Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Financial Times interview with Judith Butler

82 replies

RoyalCorgi · 09/03/2024 14:15

The FT has carried a really rubbish interview with Judith Butler. The interview refers to her as "they" throughout and doesn't challenge her on any of her most ludicrous statements.

Take her statement that it's fine to put trans women into women's prisons because they [trans women] are "not uniquely risky" and that "male prison guards are a risk, so are other female inmates." Obviously absurd, but anyway. She then goes on to say (as summarised by the interviewer): "And if trans women are placed in male prisons, they 'will be raped and they will be hurt.'"

So having just spent most of the interview saying that biological differences between the sexes aren't important, and that female inmates can be as much of a risk to other female inmates as male inmates, she then claims that trans women would be raped in male prisons! She completely undermines her entire argument.

Why didn't the interviewer challenge that particularly glaring failure of logic? I'm enraged at the stupidity.

Unfortunately, comments are now closed otherwise I'd have said as much.

https://www.ft.com/content/cfe35ca1-9dbd-4a83-a3a9-372967ab5fac

Gender theorist Judith Butler: ‘What are they frightened of exactly?’

The philosopher on what defines a woman, the scapegoating of trans people — and why it’s OK to stumble over pronouns

https://www.ft.com/content/cfe35ca1-9dbd-4a83-a3a9-372967ab5fac

OP posts:
Thread gallery
7
guinnessguzzler · 10/03/2024 08:22

Is woman a verb, a noun, an adjective? Are door, slow or purple synonymous with woman? What about space, rectangular or skating? How can we possibly know? And if JB doesn't answer the question of what is a woman, how do they know they isn't one? Yesterday I womanned to the library on my woman and borrowed three womans and a woman and womanned to a woman on the woman which previously I had womanned womanly woman wommany woman women woman woman. Makes perfect sense, since woman means literally anything we want it to mean. What an absolute woman!

EasternStandard · 10/03/2024 08:24

Judith Butler, the intellectual behind the trans movement

I didn’t realise she was a key player in the mess we see now

We need the opposite to arise

So and so, the intellectual behind women’s sex based rights movement

We need academia and universities to question the impact on women and children. There’s so much to cover when you stop pretending

ArabellaScott · 10/03/2024 08:24

Great review, thanks for the share!

'Most humanities academics deal principally in language, and the more power language is supposed to have, the more powerful they get to feel.'

Good point.

ArabellaScott · 10/03/2024 08:26

Has Butler ever debated anyone? If she's flogging a new book, maybe we could see her in conversation with someone with different views.

BeyondHumanKenneth · 10/03/2024 08:55

It's the absolute shameless brass neck of it all. I refuse to define woman to a journalist yet here I am plugging my new book on gender.

I mean come on! You're being played. Glad to see the Sunday Times not playing ball.

RoyalCorgi · 10/03/2024 10:35

And if JB doesn't answer the question of what is a woman, how do they know they isn't one?

Exactly. The whole ideology falls down at the very first hurdle. If you don't know what a woman is, how can you say womanhood has changed? How can you say anything about women at all if you can't first define your terms?

The sheer brass neck of it is mind-blowing. It amazes me that there are people out there dim enough to treat this nonsense seriously.

OP posts:
EasternStandard · 10/03/2024 11:25

I think if you waffle in just the right amount of academia obtuseness you can keep going with this stuff for quite a while

ArabellaScott · 10/03/2024 12:39

'All critics of gender ideology, according to Butler, desire “the restoration of a patriarchal dream-order where a father is a father; a sexed identity never changes; women, conceived as ‘born female at birth’, resume their natural and ‘moral’ positions within the household; and white people hold uncontested racial supremacy”.'

Fathers are fathers. This is a bit of a weird thing to be upset about. The word 'father' means 'father'.

A 'sexed identity'? WTF is that?

Women resume natural positions in the household? Judith, have you ever even for one second listened to what gender critical feminists are saying? Because that's arse-backwards.

White people blah blah - holy non sequitur, batperson! Where the fuck did that assertion come from? Talk about leaps.

ArabellaScott · 10/03/2024 12:41

“It is nearly impossible to bridge this epistemic divide with good arguments, because of the fear that reading will introduce confusion into the reader’s mind or bring her into direct contact with the devil.”

