Judith Butler interview

The TRA belief that the Butler interview is some kind of a blow to GC feminists reveals that they don't see discussion as discussion, but as a dominance struggle.

Yes. And yet calling people names isn't really a particularly effective way of gaining dominance. Didn't there use to be an internet law that said "First person to call the other person a fascist loses"?

As soon as you call someone a fascist, you've shown that you don't have any arguments. It's an almost infallible sign of weakness.

Sorry if this has been shared already:

www.spectator.co.uk/article/terf-war-reignites-at-guardian-hq

Gleeson is just another TW with a huge vested interest. An active propagandist.

"Each year Philosophy and Literature, an academic journal, runs a bad-writing contest to celebrate "the most stylistically lamentable passages found in scholarly books and articles". The only condition is that entries be non-ironic. "Deliberate parody cannot be allowed in a field where unintended self-parody is so widespread," it explains. Here are the 1998 results. The journal found it hard to suppress its delight that "two of the most popular and influential literary scholars in the US are among those who wrote winning entries"

Judith Butler won first prize in 1998.

amp.theguardian.com/books/1999/dec/24/news?__twitter_impression=true

I keep wanting to say something hilarious about the penguin bollards performing as waiters but I can't think of anything

But I think what they aren't getting, possibly because many of them are men, is that not everyone is playing their game by their rules, and that to people outside their silly game being vocabularied at by Judith Butler is approximately as impressive and intimidating as being lightsabered at by a Star Wars LARPer.

These halfwits call us Nazis all the time, it's not a better argument when it's covered in syllable sauce and served up by the patriarchy's favourite Butler. But it seems like some participants in this conversation aren't capable of understanding that, because they're so shallow, status-obsessed and trifling that they don't even register that there are other ways to think.

All this. Perfectly put.

I cannot operate within the matrix of power - would penguin bollards help?"

Trying to imagine Butler describing a parking situation without a diagram really IS blowing my mind.

"CF neighbour parked performatively creating a new reality, invoking a power that did not belong to them as a person. I have been 'blocked' - entered into a realm of blockdom, although I did not just choose it - it was not just imposed on me - this has become a socially constructed struggle of negotiation. Make, model and position of parking space are rendered distinct analytically only to produce the realisation that I cannot proceed without CF getting out of my way.

I cannot operate within the matrix of power - would penguin bollards help?"

Oh, strikethrough didn't work! I meant of course:

She's displayed her her very big antlers vocabulary and long tusks sentences at us and we're all supposed to think, damn, she's reached the top of the academic dominance hierarchy for a reason, I could never have antlers that big, and back down.

The TRA belief that the Butler interview is some kind of a blow to GC feminists reveals that they don't see discussion as discussion, but as a dominance struggle.

Physically intimidating and threatening us into silence isn't working as well as it used to. So now a Big Name Academic with a reputation as "feminist" (lol) has come out to do it virtually. She's displayed her her very big antlers vocabulary and long tusks sentences at us and we're all supposed to think, damn, she's reached the top of the academic dominance hierarchy for a reason, I could never have antlers that big, and back down.

But I think what they aren't getting, possibly because many of them are men, is that not everyone is playing their game by their rules, and that to people outside their silly game being vocabularied at by Judith Butler is approximately as impressive and intimidating as being lightsabered at by a Star Wars LARPer.

These halfwits call us Nazis all the time, it's not a better argument when it's covered in syllable sauce and served up by the patriarchy's favourite Butler. But it seems like some participants in this conversation aren't capable of understanding that, because they're so shallow, status-obsessed and trifling that they don't even register that there are other ways to think.

"Counter-productive" is a euphemism for "false" or "incorrect", I guess?

I think it’s a euphemism for “makes my team look bad.” This person didn’t want to correct the question in the first place because the correction would have to acknowledge that sex offenders who use self-ID to prey on women and children exist.

The only mind-blowing thing is that she's getting away with it and people are falling for it. (Or claiming to fall for it).

I'm not convinced she could hold her own in a debate on an FWR thread. Too many actually knowledgeable and coherent people here. She'd be ripped to shreds.

And I just find it funny that we are supposedly gnashing our teeth in rage that Judy has bested us.

She’d be hopeless on a parking thread. Would probably refuse to provide a diagram.

The Hines, Phipps and Butlers of this world are producing stunningly unremarkable ideas, superficial, trivial and fuller of holes than very holey things indeed.

And also available for free on twitter from people with much more exciting avatars.

I guess I would love to know exactly what is supposed to have blown my mind and why.

Personally I’m surprised that Butler appears to have the same level of intellectual curiosity as Nigel Farage. That blows my mind.

It was a curious mixture of banality and batshit insanity

Yes. This is largely why I have been hanging around this board for the past year. The Hines, Phipps and Butlers of this world are producing stunningly unremarkable ideas, superficial, trivial and fuller of holes than very holey things indeed. And what I really don't understand is that they never, ever, ever present a case. Just assertions. I've read Pluckrose and Linsay's book, but I still can't quite believe that intelligent people can fall for this.

The thinking seems to be that it couldnt possibly be the other way round (or no way round) as important campaigns must originate with male groups.

They're only women after all.

The narrative being pushed by trans activists is that The Guardian decide to censor the words of our Blessed Lady of Gender St Judith because of pressure applied by T*s.

While the reality is that on the gender critical side there was delight at what the article contained and given the choice the gender critical side would have wanted the particular question and answer to have remained.

One way that The Guardian could escape some of the ire of the trans activists would be to go along with the trans activist narrative. Having tried everything else, I wonder whether they'll try that too?

Or to be more precise , our gender is assigned by society at birth and then constantly reinforced and reified over our life times.

Quite.

I long for any indication of an understanding of the issues at the heart of this from any of the self-appointed experts such as JM. As Helen Joyce commented in her book, it would be so much easier to have a useful public discussion if there were a coherent intellectual case that can be scrutinised using familiar evidence-based tools and procedures that are available (I paraphrase).

Jo Maugham has eagerly retweeted someone who quoted from the butler interview and said “this will blow t**f minds!” Now I read the interview and it didn’t blow my mind. It was a curious mixture of banality and batshit insanity. But it was interesting to see what this individual thought would blow my mind because it belies a misunderstanding of the gender critical position. Apparently I’m supposed to be shocked into silence by butler saying something like “sex is assigned at birth and then a gender is assigned after that. But assignment doesn’t stop there. The rest of our lives are a constant stream of gender assignments “

Well I disagree with sex being assigned. But the bit about gender being constantly assigned to us … that’s just what de Beauvoir thinks in the second sex. Or to be more precise , our gender is assigned by society at birth and then constantly reinforced and reified over our life times. I think it’s linguistically clumsy to talk about something being assigned more than once.but this is what I imagine most gender critical feminists believe - that gender is an oppressive system imposed from outside throughout a woman’s life.

I guess I would love to know exactly what is supposed to have blown my mind and why. It seems there is just a massive disconnect about what gender critical feminists are supposed to believe. And I just find it funny that we are supposedly gnashing our teeth in rage that Judy has bested us.

What's that rule of misogyny? The worst thing about male violence is that it makes a weak example counter-productive.

Perfect.

If you look on twitter the ire being directed at The Guardian seems to be coming mostly from trans activists because The Guardian has committed the worst sin in the world: cancelling the words of our Blessed Lady of Gender St Judith.

It's really quite hilarious.