps those people, who aren't trans themselves but make a big deal out of every perceived trans injustice, should take note of that.

So, how does this trans person see trans jokes? Well, as long as they are not intentionally bigoted or harmful, I personally don't have an issue with them. The bigger problem is that, I don't find them funny at all. But then again, I don't find most stand up type jokes funny. Maybe I'm just a no fun person after all. But maybe, just maybe, there really ain't anything funny about being trans, especially after you get used to it. Like there's nothing funny about the sun, the sky, or the rain. Trans people are just as natural as those things after all.

Why People Like American Idol | TaraElla & Friends #9

TE: Welcome back to TaraElla and friends. Today, we have my friend The Clarifier again, and we will take a break from talking about LGBT issues. Instead, we will talk about, well, why people like American Idol, seeing that it is in its 19th season. I mean, not many things make it to 19 seasons! So it has to great, right?

TC: So let's start with this. Why do you like American Idol? Why do you still watch it after already having seen it so many times before?

TE: I mean, there's the music, but ultimately I guess it has something to do with the idea of Dreams and Dreaming Big. Idol and similar shows are all about dreaming big, after all. It's about music, personalities and performances, but ultimately it's about dreaming big, and I think that's where the appeal is at. We all need a regular dose of revitalizing that dreaming big part of ourselves, especially since many of us don't get enough of it in real life, after becoming adults. You know the unspoken social expectations, like, dreaming of being president is reasonably acceptable when you're 10, dreaming of being a style icon is sort of realistic when you're 20, but when you're 30, almost any dream is a bridge too far. That's why we keep coming back for things like Idol.

TC: So you think the adult world is lacking in this dreaming spirit then?

TE: Well, yes, I guess. I mean, I think it's sad that dreaming big seems to only feature much in movies set in high school, but unfortunately that's the way it is. From classics like Hairspray, to more recent hits like Ryan Murphy's The Prom from last year, the personal dreams of teenagers can not only be realized, but also help change the world in the process. The sad thing is that, even Hollywood seems to tell us that everything is possible when you are 16, but not when you are 36, for example. That really doesn't make sense, right? Shouldn't you be able to dream twice as big, now that you're twice as experienced?

Anyway, let's talk about two movies from the past few years that had me thinking a lot afterwards: Mistress America starring Greta Gerwig, and Brie Larson's Unicorn Store. I really liked those movies, but not so much their endings. Did Mistress America mean to say that Greta's character was immature for trying to live her dreams, and that she should snap out of it now that she was 30? Because I got that feeling, and it left a bit of a sour taste. And why did Brie Larson's character have to give up on her unicorn in the end? Excuse me if I interpreted those movies wrong, but I felt a bit sad that they couldn't unequivocally celebrate people who want to dream big, and still dream big in their adult lives.

The other thing is, I actually think this cultural separation of dreaming big from adulthood has social implications. And these are not very nice social implications, to put it mildly.

TC: So what are these social implications of dreaming big, or lack thereof?

TE: It basically says that, part of growing up and becoming an adult is that you have to just be okay with the status quo, even if it is objectively bad. I mean, there is a cultural expectation that the mature thing to do is to just suck it up. The world is unfair, and you've just got to suck it up. And sorry, I just don't believe in that. Let me repeat it: I just don't believe in that. I mean, I am not a utopian, but we do need to be able to envision a better way, if anything is to improve.

This is why I believe we should make a point to uphold all those who continue to dream big, despite having grown up. Now, you may ask what do personal dreams, like those portrayed on American Idol, have to do with social or political goals. But the fact is, it's all linked. There's the basic ingredient of being able to dream big, saying 'no' to the skeptics, to begin with. And then, once you starting going for your personal dreams, you start to discover the ways in which the world is flawed, and you start to seek to improve it. This is why, if we want to dream big for the world, we need to dream big for ourselves first.

