Judith Butler interview

I did study philosophy and I think she is a sloppy fraud. They are not difficult to find in some parts of academia.

But it's very naive to think that what philosophers do stays within academia. It's true that philosophers may think about specific ideas and scenarios that will never matter to most people, but the underlying assumptions about reality and knowing that they develop and accept do tend to leak out. Postmodernism leaked out into the public consciousness and we are now seeing the effects, just as we say logical positivism leak out, and although it's no longer very dominant in academia a version of it is one of the most common approaches among non-religious westerners - again, in academia first and then in the general public. Similarly critical theory had its start in academia and now is being dispersed through political institutions and the public.

Interesting development. This morning with this piece it looked like the Guardian were doubling down, despite the Wi Spa news. Has the penny finally dropped with them, "Hans, are we the baddies?"

Yes

However.

And I'll look it up. Was she involved in taking her ideas out of the academic and into govt policy etc etc including all those years ago with NHS wards?

I suspect not.

Now of course she can get publicity and ££ out of it.

But when she published about this originally. Did she go out and push it/ get others on board to push it?
Or was it just an idea, something to think about. Which as a philosopher is her job.

I don't know tbh.

Wyatt I suspect is that her rather esoterical ideas have been picked up and pushed by others who saw it would serve their interests.

I am willing to accept I that I am totally wrong by the way! And obv don't agree with her view on this.

BUT as a thought experiment. Fine. Interesting.
In real life. Not good.

But did she personally push it out at the beginning or did others take her arguments and run with them.

Is she saying that fascist = accepting the biological reality of sex?

I'm not thick, I just can't be arsed wasting my time deconstructing word salad into tomatoes, and lettuce, and feta, and olives, and cucumber, and all the rest.

Sorry, haven’t managed to read all the (v good!) thread, but just wanted to post Nussbaum’s famous essay on Butler which is just as good now as when it came out:

newrepublic.com/article/150687/professor-parody

Or link here:

perso.uclouvain.be/mylene.botbol/Recherche/GenreBioethique/Nussbaum_NRO.htm

Lol sorry

'As important as it is, however, to make complex concepts available to a popular audience, it is equally important to encourage intellectual inquiry as part of public life. Unfortunately, we are living in anti-intellectual times, and neo-fascism is becoming more normalized.'

If you don't get why sex is irrelevant then you're just thick innit.

Dickhead.

This comment at end-

'This article was edited on 7 September 2021 to reflect developments which occurred after the interview took place'

Massive issues with this.

1. Usually they say what has been edited and specifically why. This is substandard in terms of a mainstream newspaper altering a published piece.

1. JB whatever you think of her IS a long-standing academic. Area philosophy. And certainly her ideas arguments views on this started something massive. What she says should be respected by the outlet that interviewed her and wrote it up.

• Did they ask her approval of the (massive) changes?
• If not. Who the fuck do they think they are.
• If they did. Then the edited note at end needs to be more informative.
• I would put money on them not advising her before cutting a massive chunk of the interview which may have been the reason she did the interview in the first place.

And finally. Why? They published it happily. What incident? No one is named so can't be too do with libel etc. What's the actual problem? To the extent they just chopped out a massive chunk of a high profile interview on this topic?

Journalism?

Journalism is not about updating your articles, esp interviews. Because something happens and you think oh shit that looks bad.

Where's the strength of conviction?
Publishing interviews so people can consider and see what they think?

Where is the integrity?

It's fucked is where.

So many learnt from trump.

I found it on the archive site ending in .is but I couldn't post a link. I'm sure we used to be able to post links to that site.

Here are the normal places to check for archived versions:

<a class="break-all" href="https://archive.fo/www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2021/sep/07/judith-butler-interview-gender" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">archive.fo/www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2021/sep/07/judith-butler-interview-gender

<a class="break-all" href="https://web.archive.org/web//www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2021/sep/07/judith-butler-interview-gender" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">web.archive.org/web//www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2021/sep/07/judith-butler-interview-gender

You can see the individual timestamps of the times the archived versions were created.

Ah yes that was there when I read it earlier.

It seems that some within feminist movements are becoming sympathetic to these far-right campaigns. This year’s furore around Wi Spa in Los Angeles saw an online outrage by transphobes followed by bloody protests organised by the Proud Boys. Can we expect this alliance to continue?

It is very appalling and sometimes quite frightening to see how trans-exclusionary feminists have allied with rightwing attacks on gender. The anti-gender ideology movement is not opposing a specific account of gender, but seeking to eradicate “gender” as a concept or discourse, a field of study, an approach to social power. Sometimes they claim that “sex” alone has scientific standing, but other times they appeal to divine mandates for masculine domination and difference. They don’t seem to mind contradicting themselves.

