Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

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

113 replies

kesstrel · 22/01/2019 16:09

twitter.com/janeclarejones/status/1087725670988427265

My opinion of Judith Butler sinks still further....

OP posts:
ChattyLion · 23/01/2019 07:18

Judith Butler is not the only academic who writes about this stuff nor is she personally responsible for TRA actions. And unlike a lot of the vacuous man-pleasing UK academics self-righteously (and wrongly) slating other feminists for being transphobic- Butler has faced particular personal opposition for her views and faced demonstrators particularly when visiting catholic countries about her academic views. She has for reason to write about Catholicism and her work.

This article is also written in the context of Hungary where authoritarian radical sexist government had shut down gender studies departments particularly and whole universities.

Ironically perhaps given the experiences of women in UK and other countries’ academia who are gender critical and face personal attacks and a loss of academic freedom on this basis, Butler is making a plea for academic freedom (which I would support).

Butler was not writing about the policing of everyday language, risks to children’s health, women’s right to opportunities for women only, and the fact that all women’s safety privacy and dignity is under threat by TRA ideas that are rapidly and without democratic examination being put into public policy. I wish she would.

But hopefully a UK academic like Clare Jones or Rosa Freedman or any of those brave women in academia who have dared to put their head above the parapet could write an article to point out those issues for those who don’t know. Or for those who are so wokely misogynistic they don’t care Hmm but who still desperately want to believe they are massively right-on and not in fact making boundsry-erasing arguments for dangerous, sexist numbskulls.

KataraJean · 23/01/2019 07:30

The article by Butler does have some sense in it, in so far as it advocates personal freedom to live as one wishes. Where I parted from it was the assertion that someone born female can become a man and I lost the thread of the argument afterwards. No, someone born female can live and present in ways that society deems masculine. They should of course be free to do so.

I agree with fallingirl (I think I have the name correct, on phone) that a social scientist should be aware of the structural inequalities in which such choices are made and lived out. Gender from a feminist perspective is a system of hierarchy along sex-based lines.

ChattyLion · 23/01/2019 07:36

More context about Hungary and the gender studies ban:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3457603-gender-study-ban

Butler and protests against her:
www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/11/13/judith-butler-discusses-being-burned-effigy-and-protested-brazil
HT PencilsinSpace

More about queer theory
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3355827-Queer-theory-and-what-it-means-in-extremis

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3457855-Patrick-Strudwick-on-why-feminism-should-include-TW
Example of UK academics on ‘why feminism should include TW’ Hmm

Threads on actual, personal harassment of UK academics who are gender critical are too numerous to find and paste here in the time I have available this morning Sad

Skyzalimit · 23/01/2019 07:44

I dont see anything groundbreaking in Jane Clare Jones's analysis.

Saying you don't understand Butler is a bit self-undermining- it sort of invites readers to dismiss your subsequent arguments.

Not getting it is not your fault or hers- it's to do with classist education systems which limit access to philosophical ideas and skills.

The point of the history of ideas- Butlet's field- is to reveal the roots of belief hidden in the mists of time. She could have tipped her hat to contemporary GC feminists for the sake of placating, sure, but the point was to say this binary model of gender is rooted in a religious system designed to control women.

She's basically calling contemporary GC feminists Serena Joys.

merrymouse · 23/01/2019 07:57

Not getting it is not your fault or hers- it's to do with classist education systems which limit access to philosophical ideas and skills.

I think the fact that I am 6 inches shorter than the men in my family, risk gestating a human for 9 months after sex and bleed profusely from my genitals every 4 weeks is a result of being female.

I also think there is some link between all these things and women being denied the right to vote - until the 70’s and 80’s in some parts of Europe.

You on the other hand seem to think that these are freak occurrences with no consequence that could happen to anyone and that I should really focus on classifying my identity.

Please explain.

merrymouse · 23/01/2019 07:59

the point was to say this binary model of gender is rooted in a religious system designed to control women.

Except she believes in classifying people according to gender.

BernardBlacksWineIcelolly · 23/01/2019 08:26

but the point was to say this binary model of gender is rooted in a religious system designed to control women

this is precisely what GC feminists believe Skyzalimit

where they differ from Butler is in understanding that women face structural inequalities as a direct result of their sex. this seems to have passed Butler by. I'd love to understand why - is it stupidity, or (as I suspect), willful blindness for the sake of political expediency?

andyoldlabour · 23/01/2019 08:32

Why am I not surprised by this?
Judith Butler - philosopher and gender theorist.
The New Statesman has changed over the years, from being quite left wing - against the Iraq war, which I agreed with, to a publication which in 2009 had Alastair Campbell as its guest editor.
It has become a neo Liberal mouthpiece.

merrymouse · 23/01/2019 08:38

I honestly think this is a case of the New Statesman giving Butler enough rope to hang herself. Helen Lewis is the Deputy Editor and very much regarded as a TERF by TRAs.

Ambroise · 23/01/2019 08:45

Some of you might find this article ‘The Butlerian Jihad’ an interesting read:

conatusnews.com/countering-postmodernism-relativism/

donquixotedelamancha · 23/01/2019 08:56

We've struggled to find an appropriate name for the genderist nutters for a long time. TRAs gives them too much credit and ropes ordinary transgender people into the madness.

I think Butlerian Jihadi's is a winner.

AngryAttackKittens · 23/01/2019 08:57

I honestly think this is a case of the New Statesman giving Butler enough rope to hang herself.

