discussion Trans conservatives vs Trans liberals - Messy Jubilee debate

[Price of Fame]

Thoroughly unsurprised that a trans version of these dumb videos would be the messiest one by far

[JanStan]

I HATE to say it, but my experience of how people communicate on this issue is very accurately depicted by Blossom on the left and Blaire on the right. I would love to see a debate or discussion where the people on the left actually DEBATE and DISCUSS and not go on rants about their feelings or become unhinged and angry. Maybe I just find the wrong ones but it’s the case over and over and over. Unfortunately it points to the weakness of the lefts arguments on the issue. 

[Tylerbv]

Skimming this video and I think it’s clear Sara is the most well spoken and level headed person. Sasha also came ready to listen, agree, and politely debate.

 

Blossom is insufferable and stupid. Her interrupting everyone and then saying “don’t interrupt me” just ruined any points she may have.

 

No matter how you feel about Blaire, them all attacking her career was out of place and not part of the conversation at all.

[Jotham]

So I decided to watch the entire video. There is so much overreaction to Blossom in the YouTube comments. Meanwhile, Blaire is the one making silly faces while the liberals were arguing, making light of the on-the-ground work the liberals did, and called the liberals "vile" when they said they supported top surgery for minors. Then she had to make those gross comments at the very end about Alexander. It was nice to see Sasha call her out on the rudeness though.

 

Also, these mediators were so bad. They were barely doing anything to arbitrate the discussion. And these types of videos really do need added context and a fact-checker because you can literally spew any outlandish, clickbaity thing you hear on Twitter and get away with it.

 

Lastly... there needs to be more intersectionality in these discussions. Blossom being the only POC trans person on the panel made it difficult to discuss her blackness and that's why it was so easy for people to villainize her as "rude" and "disrespectful" when she tried to speak about it.

Edited October 9, 2023 by Jotham

[awesomepossum]

2 hours ago, Communion said:

You know what allows that sort of thinking to fester? Platforming people with those ideas without heavy correction and moderation on a Youtube channel with 8M subscribers. 

Where is your proof of that? Have you ever persuaded anyone to change their mind on a major issue?

Edited October 9, 2023 by awesomepossum

[awesomepossum]

1 hour ago, shelven said:

The "pushback" they got was from some overly polite and timid scientists, but my point wasn't even that the people in the video don't push back hard enough - it was mainly that the producers/editors of these videos barely do any pushback. Time and time again, the people on the regressive/ignorant side of the debate are given tons of time to express their views and those views are framed by the video as "just another opinion" that the people on the other side are "disagreeing" with. The little pop-up facts that appear at the bottom of the screen throughout these videos very rarely provide forceful enough fact-checking and sometimes they even actively encourage the misinformation by trying to "neutrally" show where the ignorant people are getting their (wrong) information from. And the videos very often cut off conversations with the ignorant side getting the last word before the video moves on to the next question, even if their last word was incredibly misleading or inaccurate.

 

Jubilee's approach to these debates is the exact same approach we've seen from mainstream news media sources in the Trump era - the idea that for a media organization to be "neutral" and "unbiased", it has to give equal credence to both sides of the debate, even if one side is far more immoral and/or objectively inaccurate than the other. But an actual lack of bias would mean calling out misinformation and destructive positions, even if (and especially if) that's coming more from one side than the other. 

It is 'just another opinion.' The entire premise of the show is that each side can learn something from the other. Including dismantling misconceptions about each side. So, no, the producers don't take a side. As they shouldn't. 

 

I don't know what you mean about mainstream news media in the Trump era. They used to give both sides - they even had a right wing slant on some issues due to Fox News having accused mainstream media of being 'liberal' for so many years, they overcorrected - but since Trump came onto the scene, the mainstream media have largely taken up the kind of biased opinion you seem to be arguing they should. For example, labelling something as racist rather than saying 'Trump's detractors say the remarks are racist.' They are precisely doing what you're describing 'calling out misinformation and destructive positions' even when they turn out to be wrong (for example, Twitter banning people who said COVID started in a lab on the basis that that was 'misinformation' when that actually turned out to be TRUE.) The anti-free-speech position you're describing presupposes that you know everything about everything and that you can't possibly be wrong about anything. And that's ludicrous.

[Communion]

7 minutes ago, awesomepossum said:

Where is your proof of that? Have you ever persuaded anyone to change their mind on a major issue?

 

1 minute ago, awesomepossum said:

It is 'just another opinion.' The entire premise of the show is that each side can learn something from the other. Including dismantling misconceptions about each side. So, no, the producers don't take a side. As they shouldn't. 

