Natalie Wynn is Tired of Debating
On coping with the pointlessness of political discussion.
Real quick up top: you can now sign up for my summer course on plastics! This course is worth actual college credit and will teach you everything you need to know about how plastics are made, what makes them unrecyclable, and what we can do about it. You don’t even need to be a current Five College student to take it! Learn more about how to enroll here and check out the course syllabus on my website. Thanks!
One artist that looms large over my own brand is filmmaker and political commentator Natalie Wynn, aka ContraPoints. If you’re a trans woman who makes a certain type of political content on the Internet, you will inevitably be compared to her, probably because you were directly inspired by her.
Having risen to online prominence for her videos about the alt-right, Ms. Points is mostly known for her uncanny ability to detangle conservative thinking with a sharp combination of wit, humor, and most importantly, empathy. By scrutinizing (for example) incel ideology while also finding some level of understanding of where incels are coming from, she’s able to connect with an audience and give a well-rounded understanding of how hate movements form. Wynn explains bigotry from a birds-eye view; even when covering individual figures like J.K. Rowling or Jordan Peterson, she uses them as case studies to explore the nature of bigotry in general, ascending above the average political commentator by deriving modern hatred from first principles rather than their superficial qualities. As a chemical engineer and academic who tries to think of the world in the same way—via systems-thinking and first principles—I’m obviously a huge fan.
At least, that’s what the ContraPoints story has been for much of the past five years. Much has been written about Wynn’s ability to “deradicalize the alt-right”, something that she used to be quite proud of. Recently, however, she’s begun to question that role through her work, and this is worth unpacking (at least for other trans political commentators such as myself).
My own content has been compared to hers, especially ones where I unpack TERF talking points in a way that’s accessible to an audience who’s susceptible to them. Wynn gives her videos titles such as “Are Traps Gay?” for the same reason that I open my TikToks with inflammatory phrases such as “Here’s what I have to say to cis lesbians who don’t want to date trans women!!”—namely, as a kind of lure for those expecting something spiteful and emotional, something they can Duet/Stitch/hold up as something to say “aha, look at this perverted man who just wants to sleep with women”, only to bait-and-switch them with something far more reasonable, defensible, and difficult to soundbyte into a TERF cringe compilation. The ContraPoints style can be hard to emulate, but if you can get it right, it’s incredibly impactful.
Those who know their deep Anna Marie lore know that it goes deeper than that, though. I’ll spare you the exact timeline of events, but suffice it to say, 2017 was a big year for the both me and Natalie. I had been watching ContraPoints since at least 2016, back when she had not yet came out as a trans woman, opting instead for a “vague non-binary mess” persona. By the following summer, I had become a Patreon supporter of hers, sending her a portion of my measly grad student paycheck because I simply loved her work that much. In one private Patreon livestream (I want to say August 2017?), she shared that after some time experimenting with genderfuckery, she was starting hormone replacement therapy. This revelation was one of several factors that led to me, finally, acknowledging my own gender trouble. I started looking into HRT myself, wondering if it was right for me, and in Natalie, I had a model for a trans woman in her 20s going through these early stages of transition for the first time, whereas most trans women of the time appeared on the Internet fully-formed. And here I am now, nearly six years later, a trans lesbian content creator who makes online videos about systemic oppression and bigotry—like mother like daughter.
So yeah, ContraPoints inspired me to transition. How’s that for a parasocial relationship?
I’ve been a Patreon supporter of hers on and off over the years, depending on how much spare change I had and how cancelled she was at any given time. Once she had ascended to a certain level of financial support, I decided that she was fine without my money, and started giving my hard-earned money to smaller, more diverse creators. I remain a fan and always anticipate her new releases, despite the growing distance between uploads.
I’m more than aware of the criticisms of her and her work—that her perspective is limited by her whiteness, that her political aspirations aren’t radical enough, that “deradicalizing the alt-right” means displacing recent neo-Nazis into diverse leftist communities which might be causing harm, that she should probably stop tweeting—many of which I agree with. I’ll even add this: in an increasingly diverse and collaborative leftist YouTube ecosystem—where the voices of F.D. Signifier, Foreign Man in a Foreign Land, CJ the X, Anansi’s Library, Tee Noir, Fab Socialism, Shanspeare, and others are constantly appearing in each others videos, either to provide voice work or to share perspectives—Natalie Wynn stands as a singular figure, collaborating with almost no one aside from Zoë Blade (who provides music) and her own small suite of recurring voice actors. This makes sense as someone who has been hurt too many times via cancellation-by-association (and, apparently, literal sexual assault) to want to risk having her name attached to another creator. As an artist, I can also understand the desire to have total control over your work. Wynn does support more diverse creators monetarily—viewers of amazing channels like Intelexual Media will notice that Ms. Points appears in the Patreon credits of her videos. But while I admire her “going solo” style—clearly, my own videos are deeply inspired by hers—there is something to be said about how the only mention of “Corn Bread Tube” on her entire channel is a small clip of an F.D. Signifier video, itself a clip of a Vaush stream where F.D. doesn’t even appear. This is not to claim that “Natalie is a racist”—her videos are explicitly anti-racist and she supports many creators monetarily, if silently—but more so to say that I understand why some say her style of content is outdated. Much of the more virulent critique about Natalie Wynn, the human person, emerges from transmisogyny and the deep trauma within the trans community, and should be held up to scrutiny. She’s not a flawless goddess either, but with all the other amazing leaders on the Left (both in the online content space and in IRL activism), I don’t really need her to be.