I suspect this too. Although I wouldn't envy the person assigned the task, it would be possible to edit Butler's article in such a way as to make it clearer for the reader, and if the point she was trying to make was the one ChattyLion claims it would be possible to make that clear too. The editors chose to let her, well, be Butler, in all her pompous glory. That's an active choice, not an accident.

Maybe Helen Lewis has had pomo fans sending her this shit and decided it was time for everyone else to feel her pain, or maybe she just thought that if the New Statesman is going to cover the trans debate it was important for context for their readers to get a sense of how queer theorists see the world. I tend to think their doing so works in the favor of GC feminists.

ChewyLouie · 23/01/2019 08:58

the point was to say this binary model of gender is rooted in a religious system designed to control women.
Dismantling the system will not happen by further strengthening gender presentations and denying sex based differences.
The current TWAW trend to switch genders serves only to weaken safe spaces for women but strengthens the ability of predatory men to wilfully harm women. It is simply another system to suppress women’s freedom of movement, of expression, of thought.

FloralBunting · 23/01/2019 09:19

Others have picked up on the 'religious system' comment, which is so back to front I'm smiling. But I think this is worth comment, too.

She's basically calling contemporary GC feminists Serena Joys.

Yes, I'm sure she is, which is absolutely astounding considering that in the Handmaids Tale, the oppression of women is not based on their lack of freedom to define themselves. It's based on their biology.

The religious aspect of this issue is people believing in invisible gendered souls that can find themselves in any body at all, and the religious control aspect is the movement which campaigns for medical surgical intervention on non conforming children, access to sex specific space for certain men to validate their 'female soul' with cries of bigot to objections, and language manipulation so that women are prevented from speaking about their oppression.

If anyone is Serena Joy in this scenario, it's Butler.

LangCleg · 23/01/2019 09:40

She's basically calling contemporary GC feminists Serena Joys

No, she isn't.

She's defending a movement criticised for erasing women by, you guessed it, erasing GC feminists. If she doesn't address their critique, she can pretend it doesn't exist.

Genderists believe gender is innate and bodies/sexed social roles should be altered to fit a state of mind (in the real world, we like to call this personality). Catholics and Butler's other targets in this article believe gender is innate and a state of mind (in the real world, we like to call this personality) should be altered to fit a sexed body.

GC feminists believe any state of mind can and should be able to inhabit any sexed body.

The two former ideologies are prima facie regressive. The latter is progressive. None of this is difficult.

Skyzalimit · 23/01/2019 09:51

One of the things Butler is suggesting is that understanding gender as a social construct can serve to dismantle the systems which rely on a biological sex binary to oppress women.

One good example is: we menstruate. We lose months of career time dealing with this. And yet the fields of medicine and technology haven't bern funded or focussed on resolving our monthly pain and discomfort. This is sexist. How many times have you heard people saying 'if men had period pains we'd have the meds to deal effectively with it by now'?

You could apply this to smear test discomfort, breastfeeding problems, anorgasmia, contraception side effects, management of birth, paid parental leave, wages for housework, pay & conditions, etc etc etc.

If 'people who menstruate' etc can be women or men (flame me!) it takes the sexist imperative out of the equation.

kesstrel · 23/01/2019 09:56

In defense of social scientists, I'd like to point out that Butler isn't one. This postmodern plague originated in humanities departments - philosophy, English Literature, gender studies, etc. It goes along with the idea that "science" of any kind is no more valid as a way of seeing the world than any other "world view". Which is why it's so easy for theorists who follow her to ignore biological reality.

OP posts:
AngryAttackKittens · 23/01/2019 09:57

But everyone knows that people who menstruate are female, regardless of whether we call them women or softshygentleunicorns, and thus pissing around with terminology does nothing to prevent or address discrimination.

I mean, if you want to make jazz hands at oppressive systems then have at it, but be aware that the system doesn't give a shit.

merrymouse · 23/01/2019 09:57

rely on a biological sex binary to oppress women.

There is a biological sex binary though. You might not like it but you can’t avoid it. If society doesn’t actively accommodate the differences between men and woman so that women can participate on equal terms with men women are excluded.

AngryAttackKittens · 23/01/2019 09:59

It's like renaming mosquitos "otherbees" and then declaring that you've solved the problem of malaria.

merrymouse · 23/01/2019 10:04

If 'people who menstruate' etc can be women or men (flame me!) it takes the sexist imperative out of the equation.

No it doesn’t. It just allows discrimination against people who menstruate.

Women of child bearing age don’t suffer discrimination because employers hate ‘feminine’ people. Employers discriminate because they want to avoid the costs of maternity leave and they can identify sex.

merrymouse · 23/01/2019 10:04

It's like renaming mosquitos "otherbees" and then declaring that you've solved the problem of malaria.

Grin
LangCleg · 23/01/2019 10:13

I mean, if you want to make jazz hands at oppressive systems then have at it, but be aware that the system doesn't give a shit.

And be aware that you're a bourgeois idiot whose jazz hands are fucking over the women you can't name stuck at the bottom of every pile - in refuges, prisons, needing care, doing low level service jobs.

LangCleg · 23/01/2019 10:20

It's like arguing social inequality with the etiquette administrator of Versailles. Oblivious.

BernardBlacksWineIcelolly · 23/01/2019 10:28

it feels linked to the 90's ladette thing, where we were all supposed to pretend that we like getting shitfaced and sleeping around. I mean if women are performing toxic masculinity too then it's not a problem anymore right?