 

I don't know what you mean about mainstream news media in the Trump era. They used to give both sides - they even had a right wing slant on some issues due to Fox News having accused mainstream media of being 'liberal' for so many years, they overcorrected - but since Trump came onto the scene, the mainstream media have largely taken up the kind of biased opinion you seem to be arguing they should. For example, labelling something as racist rather than saying 'Trump's detractors say the remarks are racist.' They are precisely doing what you're describing 'calling out misinformation and destructive positions' even when they turn out to be wrong (for example, Twitter banning people who said COVID started in a lab on the basis that that was 'misinformation' when that actually turned out to be TRUE.) The anti-free-speech position you're describing presupposes that you know everything about everything and that you can't possibly be wrong about anything. And that's ludicrous.

Well this makes more sense now. 

[awesomepossum]

3 minutes ago, Communion said:

 

Well this makes more sense now. 

Congratulations on having nothing to learn about anything because you already know everything and everything and are literally never wrong.

[Weld_E]

I tried watching this objectively and in good faith, putting aside my personal feelings for certain individuals in the video. Sara seemed to be the most level-headed and articulated her points the best. Blaire was entertaining to watch and was well-spoken, but many of her points were either anecdotal or had no valid basis. For instance, her point about trans women making other women uncomfortable in public restrooms leads to a tricky slippery slope. Should butch lesbians, who are not trans, also not be allowed in if they intimidate some women? Should ANY woman deemed too 'intimidating' or 'masculine' not be allowed in? Blossom tried dominating the conversation and kept interrupting everyone, but unfortunately, she had little value to add. 

 

Here are my opinions on the prompts they used:

 

Quote

It is a safety concern for trans women to share a female restroom

No, and statistics prove this. Their anecdotal examples of a pervert with a boner is an exception, not the norm. And as others pointed out, that person is NOT a trans woman, but a perverted CIS man.

 

Quote

I support the transgender military ban

This is a very general statement, and I think Sasha put it best. Each person should be evaluated individually (just like they do with cis people), and the decision on whether they can join should depend on that. Banning ALL trans people seems extreme. 

 

Quote

Schools should include trans conversation in sex ed

Yes, why not? They do not have to go into graphic details or dedicate an entire class to it, but there is no harm in making students aware that trans people exist.

 

Quote

It's okay for minors to get top surgery

This is a little tricky, as they didn't even seem to have an agreement on what a 'minor' is. Is it everyone under the age of 18? Should exceptions be made for those who are 16 and older? At the end of the day, I think this should be between the patient, his parents, and their doctor. 

 

Quote

Non-binary should not be considered under the trans umbrella

I agree with this. I support the non-binary community, but I think their struggles differ from those of a trans person. It does both the non-binary and the trans community a disservice to lump them all together, not to mention it creates further confusion when it comes to discussing specifics. The conservatives made good points about a trans person's inability to be as 'fluid' as a non-binary person.

 

Quote

Doctors are manipulating trans medical care

This is such a blanket statement that it baffles me to see anyone agreeing with it. It is a huge generalization of all doctors out there. Are some doctors not as competent as others? Yes. Are some doctors unethical? Yes. Are some doctors profit-oriented? Yes. But all those things can be applied to a doctor of any medical field, and the root issue of it would be malpractice, not ulterior or malicious intent specifically against trans people. So to agree with a general statement suggesting that ALL doctors are manipulative when it comes to trans care is both disingenuous and problematic.

 

 

Quote

Gender-affirming transition is suicide prevention

Don't statistics back this up? Sure, there might be other factors there when it comes to trans youth, such as undiagnosed depression or societal pressure to assimilate, but wouldn't the root cause then be the lack of gender-affirming care they receive? Blaire's point about most statistics coming from LGBTQA+ organizations is nonsensical. The reason for that is that these organizations care about trans youth more than other groups and are thus dedicating more time and resources to helping them out. She's insinuating that they are biased as they have a 'political' agenda, but what has nothing to back that claim up...

[Communion]

Also, it needs to be reiterated why this format fails, and nothing specific to user I'm quoting but it's exemplified by people having reactions like this:

51 minutes ago, Tylerbv said:

Skimming this video and I think it’s clear Sara is the most well spoken and level headed person.

Someone being able to articulate themselves calmly =/= someone being well-researched or honest.

 

The former makes someone an orator - not an expert or someone acting in good faith.