Anyway, let’s talk about her new video!
This video, which you should most definitely watch, is a certified banger. For a full two hours, Natalie’s strengths are on full display, from her encyclopedic knowledge of queer history to her comprehension of both the logical and emotional dimensions to right-wing ideology. It’s crucial to understand not just what someone believes, but why they believe it: what incentive structures and societal standards create an educational scaffolding as robust as the TERF pipeline, and what life events might lead someone down that path? Here, Wynn’s analysis of right-wing women is spot-on: conservative ideology gives women a role. An oppressive role, absolutely, but a role nonetheless in a meaningless universe where we’re alienated from our labor (and each other) via capitalism and patriarchy.
One sole factor differentiates this new video from her other work, however. Actually, her past two videos both grapple with the same core question: is political debate worthwhile at all?
Having grown in popularity for her ability to “deradicalize”, Wynn is now confronting the inherent limitations of this approach to achieving social justice. In Chapter 5 of her new video, “The Witch Trials of J.K. Rowling”, she contrasts her own previous work with two figures: Anita Bryant, one of the most vocal anti-gay bigots of the 1970s/80s, and Megan Phelps-Roper, a former member of the Westboro Baptist Church who, like Wynn, focuses on open debate with the goal of deradicalizing bigots. The idea being put forth by Megan’s podcast of the same name is the extreme endpoint of the idea that we should always leave room for debate, no matter how hateful people are. Wynn fires back at this notion, and I think it’s one of the most important takeaways of this video.
To quote Wynn at length:
Gay activists didn’t need to persuade Anita Bryant; they needed to defeat her. And that’s what they did. We have to accept that realistically, “persuading all the bigots” is just not an option. Yes, we should convince as many people as possible, but there will always be bigots, and mocking them, shaming them, or boycotting them is, I think, a perfectly valid strategy. Does that mean that when we “cancel bigots” we’re acting “kind of like the Westboro Baptist Church”? Naur. You would only think that if you were a total moral relativist. I guess, controversial opinion, but bigotry is shameful. And it should be shamed. I’ll say it!
You know, if you’re testing out some racist ideas in your head, you might feel afraid to express them publicly for fear of being shamed or judged. Is that because we live in an Orwellian dystopia that punishes people for “wrongthink”? No. It’s because racism is dangerous and shameful, and you should be ashamed of it, and the people judging you are right to do so.
There are some dyed-in-the-wool bigots who will never, ever be convinced to stop being bigots, especially in a media ecosystem that pays people very well for continuing to be bigoted. What we need to do—and what I try to do in my own work—is convince onlookers, those who are not fully bigoted but who are still susceptible to right-wing talking points (about women, about trans people, about people of color, etc.) Any skilled debater will tell you that your goal in debate is not to convince your opponent of your viewpoint, but to convince the debate’s audience, to control the conversation around the topic. This is something conservatives seem to understand very well, but the Left largely does not.
This is the rhetorical goal of trans people saying, “it was never about protecting kids, it was never about bathrooms, it was never about sports; all these bills are about eliminating trans people from public life.” When we have the conversation about trans issues on the terms of transphobes, we lose. Put another way, when we are talking about trans people in the way that conservatives want us to be talking about trans people, we lose. In my view, we need to be snapping people back into reality by focusing on material issues—like employment discrimination, housing, health care access, etc.—rather than having metaphysical debates about “what is a woman, really?” which will probably never be answered.
Conservatives want us to keep having these pointless debates with no true answers, so that we don’t talk about material issues, because if the conversation actually shifts that way, they would have no leg to stand on. Fascism provides no solutions to world issues; the only thing it can do is scapegoat to minorities and eat itself alive.
