Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Judith Butler interview

414 replies

MotherofPearl · 07/09/2021 12:27

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2021/sep/07/judith-butler-interview-gender?CMP=ShareiOSAppOther

Apologies if this has already been posted. I found this troubling to read. Am I misreading this or is Butler saying that GC feminism is fascist?

OP posts:
RoyalCorgi · 07/09/2021 14:48

It's funny, isn't it. She says "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."

Just after that, a message from Glinner's substack arrived in my inbox, leading me to this:

Team of Radical Feminists Rescues Thirty Afghan Feminists

4w.pub/team-of-radical-feminists-rescue-afghans/

I wonder how many Afghans Judith Butler has rescued.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 07/09/2021 14:51

one that is mindful of the high rates of femicide throughout the world, which include high rates of attacks on trans and genderqueer people."

A complete lie.

Jaysmith71 · 07/09/2021 14:52

During the general stike of 1926, when he heard that the strikers were playing football against the police, Stalin is alleged to have said that this was why there would never be a revolution in "England."

No Joe, it's because the overpriviliged bourgeois self-appointed vanguards are a bunch of useless tossers who couldn't change a light-bulb.

dyslek · 07/09/2021 14:54

JB has rescued ALL Afghan woman, she mearly needs to speak it in to creation, isen't that how it goes.
Being violently oppressed is how they perform their 'gender', dontchano.
Or maybe they need to change their 'attitude' to one less femm?
Who knows, its all bullshit.

JustSpeculation · 07/09/2021 14:54

Butler doesn't believe words have meanings, I understand. She uses "fascism" to mean, basically, "Satanic". Something of and to do with "the enemy". Which is probably why she sees no reason to actually present a case for anything she says. Actually, she seems to see no reason. Full stop. Period.

Unless of course there was endless careful and rigorous reasoning in the interview which the interviewer just chose to leave out.

FloralBunting · 07/09/2021 14:54

When I wrote Gender Trouble, there was no category for “nonbinary” – but now I don’t see how I cannot be in that category.

When I dribbled impenetrable cobblers into book form before, I missed a fucking trick by not coining 'non-binary' didn't it? Never mind, I am still the grateful recipient of adulatory hagiographies from all these pricks, and since 'non-binary' seems to be top of the apex right now, I think I will be having some of that, thenkyewverymuch.

dyslek · 07/09/2021 14:57

@FloralBunting

When I wrote Gender Trouble, there was no category for “nonbinary” – but now I don’t see how I cannot be in that category.

When I dribbled impenetrable cobblers into book form before, I missed a fucking trick by not coining 'non-binary' didn't it? Never mind, I am still the grateful recipient of adulatory hagiographies from all these pricks, and since 'non-binary' seems to be top of the apex right now, I think I will be having some of that, thenkyewverymuch.

haha Floral, now my co-worker is looking at me suspiciously, as Im going red, but still giggling Grin
Clymene · 07/09/2021 15:06

@GCmiddle

The usual obfuscatory word salad, with some outrageous accusations of fascism thrown in for good measure. Why anyone takes this person seriously is mystery to me - Emperor's new clothes, I guess...
I was about to post that she really is the very embodiment of emperor's new clothes.

And she's employed the very techniques that HC Andersen came up with in his cautionary tale: "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."

i.e. if you don't agree with me, you're thick.

Good work Judy. You're just as much of a con artist as those two blokes who flogged their invisible coat to an intellectually vain but stupid emperor.

JeanBodel · 07/09/2021 15:06

@NotDavidTennant

Exactly! Me too! I thought she was one of the key people who argued that gender was a construction and a performance.

GC feminists see the performative nature of gender as indicating its inauthenticity as a concept, and therefore they want to deconstruct gender for the purposes of getting rid of it (or at least stripping it of social significance).

Queer theorists like Butler see gender perfromance as an expression of idenitity, and therefore want to deconstruct traditional gender categories not to get rid of gender as a concept but to give people greater freedom in how they perfrom it.

NotDavidTennant This is one of the most helpful things I have read about Queer Theory. Could you please continue!