 

In just glancing over the segments, Sara was caught lying about the St. Louis trans healthcare clinic ("the woman herself was queer! she can't be anti-trans or lying as a whistleblower!") and no one moderating the debate nor later on editing the video corrected her falsehood (which is the bigger red flag - this wasn't some livestream or live debate where information can't be later fact-checked; anything included was included for a reason).

 

 

Which is the issue. The people at Jubilee are not experts in any of these issues they wish for people to debate. Debates are presented to the well-informed or to an intentional audience. Debate was largely academic for that reason.

Edited October 9, 2023 by Communion

[Anthinos]

1 hour ago, dumbsparce said:

Why is it so surprising that there are conservative trans people? There's more to a person than their gender identity. If their life as a trans person is normal, there's little reason to overlook the rest of their beliefs and side themselves with the left. By assuming every trans person should be liberal, you're literally putting them in yet another box. Just let people be.

Because it makes no sense. Why would you support a politicial side that is 100% against your basic human rights? A trans person wouldn't survive even one day in a conservative environment like Russia for example. It's easy to sit in a country like the USA and say you're conservative when you can always run to New York or California if things get bad. I have 0 respect for conservative LGBT people in 2023. Things are looking bad for us and these people are activiley supporting this growing fascism against us. Now of course it depends on what you mean with conservative. In the US you can vote for the Dems or Reps and I don't get how any sane LGBT person could vote for the Reps. In Germany you have two right wing parties. One supports most LGBT rights the other one is like the Reps. I don't have a problem with LGBT people who are conservative but support our rights and push them in their own parties but LGBT people who are actually conservative and against our rights and support a rollback? Bye. 

 

I'm also tired of debate culture tbh. I sometimes watch some of these debate bro channels and I don't get the point of it. I have yet to see anyone changing their opinion or whatever. Their whole goal is to "win" the debate and look good to their fans. This current online debate culture is so unproductive. I also think that there are some things that are black or white. There is no middle ground on some issues especially involving human rights and minorities. 

[Communion]

20 minutes ago, awesomepossum said:

Congratulations on having nothing to learn about anything because you already know everything and everything and are literally never wrong.

I mean, I could have asked you where you saw that a "lab leak theory was true". And then I could have reference how the actual truth is that there's no consensus on where COVID originated and that, even in the US, the number of agencies who support a lab leak theory are outnumbered by those who don't.

 

But would you have been receptive to this information? What is your reception to the reality that there's actually no conclusive evidence to COVID coming from a lab? That there's 100% scientific certainty the Earth is not flat? 

 

The internet has made people forget that those who participate in debates - not like forums or conversations but these spectacles - are not the audience of debates. That debate is theater at worst and public communications at best. Someone who participates in debates is an orator trying to convince people of their stance. So when right-wingers do debates and are framed as "just curious people asking questions" - no, that's literally not what that is. 

 

That Sara woman is objectively lying throughout the video. Why would someone go on a channel watched by 8M people are purposefully spread misinformation that gets doctors sent bomb threats?

Edited October 9, 2023 by Communion

[fememeist]

These bad faith videos this channel posts will make me lose brain cells so I’m saving myself from watching it and seeing the replies here.

[Into The Void]

Whats up with the essays on here. This is a forum not a blog

[awesomepossum]

3 minutes ago, Communion said:

I mean, I could have asked you where you saw that a "lab leak theory was true". And then I could have reference how the actual truth is that there's no consensus on where COVID originated and that, even in the US, the number of agencies who support a lab leak theory are outnumbered by those who don't.

 

But would you have been receptive to this information? What is your reception to the reality that there's actually no conclusive evidence to COVID coming from a lab? That there's 100% scientific certainty the Earth is not flat?

I'm very receptive to that. The point I was making was that it was banned as misinformation when it is not misinformation. As you've just acknowledged, there are US agencies that support a lab leak theory and there is no consensus on that issue. So what would be the basis for deeming it 'misinformation' and banning anyone who even mentions it as a theory, let alone argues in defense of that theory or claims it as correct. I personally don't care at all where COVID originated. I was using that as an example of mainstream media attempting to ban misinformation and call out lies and failing to do so objectively.

 

Quote

The internet has made people forget that those who participate in debates - not like forums or conversations but these spectacles - are not the audience of debates. That debate is theater at worst and public communications at best. Someone who participates in debates is an orator trying to convince people of their stance. So when right-wingers do debates and are framed as "just curious people asking questions" - no, that's literally not what that is. 

I never said right wingers are 'just curious people asking questions.' I don't care if debates are theater. I am aware that debaters are trying to convince the audience of their stance. I don't know what makes you think anyone has 'forgotten' that. That's part of how free speech works. Have you ever read Mill's defense of free speech? They are both trying to convince the audience of their stance. I don't see what the issue is.