Judith, it's true, you do introduce confusion.

The devil? Maaaaate.

That's two paragraphs of Butler and it seems like utter pish to me. I don't think I could stomach a whole book, tbh.

EdithStourton · 10/03/2024 13:00

EasternStandard · 10/03/2024 11:25

I think if you waffle in just the right amount of academia obtuseness you can keep going with this stuff for quite a while

I once read a 12-page paper of appalling waffle, which quoted various philosophers and went on and on and on. I condensed it down to two sentences.

I found out recently that the author was one of those big on the critical theory bollocks.

IHaveNeverLivedintheCastle · 10/03/2024 13:09

That's always worth a look.

IHaveNeverLivedintheCastle · 10/03/2024 13:19

I might have got this completely wrong but, here goes with my simplistic analysis.

There was a time when Butler's performativity notions were popular with radical feminists as they chimed with the idea of "performing femininity"

This was in the sense that there's no innate reason for women to prefer things which are coded as feminine and it's only social conditioning which makes them so it's an imposed performance.

Butler now seems to be saying that "No you got that wrong. Whilst things socially coded for femininity aren't inherently and innately attractive to people with XX chromosomes, being attracted to these things means you are inherently female"

IHaveNeverLivedintheCastle · 10/03/2024 13:28

All critics of gender ideology, according to Butler, desire “the restoration of a patriarchal dream-order where a father is a father; a sexed identity never changes; women, conceived as ‘born female at birth’, resume their natural and ‘moral’ positions within the household; and white people hold uncontested racial supremacy”.'

inasmuch as it's possible to make any sense of what she's saying, I think I can follow how she got to that conclusion.

A sexed identity can never change. But what she (apparently always) meant by performativity is nothing more than following what is traditionally coded in Western society (and frankly by 1960 or so that was losing its grip) as masculine and feminine.

If you don't follow the constricts of these traditional socially coded rules, then according to her you're changing your gender.

Short version, despite a successful academic career she actually can't get her head round the idea of a woman being say a civil engineer or a man being a child care assistant or a stay at home parent and still being respectively a woman or a man

EasternStandard · 10/03/2024 13:59

It’s bizarre because I’m critical of gender ideology and I’m pretty sure there have been multiple posts from women on breaking down stereotypes

Why has she created the you just change sex thing instead of breaking down stereotypes?

It’s harmful. Especially to women and children

I don’t get how we’ve got here in academia.

Millersmerkin · 10/03/2024 14:06

Sarah Ditum reviews her book in Sunday times today

DewinDwl · 10/03/2024 15:18

DworkinWasRight that review... ouch 😮 thank you for sharing it.

I had not heard about Judith Butler before. My degree is in a discipline with plenty of obscure terminology so word salad doesn't faze me. Having read the interview, JB does not come accross well. She appears rigid-thinking, surprisingly old-fashioned and intellectually lacking.

Her thinking lacks the necessary depth to look at her family's intergenerational trauma with compassion, or to see the irony in her sneering criticism of her grandparents' performative gender personae against the context of current self-id demands.

The interviewer, Henry Mance, does a good job of tip-toeing around JB's crumbling logic, carefully disseminating actual facts in amongst JB's cheerful misinformation. Time and again he lets JB show that JB's lack of coherence can only lead to logical dead ends. He seems distinctily unimpressed with JB's breezy dismissal of the overwhelming stats about male-against-female violence. HM went into this interview prepared - he even manages to bring up Stonewall in a particularly unflattering context.

I had been disappointed with the FT's lack of stance on gender self id. A few weeks ago they managed to run a feature on endometriosis without using the word woman once 😤 This to me shows intellectual dishonesty and lack of journalistic courage, and I would have expected more from a newspaper that deals in material reality more than most. This interview gives me hope.

Apart from that, and it has been said here before, trans people need better advocates!

ArabellaScott · 10/03/2024 15:55

IHaveNeverLivedintheCastle · 10/03/2024 13:19

I might have got this completely wrong but, here goes with my simplistic analysis.

There was a time when Butler's performativity notions were popular with radical feminists as they chimed with the idea of "performing femininity"

This was in the sense that there's no innate reason for women to prefer things which are coded as feminine and it's only social conditioning which makes them so it's an imposed performance.

