Judith Butler defends Genderism in New Statesman, and Jane Clare Jones critiques it

I went a catholic school in the Eighties and while there was a lot of religion (obviously) it was never brought into science class.

The Earth orbits the Sun, the Earth is billions of years old, and humans evolved from single cell organisms just like everything else.

The RE teacher might have told us contraception was morally wrong but the science teachers were pretty clear on the biology of reproduction and exactly how contraception worked.

This suggestion that rad fems are in some way colluding with patriarchal religions to uphold and strengthen an oppressive system which gives men all the power and all the control is clearly divorced from reality.

It's not just divorced from reality, it's a very nasty and underhanded attack on radical and gendercrit feminists intended to punish us for not doing what Butler wants us to. She's not stupid - she knows what she's saying isn't true.

MagicMix, quite.

Which is why I'm not going to pretend that I'm not Catholic or whatever, even though I'm waist deep in this debate. Because if we've actually got to the stage where acknowledging that there are two human sexes is unacceptable religious bigotry, then we need to stand up to that very firmly.

I make no bones about my belief that a basic understanding of the physical difference between the sexes is acknowledged by Catholicism

This is acknowledged by 99% of people on Earth. And 100% of people know it even if they won't acknowledge it.

It really shouldn't be considered an ideological statement, either political or theological. If this is enough common ground to suggest an alliance, radical feminists must be in league with almost every conceivable group on the planet.

The current pope has made comments about the negative aspects of the current gender ideology. The UK bishops are a bit wet on most things, tbh.

I make no bones about my belief that a basic understanding of the physical difference between the sexes is acknowledged by Catholicism. I see no reason to hide it. And yes, there is the question of the priesthood only being open to men, and sacramental marriage being between male and female. Those are theological questions, the specific arcane inner workings of a religion that don't really need to be paid any attention to in a secular society and by people who don't hold to the religion. The days are long past when the Catholic church had overwhelming influence over society in the UK.

Personally, I find it interesting that this is being framed by Butler as 'feminists in the thrall of the pope' because what's very clear about the current push of Genderism is the religious, metaphysical aspect to it - so I can't help wondering if Butler is trying a touch of reverse psychology/distraction technique, or even subconsciously acknowledging that it's a religious question for her.

For the avoidance of doubt - there are elements of Catholicism which very clearly understand, acknowledge and even reverence the sexed bodies of humans. It is for this reason that I have found common cause with much of Radical Feminism, including many people I now consider friends, who are atheists. Not because of some nefarious Catholic plot (there's a trope that never gets old) but because we agree that there are two distinct sexes, men are capable of dreadful things, up is up, down is down and the sky is blue.

www.lse.ac.uk/gender/news/jan-2019/Anti-feminism-and-collective-response

I don’t know the details but it looks like someone had to be removed from Kimberlé Crenshaw’s talk at LSE recently.

Good to see Academic freedom being protected. Obviously nobody should behave in a disruptive or threatening way in response to academic ideas being voiced or written.

The response to this incident from the host LSE gender studies Dept is linked to above: amongst other things they recommend people read the New Statesman Butler article.

’While we work (tirelessly and together) towards a different social order, we could do worse than read Judith Butler's new article for the New Statesman that outlines some of the ways in which taking 'gender' as an object of study is constructed as a threat to nationalism and religious authoritarianism.’

www.newstatesman.com/2019/01/judith-butler-backlash-against-gender-ideology-must-stop

I know things have moved on on the thread and I am not qualified to comment on academic philosophers by any stretch: but it would be great if other gender critical academic voices could soon be featured in publications like the New Statesman both to critique Butler’s omissions (and some of the consequences IRL of her arguments) and also to defend (academic- and public/women’s) freedom of speech?
Butler is not wrong on that point about freedom of speech and these are scary times.
Is there some kind of ‘more in common’ space to be made here given the wider global authoritarian context, I think I am saying.

This fuckwittery with language is queer theory driven.

It can fuck off. Women don’t have cocks,

see no problem with women having a penis, and men having a vagina.

Look at the language here - no problem with. as if it’s an opinion. It doesn’t matter if Judith does, or does not, have a problem with it - a female penis doesn’t exist. It’s not anything to do with ‘having a problem with it.’

Things you can have a problem, or no problem with: a religious ideology, my opinion on ice cream, whether bodysuits shpuldever have had a comeback.

Things it’s irrelevant whether you have a problem with it or not, because reality doesn’t care: gravity, your requirement for oxygen, water being wet.

But the language ‘having a problem with it’ - what does that do? It changes something from an objective real thing into ‘a matter of opinion’ that you can be wrong about. And so it places the error on YOU.

Gravity exists. Women dont have penises. Objective, verifiable statements. No opinions or ‘having a problem with it’ changes that

I'm distinguishing between disapproving of something and taking active steps to make particular acts illegal. Usually the Catholic Church isn't coy about expressing an opinion on something that it thinks is doctrinally important.

I think that trans people face discrimination because they are gender non conforming and that this can be very limiting and for some creates an effective prison, but it's difficult to pin down doctrine and legislation that enforces this.