 

Quote

That Sara woman is objectively lying throughout the video. Why would someone go on a channel watched by 8M people are purposefully spread misinformation that gets doctors sent bomb threats?

I haven't watched it yet so I don't know what you're referring to. 

[CottageHore]

Blaire was so disappointing to watch. I rarely, if ever, agree on anything she says. But I’ve been able to respect her perspective when I’ve seen her communicate it respectfully. She was so incredibly dismissive during this entire thing. She never once looked anybody in the eye, even her conservative trans counterparts. She was mumbling bullshit under her breath and being inflammatory. 
 

She needs to understand how she comes across because no matter what people believe, just watching Blaire here makes it very easy to hate her. She was acting so immature and disrespectful and the constant touching of the hair just speaks to how out of place she feels, which is likely why she was on the defensive the entire time. She knows people don’t like her but she also makes it very easy to not like her solely as a person. 

[Sheep]

Just watched this entire video with a friend and it opened up the way to some interesting conversations and this video showcasing in depth the stupidity of certain conservative talking points pushed somebody much further left on certain issues they weren't educated about in real time in front of me, so at least there's good coming out of this trash fire even if it's just a single anecdote.

 

Putting a very high profile woman who's entire life and career is to debate trans issues up for one side but not the other was extremely unfair, the liberals largely were awful at debating. Anybody as well read and committed to activism as Blaire but on the side that agrees with reality would have completely shut the discussion down at several points. We(both as queer people and left-leaning people in MAGA America) need to do better with using FACTS and using better debate strategies in general because there was more than one point where people were getting dogwalked by a neo-nazi and her ex-military ally who were abusing literally every possible logical fallacy to get away with lying through their teeth. Knowing what's right and being able to articulate what's right are different things. Sasha ate down though.

[Bloo]

4 hours ago, shelven said:

I think the breaking point for me on Jubilee's "Middle Ground" format was back when they did a flat Earther vs. round Earther video and basically let the flat Earthers dominate 75% of the video with almost no pushback  It was blatantly obvious all the way back then that Jubilee has zero interest in actually educating people and that they purposely maximize the wrong side's airtime to get outrage/controversy views.

This video was very symbolic of the problem with Jubilee. It would be fine if this video was a one-off issue. The Flat Earth ideology is so niche, widely mocked, and not directly damaging to anyone that it's more or less harmless. The issue is that they do this kind of contrived centrism and validating of both sides for everything.

 

But they'll do this and try to ask questions that spark controversy. I still foam at the mouth when I think about how they asked "would you date a trans man" in the Liberal Gays vs. Conservative Gays video.

[shelven]

1 hour ago, awesomepossum said:

So, no, the producers don't take a side. As they shouldn't. 

If one side is peddling objectively disproven and untrue information, then yes, any responsible and moral moderator should absolutely be "taking a side" and not allowing that false information to be presented as if it's just "a differing opinion." Having a different person in the video attempt to correct the false statement, then letting the person who made the statement repeat/expand on it with more false information, and then essentially cutting off that conversation and taking the stance of "welp, you heard both of them, you decide!" is irresponsible and is the exact logic that has put the U.S. in the political mess it's currently in where literally half the country believes in multiple wild conspiracy theories that have been repeatedly and flatly disproven.

 

1 hour ago, awesomepossum said:

The anti-free-speech position you're describing presupposes that you know everything about everything and that you can't possibly be wrong about anything. And that's ludicrous.

Oh of COURSE you're one of those "if you disagree with what I say, that means you're anti-free speech" people  Wishing that a YouTube channel which advertises itself as educational and informative would take a harder stance against blatant misinformation by at least making it clearer that the misinformation is false is not "anti-free-speech"  I don't think people should be jailed for spouting flat Earth theories. But I do think that if you're going to platform and signal boost flat Earth theories for a supposedly "instructive" purpose, you have a responsibility to not let that theory be presented as "something that these people just happen to disagree with the scientists on and we should listen to everyone's voices on this xoxo." It's lazy and a cliche to say that it's "anti-free speech" to not actively promote other people's misinformation

[shelven]

1 minute ago, Bloo said:

This video was very symbolic of the problem with Jubilee. It would be fine if this video was a one-off issue. The Flat Earth ideology is so niche, widely mocked, and not directly damaging to anyone that it's more or less harmless. The issue is that they do this kind of contrived centrism and validating of both sides for everything.

