Judith Butler called Germaine Greer a 'great feminist'

[WrongKindOfFeminist]

So even a stopped clock, etc. She then goes off on one weak-ass blurble.

Via Kara Dansky's newsletter:

'Judith Butler has given an interview to Current Affairs, in which she explains the “gender panic.” To the credit of Current Affairs, the introduction includes the fact that there are some leftists pushing back on so-called “gender identity.”

That’s unusual; we are typically referred to only as right-wing bigots. Judith Butler herself refers to us as “fascists” in her 2024 book Who’s Afraid of Gender.
The pertinent portion of the interview is this:

Q: Now, I would like to ask you briefly about the category of critics who are often called trans-exclusionary radical feminists. People like Germaine Greer, for instance, would say, “I am a leftist. I am not a fascist. I am someone whose sympathies are with liberation movements, and my argument against trans people is that they deny the true nature of womanhood. They undermine the women’s rights movement by reinforcing a stereotyped notion of what it means to be a certain gender.” And they would argue this is a good faith and feminist criticism—it’s not a Viktor Orbán or Vladimir Putin criticism. You’ve been, obviously, deeply critical and suggested that movement, that posture, ends up aligning itself with these very hardcore authoritarians. How do you respond to their criticism?

A: Well, I think there’s just no question in my mind that Germaine Greer has been a great leftist and a great feminist. You would never hear me object to that. I think what puzzles me is why leftist feminists, in part, not in whole, have taken positions that do ally with right-wing authoritarianism, the same forms of authoritarianism that have denied reproductive freedom and legal protections for women. I think that trans women have always been part of the feminist movement. Most trans women I know are also feminists, and the category of women has been an expansive one. One question for me, especially for second-wave feminists, is, didn’t we learn that definitions of what a woman is have been far too narrow and sometimes biologically reductive? For example, women reproduce. Well, not all women reproduce. Not all women can. Not all women want to. Or, women have these kinds of values. Well, not all kinds of women have those values. Or, women belong in the private sphere. No, they don’t believe that.

So there are all these restrictive definitions of what a woman is. And my sense is that the exhilarating part of feminism is that it was and remains a freedom movement. That is to say, women can be all kinds of things, and we need to allow the category of women to be expansive. Now, that doesn’t mean it can include all things. I don’t mean to be silly about this, but trans people, and more broadly non-binary people, are subject to harassment, discrimination, and the restriction of rights that makes them potential and actual political allies with feminists. And we’ve always been allies. We’ve always been in favor of equality, against discrimination, trying to figure out how to live freely and how to live and breathe in the street, in the workplace, and in the home without fear of violence. That brings us all together.

Why wouldn’t that just be the most compelling affiliation and alliance? We know too many stories about trans people who are assaulted on the street. We know too many stories about women who are assaulted on the street. The same people are doing those assaults.

We need to band together to oppose femicide and the killing of trans, non-binary, or non-gender-conforming people. And throughout Latin America, the feminist movements have those alliances. And it’s been very surprising to me, especially in the British context, to see that those alliances have severed.

There’s no good reason for it.'

I think what puzzles me is why leftist feminists, in part, not in whole, have taken positions that do ally with right-wing authoritarianism

So if RW authoritarians say the Earth orbits the Sun, we have to disagree in principle.

That is to say, women can be all kinds of things, and we need to allow the category of women to be expansive. Now, that doesn’t mean it can include all things.

Indeed. It cannot include men, cats, trees, meteorites or clown fish.

And we’ve always been allies....... Why wouldn’t that just be the most compelling affiliation and alliance?........We need to band together to oppose femicide and the killing of trans, non-binary, or non-gender-conforming people. And throughout Latin America, the feminist movements have those alliances.

There we have it. It is just an attempt to make an alliance. We'll pretend TW=W, if you join our anti-capitalist Social Justice rebellion. She even separates femicide from 'killing of trans people', indicating that killing TW is perhaps not femicide in her unguarded view.

One question for me, especially for second-wave feminists, is, didn’t we learn that definitions of what a woman is have been far too narrow and sometimes biologically reductive? For example, women reproduce. Well, not all women reproduce. Not all women can. Not all women want to. Or, women have these kinds of values. Well, not all kinds of women have those values. Or, women belong in the private sphere. No, they don’t believe that.
So there are all these restrictive definitions of what a woman is.

No, you burbling nitwit, those are all restrictive definitions of what a women can do. There’s a name for these: stereotypes.

And my sense is that the exhilarating part of feminism is that it was and remains a freedom movement. That is to say, women can be all kinds of things, and we need to allow the category of women to be expansive.

No, we need the category of ‘what women can do’ to be expansive.

Now, that doesn’t mean it can include all things.

You bet your bottom dollar the category of women, ie adult human females, cannot include all things, especially not male things.