There’s an emotional dimension to all of this that shouldn’t be ignored either. Even more so than in her new video, her previous piece “The Hunger” confronts the pointlessness of debate head-on. In this extended fictional discussion between a hyper-religious bigot (Virginia Lamm) and a sullen Points stand-in (Justine Tableau), one thread remains throughout: Justine is objectively correct, but Virginia is compelling. Justine has a sharp wit and never obfuscates the truth, but is notably (if reasonably) depressed and unpleasant to listen to. Virginia, on the other hand, weaves Bible quotes and captivating religious imagery full of light and love—all, of course, to disguise her advocacy for outright genocidal policies on LGBTQ people and drug addicts, who she claims are a result of “societal sickness”. Objectively wrong, but it gets the people going.
To win a debate, you don’t have to be correct, you just have to feel correct to an audience. Trump’s election proved that American presidential debates are winnable via memes and bigotry. In fact, this concept of “style over substance” has been present in our politics for a long time, at least mythologically: it has long been said that the “winner” of the 1960 presidential debate between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon was decided by the medium through which you consumed it. Nixon, to 1960s white America, had compelling “points”, but throughout the event was sweating and sometimes stumbling through words, while Kennedy, despite having weaker points, was a skilled orator with a pretty face, who wore makeup and a nice suit. So, as the story goes, those who listened to the debate over radio thought Nixon won the debate, while those who watched the debate on television saw Kennedy as victorious (some new research casts doubt on this discrepancy, however).
It is deeply refreshing, especially in light of recent criticisms of Natalie’s work, that she seems to be grappling with her own legacy as a creator, questioning the entire toxic nature of modern political discourse. How much power, after all, can one woman have in changing the conversation? How much power can trans people as a group have in achieving gender justice—even if we were somehow all unified (which we are not)—if our allies don’t pick up the fight alongside us? Do we need to defeat our enemies with logical arguments, or simply in the court of public opinion? And why, across the entire political spectrum, do we keep making women into villains for our movements to prosper?
I know one thing: it is not, and never will be, worth the full effort of the Left to convince bigots to not be bigots. The leveraging of terms like “cancel culture” by the Right has been engineered to obfuscate the fact that marginalized people are 100% justified in being “emotional”, perhaps even to an “irrational” degree, about how our lives are up for debate.
My life is not up for debate. Trans people are here, and we are not going anywhere. I am alive, and I am happy.
Although, I will admit that it has been hard to be trans lately. (Due to transphobia, not because I’m living a life of sin, or whatever.) I’m on a bit of a content creation break these days, mainly due to the onslaught of anti-trans news affecting my mental health. I’ve been doing a lot of processing and collecting my thoughts for the past few weeks, and I do look forward to making my return to TikTok and Instagram, but I know that (a) I need a fucking break and (b) even when I come back I will probably be a lot less frequent in my anti-trans media coverage.
Basically:
The last thing I want is for my page to be a place of fear for trans people. I just hope I can find this balance, if it even exists, that so many trans people are struggling to find these days. Maybe I can be like ContraPoints and post once a year with a massive, all-encompassing manifesto. Maybe I’ll just give up the game entirely and switch to talking about plastic pollution. Maybe I’ll keep retreating into the woods every few months to try and stay sane.
One thing’s for sure: I will be posting, bravely posting, the whole way through.
Currently Reading
An excellent piece about how capitalism does not lead to innovation; quite the opposite in fact. I’ll add here that it says a lot that millions of people are willingly playing video games like Truck Driving Simulator and Power Washing Simulator, and yet capitalists argue that without a profit incentive, “nobody would want to work”. Pitiful.
A friendly reminder that we are still in a pandemic.
The Dalai Lama is apparently very creepy, and takes money from the CIA????
An argument for the 2013 Robin Thicke song “Blurred Lines” being a nexus event for all the problems in our current culture.
Watch History
On a related note, whenever I’m having a bad day, I watch Todd in the Shadow’s video about the complete and utter failure of Robin Thicke’s album immediately following “Blurred Lines” and it cheers me right up. This is not a joke, I have seen this video dozens of times. What a sad, strange little man.
My fans are wrong: I’m not the ContraPoints of trans TikTok, I’m the Internet Shaquille of trans TikTok. At least in terms of my delivery, I’m far more influenced by the best cooking show on YouTube. This 4/20, try his recipe for “potcorn”.
Bops, Vibes, & Jams
I just re-listened to Daft Punk’s “Random Access Memories”, which also turns 10 years old this year! I was struck by how sad so many of the songs were, especially now that the band has officially broken up. Songs like “Beyond” and “Doin’ It Right” in retrospect sound like a dramatic, hopeful final message to their fans: You can do it. If you’ve ever been inspired by us, know that we are with you always. Go forth and make great music; that power was always within you. :’)
Princess Nokia is one of my favorite artists of all time. She released a new album recently that’s very good, and I’ve also been obsessed with her song “Diva” and its associated club remix.
And now, your weekly Koko.
That’s all for now! See you next week with more sweet, sweet content.
In solidarity,
-Anna