Why It's Important to Stand Up for Caitlyn Jenner | An Asian Trans View

Today, I want to talk about something very important: why it's very important that we stand up for Caitlyn Jenner this year, if we want trans people to have dignity and equality in the real world. Now, I know this is a divisive topic, but please listen to my perspective with an open mind. Also, let me know in the comments if you agree with me, and if you agree with me and want more people to hear this perspective, please share this video around.

Now, let me restate my argument. It's very important that we stand up for Caitlyn Jenner this year, if we want to advance trans acceptance, dignity and equality in the real world, or at least stop things from backsliding even further. Now, I'm not saying that you have to support Jenner or vote for her. Regarding the question on whether Governor Newsom has been doing a good job, or whether Caitlyn Jenner should replace him, I don't currently have any opinion, and I don't think I will ever be well informed enough to have an opinion, because I don't live in California, and state races are generally focused on local issues. What I'm arguing for, however, is that Caitlyn Jenner should be given a fair and dignified run at this, like any other candidate. Jenner should be allowed to succeed or fail on her policies alone, just like any other candidate, with her trans status not coming into the equation at all. It is important that we insist on this happening, and do as much as possible to make this happen, if trans equality and dignity is to have any chance in the near future.

The socially conservative part of the Right knows the stakes in this very well, and they are open about why they must oppose Jenner's run. It's not about Jenner for them. It's about us. By marginalizing Caitlyn, they get to marginalize us all. And they know that a high profile race for the Governor of California will set a precedent for a long time either way. And they want to set a precedent where trans people are unconditionally rejected from normal polite society. Make no mistake, if Jenner is not given dignity in her run this year, there will be serious implications and consequences for trans people in every part of life, from jobs to housing, to just being taken seriously as a person!

Imagine if someone suggested that a candidate is undeserving of a fair run simply because they are black, Asian, or even gay. We are talking about the equivalent of this extreme level of bigotry, and they aren't even trying to hide it! Take Charlie Kirk of Turning Point USA, who justified his opposition to Jenner by saying that 'biological standards matter', adding that he believes that roughly half of America shares his view. The idea that 'biological standards matter' for any job recalls dark pre-WWII times, and should send shivers down the spine of any sane person. Or take Matt Walsh, who actually said that if Jenner's run was embraced solely in the spirit of trolling, he could almost support it, but when people, including high profile Republicans like Nikki Haley, actually take her seriously? This he just can't accept, apparently. You know, there was a time when trans people only appeared on Jerry Springer, and I know just how many people want things to go back to that. Finally, Michael Knowles, who has consistently opposed multiple forms of trans acceptance, makes his view clear, stating that 'sometimes there's just got to be a line in the sand'. Apparently, trans people are so bad for society that we must be firmly excluded from a society that already otherwise accepts many other forms of diversity.

Make no mistake. Transphobic social conservatives are seeing an opportunity here. They are emboldened by the recent trans backlash, and want to ride that wave all the way to putting us back in a place where we are routinely excluded from polite society, where we are never taken seriously by anybody, and where we can justifiably be discriminated in terms of jobs, housing, and other areas of life. The only way to fight back is to make sure they don't get what they want. I'm not saying that Caitlyn Jenner needs to win, I'm just saying that we need to make sure she has a fair and dignified run, just like any other candidate. This will cement the idea that trans people are a normal part of society, and will certainly open doors to acceptance in important ways down the road. Our opponents know the very real stakes of this fight, and it's time we recognized it too.

Before we go, there's something else we need to talk about: the amount of left-leaning trans people who have taken to twitter to proudly announce that they don't support Caitlyn Jenner despite being trans. I mean, you are free to not support her, regardless of your trans status. You can simply say that you love the work Governor Newsom is doing and won't support Jenner to replace him, and I can respect that. But I feel extremely uneasy over these statements, which clearly tie being opposed to Jenner with being trans. Firstly, it's really a more subtle form of transphobia. As if Jenner needs other trans people to approve of her before she can have a fair run at political office. As if, because Jenner's politics don't align with the trans activist establishment, they feel like they have a right to sink her campaign before it even begins. You know, this is not equality. This is not equality at all. Neither Donald Trump nor Joe Biden required the approval of all other straight men to run for office, you know. Many straight men disliked Trump and/or Biden, but nobody felt they need to talk about it in that way, you know.