 

But they'll do this and try to ask questions that spark controversy. I still foam at the mouth when I think about how they asked "would you date a trans man" in the Liberal Gays vs. Conservative Gays video.

Yeah, I'm using the flat Earth video as my main example because it's a particularly straightforward example of them platforming and failing to sufficiently push back on objectively disproven misinformation, but it's definitely the consistent position they take across this entire series, even for topics where the misinformation can (and does) cause direct harm to people. I found this series concept interesting when it first started, but couldn't tolerate it after a while when it became clear that way too many of the discussions in the videos were edited to give the last word to the side relying on misinformation to make an actively harmful point.

[Bloo]

5 minutes ago, shelven said:

Yeah, I'm using the flat Earth video as my main example because it's a particularly straightforward example of them platforming and failing to sufficiently push back on objectively disproven misinformation, but it's definitely the consistent position they take across this entire series, even for topics where the misinformation can (and does) cause direct harm to people. I found this series concept interesting when it first started, but couldn't tolerate it after a while when it became clear that way too many of the discussions in the videos were edited to give the last word to the side relying on misinformation to make an actively harmful point.

I mean, at its face, it's genuinely just meant to be unproductive. How do preface a discussion to find "middle ground" by setting it up as a "versus battle"? That makes NO sense. The best video Jubilee has ever put out was a discussion between Black Americans and African people. It was a legitimate conversation full of love and empathy. It was genuinely interesting to hear the different perspectives regarding racism, socioeconomic conditions, etc. Despite the nature of the conversation, Jubilee still has "versus" in the title, when it's not at all combative. 

 

It would be one thing if they took conservatives and liberals from different groups and tried to ask general questions that aren't immediately politically charged (e.g., "What are things in the world that concern you?"). I think there would be so much more opportunity for people see eye to eye if you give them space to bond on shared fears and anxieties and maybe see how their upbringings make them think differently on some things. 

 

But, instead, Jubilee just wants conflict—even if its nonsensical (e.g., the White Liberal vs. Black Conservative video is the peak example of this—what was the f**king point?). 

 

On another note, a major issue I have with the platform is that they try to present themselves as bringing in a random sample of people from these demographics. When, instead, they are actually just bringing in people who are either already influencers or are wannabe influencers. So often, I have found that many of the conservatives will be people that have leadership positions in the RNC and none of that is disclosed in the video. So you might think you have an everyday stay-at-home mom and then you do a bit of digging and realize that they're a person who is literally trained to fight for certain talking points. That... is so antithetical to having genuine conversation when you're bringing in people whose career is centered around selling an ideological brand. It's ridiculous.

[Domination]

These videos are all the same, the conservatives get to pick the low hanging fruit and end up looking somewhat sensible and then the progressives are left to to try and justify their way out of a loaded question. 

 

The nb question is a perfect example of this. Nb, by definition, doesn’t “fall” “under” the category of trans simply by virtue of the fact that some nb people identify as trans and some do not. Some do get gender affirming medical care, some do not. The progressives in these videos always die on hills like this because they end up just sitting there like “but can’t we all be one big happy family!” because there’s so little for them to work with.

[Take Me Apart]

Blaire is such a queen 

[FreeXone]

Trans conservatives? Lmao

 

An oxymoron 

 

Doesnt matter how much you pander to them they will NEVER accept you 

[SecretSecret]

4 hours ago, dumbsparce said:

Why is it so surprising that there are conservative trans people? There's more to a person than their gender identity. If their life as a trans person is normal, there's little reason to overlook the rest of their beliefs and side themselves with the left. By assuming every trans person should be liberal, you're literally putting them in yet another box. Just let people be.

 

5 hours ago, Sawk said:

Also, not sure why people are saying being a trans conservative is impossible, anyone can be conservative in the same vain anyone can be a liberal, when you try to add people’s intrinsic characteristics to a whole movement, you’ve lost the narrative.

It's not just that conservatives are against trans rights, and if you're trans and support them you're acting against your own basic interests, as other posters already pointed out. You can't coherently be a trans conservative because conservatives don't recognize transness as a reality in the first place. They may tolerate it, but it's always going to be an abnormality for them.

 

Your transness and the ideology you defend, at least when we're talking about gender issues, aren't really separate. The moment you declare yourself as trans, and decide to live as a trans person, you are deeming valid certain "progressive" values, and contradicting conservative ideas. Trans conservative is an oxymoron not because it's dumb to side with the people who hate you, but because your whole existence is already a contradiction of those conservative values. If these people really embraced conservatism, they'd never have transitioned, as they would believe that there is only man and woman, and there's nothing you can do to change that.