I don’t mean to be silly about this, but trans people, and more broadly non-binary people, are subject to harassment, discrimination, and the restriction of rights that makes them potential and actual political allies with feminists.

You are being silly. Extremely silly, by determining that women, the actual sort, ie adult human females, are there to Make It All Better for dissatisfied men. That is not alliance, political or otherwise. That is servitude

Is the interviewer a TiF? There's a short exchange hinting at it.

And we’ve always been allies. We’ve always been in favor of equality, against discrimination, trying to figure out how to live freely and how to live and breathe in the street, in the workplace, and in the home without fear of violence. That brings us all together.
Why wouldn’t that just be the most compelling affiliation and alliance?

Persuasive TRA on steroids. Literally.

Ms Butler spouts gibberish, pay her no mind. She is a handmaid who would cheerfully throw any woman under the bus if they didn't kowtow to the men in frocks.

For someone who considers herself smart, she seems to be totally missing the obvious question "why do we even need the concept of woman in the first place?"

I learned a long time ago it's easy to imply you are smart by telling everyone they are wrong. But if you aren't smart enough to say what something is, only criticise what others say it is by saying "no it's not", really you are just an empty vessel making a loud noise.

There's so much about this that is just complete BS, but on one level not because it is JB but because it is someone who is locked away in the ivory tower of academia.

First of all, whatever Germaine Greer may have said, at the time feminist activists ie those in the Women's Liberation Movement saw her as a (excuse th language) bourgeois individualist who cobbled together as a journalist a book that was a compilation of other women's own work. But as always the media prefers one of their own to be the "expert" rather than those actually at the front line, and of course was always good material for some publicity stunt.

Second of all most "left wing" feminists are all TRAs. JB must live in some reverse mirror world. Who is it, in both the US and the UK, who are consistently saying radical / GC feminists are right wing.

Its one think JB having some potty theory about gender and riding the university advancement stance of queering everything, but apart from that she clearly has no contact with the real world.

Why on earth would Dansky even bother with her.

One of the greatest threats that consistently undermines feminist activism are the token feminists that the media consistently give a public voice to. They are always out of touch and seem quite unperturbed that their individualistic media copy are actually to make sure that women on the front line of feminism are not heard.

Its as negating as the UK media always saying Erin Pizzey set up the first refuge for women fleeing domestic violence when it was a radical feminist activist, who just happened to be a Black Lesbian, ie Olive Morris.

Sadly just as in the past newspapers and magazines swamped "news" stories with their fabricated ie approved feminists, the same now happens on social media.

What was once a movement is now clusters of fan feminism.

Footnote: ie in years to come no one with know about FWS or SM. They will know the author who wrote a book, blog or whatever format the future holds, about them and then be asked to talk about them even though some of them may still be alive!

Her argument has terrible flaws.

First of all - if any experimentation is being done with "woman" or "female" it is surely being done by trans men - they are do the expanding that JB wants.

The trans women are playing dress up.

And ffs Judith, just try and pretend that you are not a handmaiden by making your conversation hold trans men as well as trans women.

And finally - but trans people, and more broadly non-binary people, are subject to harassment, discrimination, and the restriction of rights
You need to list all these harassments, discriminations and restriction of rights.

I will march with you as we should all have equal rights - but what am I marching for??

Excuse my French, but piss poor argumentation from a professor and a philosopher.

It's hard to understand how anyone, let alone a renowned academic, can be this stupid. Why should definitions be expansive? The whole point of definitions is that they exclude things that don't belong. You can't expand the definition of rabbits to include cats, or books to include tables, because those definitions would no longer be useful or meaningful.

It's even worse if you expand the definition of women to include men, because by doing that you're including all human beings - there's no point in having the word "woman" at all.

We could have a new definition for "woman".

How about "people who believe they feel female and behave in accordance with the gender stereotype of femininity plus people allocated female sex at birth who feel female but don't wish to comply with the gender stereotype of femininity".

Catchy, isn't it?

I wonder if she's even looked at women's rights abuses in South America and why it might assist them to link causes with men?

Are you suggesting that Germaine Greer is not a great feminist? I don’t quite follow that - she changed the attitudes of a whole generation, across continents. I don’t think it is possible to deny her of that title.

For example, women reproduce. Well, not all women reproduce. Not all women can. Not all women want to.

And is there a difference between the services a man and a woman might need if they don't want to reproduce? Might we need to talk about this difference to ensure that women have rights?

And my sense is that the exhilarating part of feminism is that it was and remains a freedom movement. That is to say, women can be all kinds of things, and we need to allow the category of women to be expansive.

Isn't this just bog standard American libertarianism? Do what you want but don't expect to be protected by equality law or the state?

It's hard to understand how anyone, let alone a renowned academic, can be this stupid.