It is hard to get hold of a sensible description of Queer Theory as apparently it is by its nature indefinable, or something.....I did some of this stuff at uni (including JB) but would be grateful for any clarity you can bring to my muddled understanding.

NotDavidTennant · 07/09/2021 15:15

Talks about forming a coaltion of 'the poor, the precarious, the dispossessed, LGBTQI+ peoples, workers and all those subject to racism and colonial subjugation....'

This is how a lot of people on the left seem to see their struggle now: as banding together various marginal and minority groups against the establishment. Hence why they no longer have much truck with feminism unless its intersectional, because women are not considered marginalised (or not marginalised enough) to need support unless they also happen to belong to one or more other minority groups as well.

Redyellowpink · 07/09/2021 15:33

Queer theorists like Butler see gender perfromance as an expression of idenitity

I think you need to be careful saying this, this isn't quite right. Butler doesn't say that gender is a performance but rather is 'performative'. What this means is that there are a series of culturally informed behaviours and acts that, from a very young age we learn and then enact (e.g. ways of walking or speaking that are stereotypically 'female' or 'male')....it is these repetitive acts, which everyone is engaged in, that themselves produce the 'illusion' of two stable genders. In other words the culturally learned gendered behaviours constitute, rather than express, any apparently stable gender identity.

Where she gets more into performance is when she talks about things like drag- she says drag- which is an overexagerated and self conscious performance of gender- reveals the illusion of gender and, through that, can subvert rigid gender binaries

All bullshit of course but worth getting the finer details ironed out for engaging in arguments about her

NoWireHangersEver · 07/09/2021 15:41

I've been thinking about this for a little while anyway, but thought I might take it here - after seeing what Butler had to say about us 'never reading any gender studies'.

We should all start systematically reading gender studies, and start 'listening to trans women'! See exactly what the best and brightest of them have to say, so we can refute it exactly as it's written and argue on their level. We need to know the enemy! Every GC feminist should start getting very familiar with the foundational arguments and literature of contemporary trans ideology.

I'm going through Serano's Whipping Girl right now (very important book, whose arguments are constantly reused online) and seeing so much that's just ridiculously easy to refute. Also reading Andrea Long Chu's Females with a friend. Is there any scope for starting a thread on this forum where we can read, pick apart and discuss notable books by the opposition?

This is why we'll probably win tbh - they don't read books we write, but we read books that they write. Even though their ideology falls apart in a long-form book format.

terryleather · 07/09/2021 15:48

It's just more luxury beliefs from the great and the good of the identitarian Left, trumpeted loudly and performatively as one would expect from those with a narc bent to their personalities.

Looking down on the lessers and throwing everyone/everything that they don't like into the "basket of deplorables", making sure all the while that everyone notices while they do it.

As I said, fuck off Judy you're tiresome.

KimikosNightmare · 07/09/2021 15:52

@SoManyQuestionsHere

No idea why anyone would have assumed she's be gender critical, mind. She's one of the core foundational pillars of queer theory.
She used to get praised on here.
KimikosNightmare · 07/09/2021 15:57

When it slowly emerged that the John/Jane Doe psychological experiment was not only unethical, but falsified and actually abusive JB did a u-turn

Can you explain what this was? Thanks

CaptSkippy · 07/09/2021 16:06

@dyslek

Mehgan Murphy gave the definative verdict on JB interviews;

'American academic re-emerges to remind the world she is a fraud.'

That's rich coming from Meghan Murphy. She is now slagging off radical feminism and sucking up to the likes of Benjamin Boyce and Joe Rogan.
MondayYogurt · 07/09/2021 16:07

just made the mistake of googling the fawning fan interviewer. Much fond of own voice droning youtube videos + marxism.

CaptSkippy · 07/09/2021 16:13

We are assigned a sex at birth and then a slew of expectations follow which continue to “assign” gender to us.

For crying out loud, nobody is "assigned" a sex at birth. Sex is determined way before birth and simply observed at birth. She can't even get this right. Seems to me like another has drunk the Coolaid.