But even more importantly, all this talk about trans people not supporting Jenner despite being trans, is actually providing fuel for those who want her to not have a fair and dignified run. They are helping to make sure that Jenner's run is seen as part of the larger culture war over trans issues, which would very certainly prevent her from having a fair and dignified run. In this way, these twitter leftists are actually doing the work of the likes of Kirk, Walsh and Knowles. This is why we must call this harmful behavior out.

Separating Gender Ideology From Trans Lives | Re Andrew Sullivan | An Asian Trans View

Today, I want to respond to a recent article by Andrew Sullivan on Substack, titled 'A Truce Proposal In The Trans Wars'. I want to respond to this article because it at least contains suggestions on how we can move forward in good faith. Far too often, people attack the position of their opponents without offering reasonable solutions of their own, which is generally a bad faith move, because it allows one to galvanize opposition to a particular movement or group of people. It is the very definition of negative thinking, and in some cases, it can even be literally hateful and bigoted. This is why, I believe, whenever someone says they are against something, we must demand to know what exactly they are for instead, and where they have done so, we should aim to continue the dialogue in good faith. In this first part, we will be looking at Sullivan's statements about the ideology of both gender critical feminists, otherwise known as TERFs, and postmodern gender ideology. As I often say, these ideologies have nothing to do with the actual lived reality of trans people, and the reality of gender dysphoria. So let us untangle this mess.

Sullivan says he supports trans people and trans rights, but has some reservations. He then goes on to say that he does not 'believe that a trans woman or a trans man is in every way indistinguishable from a woman or a man, and that he does not 'buy the idea that biological sex is socially constructed, or a function of "white supremacist" thought'. Guess what? I'm sure that the majority of trans people are with him on these points. As some trans people put it, if biological sex weren't real, they wouldn't be trans, right? If biological sex weren't real, then we wouldn't have gender dysphoria, which would be wonderful. But the reality is, biological sex is real, and hence gender dysphoria is real, and no amount of escapist postmodern theory would change this. Acknowledging the reality is helpful both for encouraging public understanding of trans lives, and for the needed discussions to take place, regarding how to best accomodate trans people while taking into account the concerns of other stakeholders. More on that later.

Sullivan then says that 'for some radical feminists, my empathy for trans women, and concern for their welfare, is regarded as a function of my misogyny and hatred of women'. I think that may not be technically correct actually, but it captures very well the sheer hatred some gender critical radical feminists have towards trans people. It's an ideologically rooted thing. As I often explain, gender critical thinking is basically one way to apply the pseudo-Marxist critical theory framework onto sex and gender. In gender criticalism, biological sex is real but gender is a social construct. Following this, the only valid difference between men and women would be in their anatomical and reproductive difference. Any other difference, including social and psychological difference, is due to social conditioning, and hence a form of 'false consciousness' designed to oppress women as a class, in a parallel to Gramsci's theory that capitalist 'cultural hegemony' is designed to keep workers satisfied with their oppression. Hence, any non-physically apprent differences between men and women must be streneously denied, despite all the empirical evidence, and despite our knowledge of Darwinian evolution. In other words, gender criticalism is as anti-science as critical theories come. Gender criticalism has no empathy towards trans women, because we are an inconvenient evidence that their theory is wrong, that there is a biological basis to gender (as well as sex). This is why gender criticalism must completely deny the validity of trans women, at all times, in all cases. It's like how the religious right completely denies the validity of gay people and gay relationships, and is just as rooted in ideological reasons.