Butler now seems to be saying that "No you got that wrong. Whilst things socially coded for femininity aren't inherently and innately attractive to people with XX chromosomes, being attracted to these things means you are inherently female"

Sounds about right. Also - language affects reality has been taken to its logically absurd conclusion as 'language creates and supersedes reality ' and even 'language IS reality'

Finlandia · 10/03/2024 16:05

She can’t not be aware of it but really Butler (in fact the whole damn lot of them) needs to read / re read Sojourner Truth’s ‘Ain’t I a woman?’ speech. Insulting and racist / classist to claim women weren’t muscular till the C20.

Finlandia · 10/03/2024 16:08

IHaveNeverLivedintheCastle · 10/03/2024 13:19

I might have got this completely wrong but, here goes with my simplistic analysis.

There was a time when Butler's performativity notions were popular with radical feminists as they chimed with the idea of "performing femininity"

This was in the sense that there's no innate reason for women to prefer things which are coded as feminine and it's only social conditioning which makes them so it's an imposed performance.

Butler now seems to be saying that "No you got that wrong. Whilst things socially coded for femininity aren't inherently and innately attractive to people with XX chromosomes, being attracted to these things means you are inherently female"

Spot on. I can’t see any other way to read her claims.

NeighbourhoodWatchPotholeDivision · 10/03/2024 16:54

That reference to tennis players either betrays a surprising amount of ignorance on Butler's part concerning life for men and women in the preindustrial eras, or it's a deliberate sleight of hand to obscure life before the 20th century.

Manual labour is hard. Tennis is a wonderful sport, and it's a sport made possible because we have the leisure to play it and to watch it, instead of on subsistence farming. When people were being surprised by Navratilova, they were merely comparing her to other 20th century women who'd had the leisure to devote time to playing tennis. That's an extremely narrow group of women isn't it? It doesn't actually mean that Navratilova was then the most muscular woman in human history, does it?

Not long ago, I came across a fascinating study of bone strength between members of a Cambridge university female rowing team, and prehistoric women. To put it bluntly, the arm-strength of prehistoric women crushed that of today's female students, because the prehistoric women were doing more.

extract

A new study comparing the bones of Central European women that lived during the first 6,000 years of farming with those of modern athletes has shown that the average prehistoric agricultural woman had stronger upper arms than living female rowing champions.

Researchers from the University of Cambridge’s Department of Archaeology say this physical prowess was likely obtained through tilling soil and harvesting crops by hand, as well as the grinding of grain for as much as five hours a day to make flour.

Until now, bioarchaeological investigations of past behaviour have interpreted women’s bones solely through direct comparison to those of men. However, male bones respond to strain in a more visibly dramatic way than female bones.

The Cambridge scientists say this has resulted in the systematic underestimation of the nature and scale of the physical demands borne by women in prehistory.

“This is the first study to actually compare prehistoric female bones to those of living women,” said Dr Alison Macintosh, lead author of the study published today in the journal Science Advances.

“By interpreting women’s bones in a female-specific context we can start to see how intensive, variable and laborious their behaviours were, hinting at a hidden history of women’s work over thousands of years.”

The study, part of the European Research Council-funded ADaPt (Adaption, Dispersals and Phenotype) Project, used a small CT scanner in Cambridge’s PAVE laboratory to analyse the arm (humerus) and leg (tibia) bones of living women who engage in a range of physical activity: from runners, rowers and footballers to those with more sedentary lifestyles.

The bones strengths of modern women were compared to those of women from early Neolithic agricultural eras through to farming communities of the Middle Ages.

“It can be easy to forget that bone is a living tissue, one that responds to the rigours we put our bodies through. Physical impact and muscle activity both put strain on bone, called loading. The bone reacts by changing in shape, curvature, thickness and density over time to accommodate repeated strain,” said Macintosh.

“By analysing the bone characteristics of living people whose regular physical exertion is known, and comparing them to the characteristics of ancient bones, we can start to interpret the kinds of labour our ancestors were performing in prehistory.”

Over three weeks during trial season, Macintosh scanned the limb bones of the Open- and Lightweight squads of the Cambridge University Women’s Boat Club, who ended up winning this year’s Boat Race and breaking the course record. These women, most in their early twenties, were training twice a day and rowing an average of 120km a week at the time.