Anyways, that's about all I needed to know. I wonder if she just does this because she hopes she won;t be canceled.

morningtoncrescent62 · 07/09/2021 16:14

I love that she thinks we should all read gender studies, but she doesn't appear to have clapped eyes on anything GC feminists have written. If she did, maybe she'd understand that we're not all a bunch of religious right-wingers who think that women should go back into the kitchen and stay there.

StrangeLookingParasite · 07/09/2021 16:15

She's an ambulant sack of every cliché about the social 'sciences'.

NoYOUbekind · 07/09/2021 16:21

More than a little bit disingenous to publish this today with JB's account of the Wi Spa incidents and a link to the Guardian's account of the Wi Spa incidents when we now know what we know about the Wi Spa.

In fact, I'd go as far as to say that is fake news...

Cactu · 07/09/2021 16:25

I took from it that gender is a construction but it’s one we can create and recreate for ourselves. So changing our gender is something people will do. She says that changing sex is also possible because naming your sex makes it so. This is the realm of pure theory and thought games which is all well and good until you apply it to real life. Then you get women being raped in prisons and all the other awful consequences.

At the end she says that the reason everyone doesn’t agree with her is because she isn’t able to express her position in language of sufficient clarity. Considering she’s had 30+ years to try and nail it I’d suggest it ain’t going to be happening any time soon.

FloralBunting · 07/09/2021 16:29

@NoWireHangersEver

I've been thinking about this for a little while anyway, but thought I might take it here - after seeing what Butler had to say about us 'never reading any gender studies'.

We should all start systematically reading gender studies, and start 'listening to trans women'! See exactly what the best and brightest of them have to say, so we can refute it exactly as it's written and argue on their level. We need to know the enemy! Every GC feminist should start getting very familiar with the foundational arguments and literature of contemporary trans ideology.

I'm going through Serano's Whipping Girl right now (very important book, whose arguments are constantly reused online) and seeing so much that's just ridiculously easy to refute. Also reading Andrea Long Chu's Females with a friend. Is there any scope for starting a thread on this forum where we can read, pick apart and discuss notable books by the opposition?

This is why we'll probably win tbh - they don't read books we write, but we read books that they write. Even though their ideology falls apart in a long-form book format.

FWIW, I agree with you, and my method has long been, as I suspect it has been for many here, to read genderist arguments to try and make sense of them. That's what being open minded is all about, that's why genderists get asked the same questions when they plop here - most of us are interested in how someone comes to be convinced of these ideas.

It's a basic debate technique - not in a tricksy gotcha way, but in the sense that there is no point arguing against a position your opponent does not hold (the 'straw man'), so you must learn their argument so well you could convince a neutral person with it if asked. Because then you can see the actual flaws in the argument and produce a genuine counterpoint.

To be perfectly honest, this is how actual progress and consensus works as well. If you've got any sense at all, you know that the way you strengthen your case, so that you can persuade others to share your views on things you think matter, is to subject it to argument with those who disagree with you. Only then do you see if your logic and conclusions make sense.

Only talking to people who agree with you won't do this, which is why, as much as the 'echo chamber' accusation gets flung at us here, it's nonsense, because most of the perspectives here have been refined by interacting with Genderists directly, or through their writing.

So yes, read it, challenge it with questions. Engage.

And if you're a genderist reading this, then post, discuss, ask us questions and be prepared to answer ours. So, so many of us were broadly in agreement with some of your views until we interrogated those views and found our questions unanswered or deemed heretical.

donquixotedelamancha · 07/09/2021 16:30

I thought JB was one of the people who firmly believed gender is a construct. But here she seems to be saying it's sacrosanct?

i thought she was GC.

Nooooo. JB is the architect of Genderism- she's the one they base all this 'no such thing as biological sex stuff on'.

She does think Gender is a social construct but she thinks the construct is reality and any attempt to recognise material reality or to apply reason is far-right, colonialist, capitalist naughtyness.

FlyingOink · 07/09/2021 16:32

Can you explain what this was? Thanks

The Reimer case, John Money took a boy who had lost his penis in a botched circumcision and made him into a "girl" and got his twin brother to simulate fucking him. They both committed suicide.