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

[kesstrel]

twitter.com/janeclarejones/status/1087725670988427265

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

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.

Magic Mix

love this: "TRIGGER WARNING: Fucking Pissed Off"

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.

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.

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'.

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

This fuckwittery with language is queer theory driven.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.