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.'