The Terfs (trans exclusionary radical feminists) and the so-called gender critical writers have also rejected the important work in feminist philosophy of science showing how culture and nature interact (such as Karen Barad, Donna Haraway, EM Hammonds or Anne Fausto-Sterling) in favor of a regressive and spurious form of biological essentialism. So they will not be part of the coalition that seeks to fight the anti-gender movement. The anti-gender ideology is one of the dominant strains of fascism in our times. So the Terfs will not be part of the contemporary struggle against fascism, one that requires a coalition guided by struggles against racism, nationalism, xenophobia and carceral violence, one that is mindful of the high rates of femicide throughout the world, which include high rates of attacks on trans and genderqueer people.

The anti-gender movement circulates a spectre of “gender” as a force of destruction, but they never actually read any works in gender studies. Quick and fearful conclusions take the place of considered judgments. Yes, some work on gender is difficult and not everyone can read it, so we have to do better in reaching a broader public. As important as it is, however, to make complex concepts available to a popular audience, it is equally important to encourage intellectual inquiry as part of public life. Unfortunately, we are living in anti-intellectual times, and neo-fascism is becoming more normalized.

Why is it being altered?

Is there a note on to say edited and why?

Tweet here showing the previous version compared with edited version.
twitter.com/robin__craig/status/1435326601290452993

Did anyone archive the original version of the piece?

Yes I'm pretty sure I saw someone did.

I read JB in her own words for the first time last year. Then, as now in both the Guardian interview and the New Statesman one someone linked, I was really surprised. I’d expected something complex and nuanced.

Instead, there are obvious, crude misrepresentations - GC feminists think all TW are predators (see the part in the NS about ‘any person’ with a penis who identifies as a woman being viewed as deceitful), there is a single anti-trans movement - and sweeping statements that aren’t backed up. The category of ‘woman’ should be expanded (why?), GC feminism is fringe and probably not actually feminism at all (evidence? what makes it unfeminist?), radical feminism didn’t used to have anything to do with trans issues... The latter two are interesting to me as I got interested in feminism in the 90s reading the Ms forums. There were definitely different strands of feminism evident on that site (can’t imagine that happening now) and radfems were most definitely interested in trans issues. I realise the 90s hardly represents the distant past, but these ideas and debates are not nearly as new as is made out. It’s just out in the mainstream now.

I hope so too. If anyone can link to the archived one I’d be ever so grateful

[quote Redyellowpink]@justSpeculation no she didn't actually say that! Sorry for any confusion...she does say that the importance we place on binary biological sex as one of the most significant thing about humans is arbitrary and only done to reinforce 'compulsory heterosexuality'....I used to teach her and I would use the example of eye colour to try and illustrate the point she was making.[/quote]
Great! Thanks for clearing that up. What interested me was that sex is obviously a significant feature in all contexts, for material reasons that depend on the different levels of investment men and women have in reproduction biologically. But it's difficult to think of one in which eye colour would be significant. Not impossible, but difficult. Is Butler really claiming that something as redundant as eye colour could be as significant a classing factor as sex and in the same way, across cultures and across history? And all by declaring it so?

I hope someone's archived it, lanadelgrey. Looking at it again, they've removed the reference to the Wi spa incident and the comparison of gender-critical feminism to fascism. To say they've removed those references in the light of things that happened since the interview took place is disingenuous: either she believes that feminists who care about safeguarding are fascists, or she doesn't.

They don't even apologise.

Did anyone archive the original version of the piece?

@justSpeculation no she didn't actually say that! Sorry for any confusion...she does say that the importance we place on binary biological sex as one of the most significant thing about humans is arbitrary and only done to reinforce 'compulsory heterosexuality'....I used to teach her and I would use the example of eye colour to try and illustrate the point she was making.

Butler threads often make people head down rabbit holes. Here's one of the mainly eyebrow-raising things I've found:

In recent years, the professor has become one of the most prominent supporters in academe of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement against Israel. In her latest book, Parting Ways: Jewishness and the Critique of Zionism, she explicitly calls for a one-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. While Butler’s anti-Zionism is of a piece with a wide swath of the left-wing professoriate, hers is notorious for a set of comments uttered at a September 2006 Berkeley Teach-In against Israel’s invasion of southern Lebanon, in which Butler responded to a question from a member of the audience frustrated with the “hesitation” of some on the left to fully embrace Hamas and Hezbollah due to their use of violence. “Understanding Hamas, Hezbollah as social movements that are progressive, that are on the Left, that are part of a global Left, is extremely important,” she said. “That does not stop us from being critical of certain dimensions of both movements. It doesn’t stop those of us who are interested in nonviolent politics from raising the question of whether there are other options besides violence.”

Me too the wee donkey

How come she never says let’s define the word men

Absolutely a tube she is