But I have to admit I'm also quite impressed at how far she has got. Does she just have bags of confidence?

Well Judith, I’m puzzled why supposedly left wing feminists ally themselves with women’s oppressors and state that women’s oppressors are now women, and not only that , are the most oppressed women of all. I’m also puzzled why supposedly left, on Judith’s own theories, the “expansive” definition of a class only applies to women. Judith doesn’t want to expand the definition of race, or ethnicity … wonder why.

What's a bit sad is that I think an alliance - as in two separate groups of people working together when and where there are shared interests - might have been possible at one point, but I can't see it happening now.

Who, me? Are you kidding, I love Germaine Greer! A provocative and bracing thinker - and educator.

She's the academic who invented this codswallop. She's not just a handmaiden, she's the Borg Queen.

South America is an interesting reference point for JB to choose.

Incredibly macho culture. Lots of trans prostitutes. Horribly high rates of femicide.

And certainly not the case that all S American feminists are happy about 'gender identity' taking precedence over sex.

https://www.womensdeclaration.com/en/country-info/

Argentina [email protected]
Bahamas
Bolivia
Brazil [email protected]
Chile [email protected]
Colombia [email protected]
Mexico
Peru
Ecuador [email protected]
Uruguay [email protected]

Sorry, I should have posted full interview link:

https://www.currentaffairs.org/news/judith-butler-explains-the-gender-panic

I don't think the interviewer is trans identified? Looks like a man in a cravat and a velvet suit, to me.

https://www.nathanjrobinson.com/

Best guess is that she dresses up her stupidity in an impenetrable language. No one understands what she's saying so they assume she must be clever. As soon as you translate it into ordinary English you realise that all her ideas are indistinguishable from your bog-standard moronic TRA who spouts off on Twitter.

It's infuriating when someone like JB reduces the biological differences between men and women to reproduction only - then seems to suggest that it doesn't matter anyway. The idea that biology doesn't matter is bizarre.

It's striking that Butler seems unable to separate her thinking from her personal cultural environment, which is a bit of handicap for a philosopher. I think she is genuinely baffled by the UK because her framework of understanding makes no sense in a country where there is no 'religious right' with any political power.

But maybe that is what makes her successful ? Like any right wing pundit claiming that London is controlled by Muslims, she tells Americans what they want to hear and then that is exported across the world, regardless of whether it makes sense.

I think the core of her work back in the 9s about gender being a performance is valuable.

I think pushing the question "to what degree are the differences we take for granted as intrinsically significant or insignificant actually culturally created and reinforced, and who benefits or loses by that?" as far as you can is valuable, because the whole point of that question is to question things "common sense" would stop you questioning without thinking about them properly.

I even think there's a valid place the concept of "a whole bunch of people who are actually not especially similar, but have all been othered in some way by the dominant cultural norm, and that has created common experiences and shared cultural moments" and it's fine that that concept and the people it refers to should have a noun/label, and even special pronouns to express/highlight that quality of "culturally other" in some contexts where it's important.

Where I think JB went off the rails is that she "went native" into sexism, and started to believe in a hierarchy where some oppression are more significant than others, painting normal boring sexism as a kind of privileged position within the big group of otherness and therefore seeing womamhood in the boring body sense as something that doesn't need its own identity or language. We became for her the source of the patriarchal ur-other that underpins the othering of LGBTQIA++++++ and probably race, disability and anything g else she wants to throw in the pot, and she forgot we are also humans who are female as a foundational fact.

In believing everything a human can ever see or be or feel to be ultimately a culturally created idea (true, because as a social species that raises and educated our young we understand ourselves and make meaning of what we sense through the lenses of social norms, culture and language), she forgets that the material world still impacts us underneath by plaving concrete limitations on our physical capabilities, and that others perceptions of us based on their perception of that materiality can have power over us whether they align with our self perception or not.

I think pushing the question "to what degree are the differences we take for granted as intrinsically significant or insignificant actually culturally created and reinforced, and who benefits or loses by that?" as far as you can is valuable, because the whole point of that question is to question things "common sense" would stop you questioning without thinking about them properly.

But ironically, I think she is hampered because she is unable to step outside her American perspective.

I think Americans are more likely to understand equality through the lens of racism (which really is imposed and cultural), and many 'liberal' Americans are therefore instinctively wary of acknowledging the impact of material differences where they do exist.

Also, as much as I'm sure she dislikes Trump, I think all Americans are united by the belief that they should be able to 'make it anywhere', and that all you need is a 'can do' attitude. Maybe you believe that the route to health and wealth and eternal life is giving money to a pastor, or maybe you believe that with enough surgery and medication you can change sex, but by goodness it's your right to try!

To acknowledge that somethings can't be done is to fail.