Judith Butler interview

Jane Clare Jones:
"So, in honour of the High Priestess of Genderology being dispatched to remind the great and the good that those uppity witches are all fascists and most definitely should not be listened to (nothing remotely normative or disciplinary going on here honest innit), here is the first draft of the piece I finished last week on why sex denial is a pile of conceptual bullshit. The argument works, in fact, by playing Butler at her own game, and demonstrating that actually, it is her who is committed to absolutist and determinist ideas about sex, which is what leads her to the catastrophic and idiotic conclusion we need to all play a massive international round of ‘let’s pretend’ enforced by women losing their jobs, being threatened and punched, and occasionally patronised by a famed ‘feminist’ academic who transparently hasn’t got a damn clue what is actually happening."
janeclarejones.com/2021/09/07/smashing-the-binary-a-dissection-of-sex-denial/

We get it! You’re a cool girl.

TWEETS

@HadleyFreeman
“Everyone who disagrees with me is a fascist” is a really reasonable, persuasive and intelligent argument and it’s one I wish I’d thought of years ago. Could have saved me so much bother

@soniasodha
In case anyone missed the signs outside said conference, at which women who’ve suffered rape & sexual trauma were in attendance. I would never call the people who wrote them fascists though, because to do so is to demean those who’ve lost their lives to fascism.

@bindelj
Whilst one so-called feminist organisation purporting to campaign to end drug rape have dropped to their knees on behalf of the patriarchy, a so-called 'feminist icon' who is nothing of the sort is calling actual feminists fascists. I think I go to bed and get up tomorrow.

She's a human GIGO machine.

YES! I'm going to use this in future every time JB comes up.

God, what a load of old shit. I barely skimmed it but a couple of gems leaped out.

"They [the GC "movement] do not hold themselves to standards of of consistency or coherence" Oh, the irony!

"They oppose protections for women against rape and domestic violence". HOW FUCKING DARE SHE!

God, I just tried to read this, I'm exhausted. What utter fucking gibberish. I have nothing else to say.

Has she completely misunderstood the gender-critical argument, or is she deliberately misrepresenting it?

There's another possibility. She believes all the gender identity stuff and, because it's incoherent, inconsistent, and self-contradictory, she is incapable of thinking in a rational way. So she thinks very cleverly but it's just garbage. She's a human GIGO machine.

I couldn't read the whole thing either, but I read the last paragraph:

That is why it makes no sense for “gender critical” feminists to ally with reactionary powers in targeting trans, non-binary, and genderqueer people.

So the rest of the article is not attempting to explain what is wrong about feminist opposition to genderism, but only about why religious conservative people object to 'gender ideology'. But then she makes the enormous leap that feminists who oppose this ideology must be 'targeting' trans people, and that we also must be 'allies' of the religious right-wingers.

She appears not to understand that we might have completely different reasons for our opposition to genderism which is as far removed from the religious right as her position is.

She says: Given that most of these opponents refuse to read any material that might contradict their beliefs or cherrypick from complex texts to support a caricature, how is one to proceed?

And yet this article shows very clearly that she hasn't read anything that might contradict her beliefs. If she had she wouldn't come across as so completely ignorant of what gender critical feminists are actually saying.

example not article!

Okay Judith that does sound pretty bad. Is it true though? No, no I don't think it is

Of course it's not. And she must know it's not. If she pays any attention at all, she'll know that most gender-critical feminists have a long history of working in the violence against women sector, of fighting for abortion rights, of campaigning for contraception, the right to control one's fertility and so on. Julie Bindel is a prominent article but god knows there are very many others. She must know that. So she's deliberately lying.

I did start reading it, but skimmed to the end. Fuck me, that is a lot of words to say gender critical feminists are (or are aligning with) a bunch of right wing bible bashing, censoring, violence threatening, hyperbolic fascists.

Sorry but what a load of drivelling bollocks. Actually, no, not sorry. Dr Jane Clare Jones sums it up brilliantly.

Okay so in the name of balance I really tried to read Judith's new article (linked on page 16 of this thread). I just couldn't get to the end. But from the first half I think she is saying that:

1. gender identity theory is great but it is far too diverse and complex to explain

2. people who don't like gender identity theory are all nationalist, transphobic, misogynist, homophobic, conservative, religious, fascist bigots. They also oppose reproductive freedom for women, rights of single parents, rights of trans people, and protections for women against rape and domestic violence.

Okay Judith that does sound pretty bad. Is it true though? No, no I don't think it is

I notice a reply to Sonia Sodha:

"perhaps more the case that it’s very normal, on finding yourself aligned with the far right - for reasons of antagonism towards a particular minority, or because your friends are, or because you’ve been misled - to find yourself becoming very defensive about words like “fascist”"

Translation: denying you're a fascist is proof that you are one.