The Neolithic women analysed in the study (from 7400-7000 years ago) had similar leg bone strength to modern rowers, but their arm bones were 11-16% stronger for their size than the rowers, and almost 30% stronger than typical Cambridge students.

The loading of the upper limbs was even more dominant in the study’s Bronze Age women (from 4300-3500 years ago), who had 9-13% stronger arm bones than the rowers but 12% weaker leg bones.

A possible explanation for this fierce arm strength is the grinding of grain. “We can’t say specifically what behaviours were causing the bone loading we found. However, a major activity in early agriculture was converting grain into flour, and this was likely performed by women,” said Macintosh.

“For millennia, grain would have been ground by hand between two large stones called a saddle quern. In the few remaining societies that still use saddle querns, women grind grain for up to five hours a day.

“The repetitive arm action of grinding these stones together for hours may have loaded women's arm bones in a similar way to the laborious back-and-forth motion of rowing.”

However, Macintosh suspects that women’s labour was hardly likely to have been limited to this one behaviour.

“Prior to the invention of the plough, subsistence farming involved manually planting, tilling and harvesting all crops,” said Macintosh. “Women were also likely to have been fetching food and water for domestic livestock, processing milk and meat, and converting hides and wool into textiles.

“The variation in bone loading found in prehistoric women suggests that a wide range of behaviours were occurring during early agriculture. In fact, we believe it may be the wide variety of women’s work that in part makes it so difficult to identify signatures of any one specific behaviour from their bones.”

Dr Jay Stock, senior study author and head of the ADaPt Project, added: “Our findings suggest that for thousands of years, the rigorous manual labour of women was a crucial driver of early farming economies. The research demonstrates what we can learn about the human past through better understanding of human variation today.”

Prehistoric Women's Manual Work was Tougher than Rowing in Today's Boat Crews

This is the original study. study of women's bones

Prehistoric women’s manual work was tougher than rowing in today’s elite boat crews

The first study to compare ancient and living female bones shows that women from early agricultural eras had stronger arms than the rowers of Cambridge

https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/prehistoric-womens-manual-work-was-tougher-than-rowing-in-todays-elite-boat-crews

plantlover34 · 10/03/2024 16:56

I just read the article, I thought it was interesting but didn't find it particularly offensive, it was well researched and they had interesting points.

“What are they frightened of exactly? They can continue to have their lives exactly as they have.”
I thought this quote was worth sharing, and several like it throughout the interview got me thinking. Why is there such a pervasive fear of trans women? Is it really a reductive "I believe they are a man and so to be feared"? Or is it more complex?

Also, I wonder how we would define a woman? If we aren't defined by motherhood or ownership of certain body parts (thinking of women who have been through mastectomy or hysterectomy here) then how, ideally in a non physical sense, are we defined?

IHaveNeverLivedintheCastle · 10/03/2024 17:02

If we aren't defined by motherhood or ownership of certain body parts (thinking of women who have been through mastectomy or hysterectomy here) then how, ideally in a non physical sense, are we defined?

How would you define women other than in a physical sense?

Having a hysterectomy or a mastectomy doesn't alter anything. My female cat has been spayed. She's still a female cat.

ahjeez · 10/03/2024 17:06

I would argue that women are defined by our body parts. However, having these body parts does not define our interests, tastes, style etc. Having certain genitalia does not equal liking certain colours and hobbies. Women are individuals, but we share a core biology.
Beyond this, it is also important because our sex does play an impact on many women's lives - obviously not for all women, but the menstrual cycle is a reality that can have significant impact on women's lives.

thatsthewayitis · 10/03/2024 17:35

I'm a lesbian, never had or wanted children but somehow for some reason, I've had periods, menopause, fibroids in my uterus, operations + anaemia due to blood loss from said uterine fibroids all physical due to my woman's body + having to deal with male sexual aggression ; exposing genitals (I was 7)public catcalling ( started at 13) unwanted sexual comments ( started at 14), sexual assault (felt up in the water) (started at 16) attempted rape (18 at uni) sexual blackmail ( 19 at uni then for jobs until my 30s).
So my female body has defined my health and how I'm treated by men as a sexual object until I thankfully aged out. But I still fear male violence and avoid empty streets,parks etc.
Despite my sexuality and childless preference I have everything in common with other women + we all share a lifetime of abuse and fear of random and known males.