The Catholic Church actively and vocally involves itself in issues like stem cell research, but as far as I know the wider Catholic Church hasn't concerned itself with 'bathroom bans'.

But what we are being told here is that the feminists who argue against trans ideology and the idea of gender souls may think that we are feminists who got our ideas from the long-standing feminist traditions of trying to break down sex stereotypes and tackle sex-based oppression. But really we just have a core of hate bubbling under the surface and we secretly want to reinforce gender because gender non-conformity makes us uncomfortable. So the Catholic Church gave us anti-trans ideas and we subconsciously internalised them. Now we are expressing those ideas in the belief that we are making feminist arguments, but really we are just regurgitating Catholic dogma. It's so sad.*

Yes, that's pretty much it.

Merrymouse, the Catholic Church is almost definitely 'anti-trans'. Frankly I don't care what the Pope thinks about anything, but it doesn't seem like the sort of thing the Catholic Church would support.

But what we are being told here is that the feminists who argue against trans ideology and the idea of gender souls may think that we are feminists who got our ideas from the long-standing feminist traditions of trying to break down sex stereotypes and tackle sex-based oppression. But really we just have a core of hate bubbling under the surface and we secretly want to reinforce gender because gender non-conformity makes us uncomfortable. So the Catholic Church gave us anti-trans ideas and we subconsciously internalised them. Now we are expressing those ideas in the belief that we are making feminist arguments, but really we are just regurgitating Catholic dogma. It's so sad.

Magic Mix

love this: "TRIGGER WARNING: Fucking Pissed Off"

I am genuinely confused about this and think I must have missed something. The Catholic Church will not ordain women, will not marry people of the same sex and lobbies against abortion (see recent exploits of catholic school boys in US).

However, if they have been vocal on trans issues I have missed it. Wouldn't self ID rules have created more controversy in countries like Malta, Ireland and Argentina if the church were really that bothered about trans issues?

Even in the UK the Church of England has had high profile and divisive conversations about same sex marriage and the ordination of women, but really don't seem to care whether somebody is trans.

janeclarejones.com/2019/01/24/judith-butler-how-to-disappear-patriarchy-in-three-easy-steps/

Jane Clare Jones has a blog piece on it now, for those who enjoyed the Twitter thread :)

I'm a very lapsed Catholic, and I don't knew what they're teaching now, but back in the '70s and '80s, it was very much that women should submit to and were inferior to men. It was very much the virgin/whore thing. To boil it down, women existed to clean churches and have babies.

I'm not Catholic lapsed or otherwise but I was a member of a conservative evangelical church for quite a few years.

It's astonishing that anyone can seriously claim that radical feminism is embedded in patriarchal religion.

Traditionally, Christianity has taught the ontological subordination of women to men. In layman's terms, that our nature, our being as women is inferior the nature and being of men. They would quote Bible verses which speak of men being the image of god and women being the image of man.

As a reaction to second wave feminism, churches largely changed their tune on this. They stopped referring to the ontological (innate and essential) superiority of man over woman and instead switched to men and women being equal in essence but unequal in function and role. This is still a popular view in many conservative evangelical churches. They'll say things like ''men and women are equal in the eyes of god, but god made men to lead and women to submit''. I don't know what variation of this is taught in Catholic churches but given they still forbid women from joining the priesthood I would guess that they do teach that women and men have different functions and roles within the 'body of christ'.

This suggestion that rad fems are in some way colluding with patriarchal religions to uphold and strengthen an oppressive system which gives men all the power and all the control is clearly divorced from reality.

And of course, the Reformation happened because the pope refused to endorse Martin Luther's right to identify as a non-binary novigender pansexual, except on Tuesdays when he got paid.

No one knows about this because it didn't really happen because the transphobic papal legate gender researchers have colluded with radfems to have it covered up.

As I believe Andrea Dworkin originally said, every sperm is sacred.

Not sure if the repeated Google fail indicates that there are more non-technie TRAs than previously realized or if they just assume we won't know any better because vagina, or because mums.

The latter.

Gender Critical Feminism is embedded in aeons of patriarchal religions?

Yes. As someone who has studied gender I can confirm that all the earliest research was done by papal legates.

If I'm going to spread a Catholic agenda I feel like the Vatican ought to send me some robes. Least they can do, really.

Not sure if the repeated Google fail indicates that there are more non-technie TRAs than previously realized or if they just assume we won't know any better because vagina, or because mums.

It's a bit like when whichever one of them it was used their own Twitter search history completions to make a similarly desperate point.

Haha yes and the point they were trying to make was that Julie Bindel doesn't care about women in prison. I think that was one of the best foot-in-mouth moments I have ever witnessed.

And now we have Google search history showing us quite conclusively that we have all been brainwashed by the Pope without realising it and are now unwittingly spreading a Catholic agenda.

I'm getting a bit of a Groundhog Day feeling with this one tbh.

This conversation is particularly funny if you understand how Google search works.

It's a bit like when whichever one of them it was used their own Twitter search history completions to make a similarly desperate point.

I see the flailing has commenced.