Sullivan later says that the 'trans ideology' which seeks 'to abolish the idea of biological sex altogether and to teach kids they have a choice over whether to be a boy or girl, should be kept out of the classroom'. I totally, wholeheartedly agree with this. Except please don't call it 'trans ideology'. This ideology is part of the postmodern critical theory umbrella, and it originated in the academic humanities, rather than the trans community. It belongs to the radical feminist tradition (yes, the same tradition as transphobic gender critical feminism, and they do share many views too). Old-school trans people never accepted this ideology, but there have been attempts to brainwash the younger parts of the trans community with the ideology. In real life, trans people transition not because we 'have a choice' over our gender. It's because we don't. As trans people sometimes put it, our crippling gender dysphoria means that we don't have the luxury of seeing gender as a social construct. The postmodern radicals are silencing this basic truth of trans lives. Understand that the trans community is as much a victim of this anti-scientific ideology as the rest of society, and that many of us are very frustrated that it is getting in the way of productive conversations about trans issues based on actual scientific and clinical evidence.

I believe that there is a fundamental problem in how we are discussing trans issues in the mainstream media right now. It boils down to the fact that we do not center the condition of 'gender dysphoria' enough in those discussions. The fact is, trans people transition to relieve their gender dysphoria. Without gender dysphoria there wouldn't be trans people or trans issues. So understanding, and being empathetic towards, the very real condition of gender dysphoria, should be the first step in the development of any views towards, or solutions for, trans issues. Indeed, this was how historical pioneers of medical research into trans people, like Dr. Harry Benjamin, approached the issue. I am worried that we are losing sight of this. I am worried that the intrusion of radical feminist theories, of both the gender critical kind and the postmodern kind, is derailing the proper approach to understanding trans issues, and essentially turning a health issue into a culture war issue. This, in turn, leads to a conversation based not around understanding, empathy and science, but around academic theories, worldviews and tribalism.

Not Asian Enough, Not Trans Enough? | An Asian Trans View

Today, I want to talk about that controversial 'oppression olympics' scene from the comedy series Ginny & Georgia, released earlier this year. I'm not going to discuss the concept of 'oppression olympics' itself, but rather I will be focusing on what was said. In that scene, Ginny, who has a white mother and a black father, said that her friend Hunter, who is half-Asian, was much closer to being 'white' than herself, and that's why their allegedly racist English teacher chose Hunter's essay to be the winner. In turn, Hunter recounted his own experiences of feeling like he fitted in nowhere, and concluded with something like 'sorry if I'm not Asian enough for you'. The discussion then turned towards if Ginny was 'black enough'.

Even though Hunter's being mixed-race contributed to his feeling of not fitting anywhere, I guess this feeling applies even to those of us who aren't mixed-race. For example, many Asians who grew up in the West could have similar experiences, like going to Asia only to find a reception along the lines of 'you don't belong here either'. I myself grew up in both the West and in Asia, going back and forth between the two worlds, so I know the feeling very well. I guess, having gone to school in Asia for quite a few years, learning the language and the culture, I don't think I'm most people's idea of being 'not Asian enough', at least by Western standards. However, people in Asia, including my teachers at school, used to say that I have a very Westernized way of seeing things, and they all thought it was because I spent my first years of school in the West. So, yeah, I was, and still am, 'not Asian enough' by Asian standards, I guess.

I guess we really shouldn't care about if we are 'not Asian enough', or things like that. I mean, I'm used to not entirely fitting anywhere all my life, so it could be easy for me to say this. But I think we are all unique individuals, and I think we should be proud of our uniqueness, including in our cultural influences. I guess that would make me quite individualistic, a thing which I'm proud of, but would definitely be seen as being 'not Asian enough' by many traditional Asians. I really don't care though, to be honest.

As with all things identity, just like how one could be 'not Asian enough' or 'not black enough', one could also now be 'not gay enough', and I guess 'not trans enough' nowadays, given the increasing importance some people are assigning to these identities. I remember someone describing then-US Presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg as 'not gay enough' for some reason, something that puzzled me, because from what I see, Pete was clearly a gay man. I suspect I may also be seen as 'not trans enough' by some people too. I mean, I don't have much connection to the LGBT community, I don't share the views of the activist establishment, and I don't do many stereotypical 'trans' things, if there are indeed such things. So yeah, I'm probably 'not trans enough' too. But I don't care, because I am an individual, not a stereotype.