TWEET

Sonia Sodha
@soniasodha
It will never not be true that hyperbolically peppering a piece with references to fascists and fascism to try and discredit reasonable people who disagree with you is convincing to precisely nobody who doesn’t already think exactly as you do.

TWEET BY THE QUEEN (or should that be prince? I guess JKR is the queen)

Dr. Jane Clare Jones Sauropod
@janeclarejones

I have not read this. I will summarise and you can give me points for how close to the mark it is.

Blah blah fascists blah blah gender ideology blah Orban blah blah Catholics blah the Pope blah blah TERFs blah blah DID I MENTION FASCISTS???

I love this in the comments on the Guardian Twitter:

Someone asks what I think is supposed to be a rhetorical question: "what totalitarian method to protect the fundamental rights of transgender people bothers you the most?"

Someone else answers: "Limitations on free speech, compelled speech, blacklisting of personalities that refuse to accept the perspective of the movement and the general stance of "Any disagreement with our political ideas is impermissible, because we, by definition, stand for human rights"."

Judith Butler is trending and there are good responses
The Guardian
@guardian
Why is the idea of ‘gender’ provoking backlash the world over? | Judith Butler
twitter.com/guardian/status/1451859066482012162

As I recall, Arthur managed to nearly doom the ship by trying to get the machine to produce some actual tea. I wonder what happens if you try to get Butler to actually address some real arguments or actually tackle the rights conflict.

That's very funny, Necessary. I would love to see Butler share a platform with a feminist philosopher like Jane Clare Jones or Kathleen Stock to debate these issues. I suspect either of them would wipe the floor with her. Which is why she'll never do it.

My own view is that she's not stupid but she is a deeply nasty piece of work. Shame on the Guardian for publishing this.

Yes - sadly I have come to think she’s actually just another bad faith actor in pursuit of the flattery and ego-boost of unquestioning disciples.

However. I don’t think you can read her as saying gender is innate?

Has she completely misunderstood the gender-critical argument, or is she deliberately misrepresenting it? I honestly don't know.

Whatever it is, it just seems to be the case that she's an output-only device. There's no clear evidence that she in any way perceives the outside world or reality, or if she does it doesn't matter. She just produces words.

She's like Douglas Adams' Nutri-Matic machine:

The way it functioned was very interesting. When the Drink button was pressed it made an instant but highly detailed examination of the subject's taste buds, a spectroscopic examination of the subject's metabolism and then sent tiny experimental signals down the neural pathways to the taste centers of the subject's brain to see what was likely to go down well. However, no one knew quite why it did this because it invariably delivered a cupful of liquid that was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea.

As I recall, Arthur managed to nearly doom the ship by trying to get the machine to produce some actual tea. I wonder what happens if you try to get Butler to actually address some real arguments or actually tackle the rights conflict.

They believe that children are being told to change genders, are actively recruited by gay and trans people, or pressured to declare themselves as gay in educational settings where an open discourse about gender is caricatured as a form of indoctrination.

First Judith Butler challenge: Go on r/egg_irl or 4chan right now and tell me that this isn't actually happening.

https://www.reddit.com/r/truscum/comments/qd46gw/todayonnthankgoddcispeopleestillhaveebrains/?utmsource=share&utmm_medium=mweb

Second Judith Butler challenge: talk to your detrans friends and 'uplift their voices as a white woman with considerable power.'
You don't have any detrans friends? Oh wow, guess you're more narrow minded than you think.

Oh, and also, the Guardian is doing an excellent job of pissing off its own readership. Think of all the left-wing feminists who are now waking up to what's going on. They must be leaving the paper in droves.

NecessaryScene: you have to ask that question, don't you? Has she completely misunderstood the gender-critical argument, or is she deliberately misrepresenting it? I honestly don't know.

I mean, if you look at this bit quoted above:

"Anti-gender movements are not just reactionary but fascist trends, the kind that support increasingly authoritarian governments. The inconsistency of their arguments and their equal opportunity approach to rhetorical strategies of the left and right, produce a confusing discourse for some, a compelling one for others. But they are typical of fascist movements that twist rationality to suit hyper-nationalist aims."

That is a pretty extreme accusation to make. You shouldn't accuse people of being fascists lightly. We all know that the authoritarians in this debate are those getting women banned from Twitter for wrongthink, reporting women to their employers, getting women sacked, holding masked protests to intimidate women, banning women from public platforms, and reporting women to the police.

The authoritarianism of the trans rights movement should be of profound concern to anyone who regards themselves as progressive.

On the other side, we have gender-critical feminists, who are not trying to get people banned, not holding masked protests or letting off smoke homes, freely inviting their opponents to public debate, not reporting their opponents to the police etc.

Just reading that shit, it's just a litany of lies. "Hyper-nationalist aims". What the fuck do those have to do with gender-critical feminism, for god's sake?

My own view is that she's not stupid but she is a deeply nasty piece of work. Shame on the Guardian for publishing this.

Is she actually just stupid?