Lady Gaga, Katy Perry & Taylor Swift - LGBT in the Top 40 Over Time | TaraElla & Friends #8

TE: Welcome back to TaraElla and Friends. Today, we have my friend Simply Happy again, who is a proud top 40 radio person. We are going to discuss LGBT attitudes and support in the top 40 scene, and see how attitudes have evolved over time.

I still remember that, back when I was in college and gay marriage was generally opposed by majorities across the world, not many top 40 artists and personalities dared to speak up about that topic either. Things began to change around the turn of the decade, around 2009 to 2012 or so. Suddenly, it was cool to be pro-marriage equality. I think several personalities who emerged around that time, like Lady Gaga and Katy Perry, were some of the first to be vocal about their support for gay marriage and other associated rights.

SH: I also remember the change around that time. Gay representation on TV also greatly increased at around the same time, with shows like Glee. I guess people just became aware of the issues around that time.

TE: Perhaps it's partly due to the gradual awareness. That said, gay marriage was already a big culture war issue around 2004, when it was politicized with the 2004 US elections. And Prop 8 in California in 2008 caused a big wave of discussion too. So it was somewhat disappointing that more celebrities didn't state their support for LGBT rights earlier. Perhaps that could have averted the Prop 8 result, for example. I guess most celebrities were afraid of receiving backlash from more conservative parts of society if they spoke out. I mean, even in 2010 or so, it was only personalities with a more 'edgy' image, so to speak, who were comfortable voicing their support for LGBT issues. While Lady Gaga and Katy Perry were outspoken, Taylor Swift was quiet on these issues, for example.

SH: You know, I was a big fan of Taylor Swift, and I was quite disappointed with her lack of public support for LGBT issues back then. But I forgave her, and I still do, especially since she is now very vocal about supporting things like the Equality Act. I think you've got to remember that it was a different time. You've got to remember that this was back during a time when the top 40 scene was much less political than it is now. This had its pros and cons. But people were simply not used to their favorite celebrity speaking up about political issues. And those who do often get punished, like how the Dixie Chicks, now simply known as The Chicks, were subject to a boycott back in 2003, during the heated arguments around the Iraq War. You know, people don't want to lose their careers just like that.

TE: That whole drama around the Dixie Chicks, I was so angry back then. Especially since I was vehemently against the Iraq War. I guess it was back then that I started to form a strong opinion against what we call 'cancel culture' now. It's probably why I'm so against cancel culture in all its forms. I mean, one thing that's better about where we are now compared to two decades ago, is that people don't feel as compelled to stay silent on controversial political or social issues. However, my worry is that the rise of cancel culture could completely reverse that progress. We have to remember that many of the reforms we have achieved, things like marriage equality, were made possible by people being comfortable enough to speak up. We should cherish that.

SH: A related point is the unhealthy polarization. This divisiveness makes people uncomfortable, and it means people aren't going to be as comfortable discussing political issues in the future. Many people are already avoiding political topics during family gatherings. If this trend continues, I think we may indeed see a reluctance to discuss controversial issues return among public figures, especially those in the mainstream entertainment industry. And if that happens, I think it will be the fault of those pushing their extreme views on all sides.

TE: I suspect we may even be beginning to see some of this. For example, while many celebrities profess their general support for the LGBT community nowadays, they don't discuss many of the controversial issues dividing the LGBT community itself. I guess events like the 2019 attempted cancellation of ContraPoints, over some personal opinions about pronoun introductions, have taught mainstream celebrities to stay away, for the sake of their careers. You see this strategy of superficial support but no deep engagement in the whole JK Rowling controversy last year, for example. Many celebrities distanced themselves from Rowling's stance and professed support for trans rights, but it was in a shallow way, without engaging deeper in the issues at hand. What I'm worried about is that, in the future, supporting the LGBT community will mean shallow virtue signalling and nothing more. This, in turn, means that nobody ever changes their mind, and no progress is ever made.