Who’s afraid of Gender? - Judith Butler

Conference "Doing Global Gender | Perspectives on Gender and Re-Globalization", 2 - 6 May 2022.
Who’s afraid of Gender?
Judith Butler, Maxine Elliot Professor at the Department of Comparative Literature and the Program of Critical Theory at the University of California, Berkeley, USA
Moderation: Mirjam Gruber
"Doing Gender" in a changing and re-globalizing world means critically discussing the connections between gender and global economies, societies, power relations and ideologies. The aim is to create an equal, fair and inclusive society. Together with international and local scholars, thinkers and activists, Eurac Research's Center for Advanced Studies is highlighting different perspectives on gender and re-globalization in the third edition of its Globalization Conference.
globalization-conference.eura...

[@ciscodealmeida8541]

No one is afraid, we just think they NUTS.

[@yndaeldborg3725]

Great thinker Judith Butler :)

[@peterrook9019]

Someone who believes gender is a social construct, AND uses Money to make this point perhaps misunderstood his findings regarding David Reimer

[@cancelled_user]

Afraid? More like fed up.

[@markrussell3428]

So she creates the concept of gender (actually borrowed it from a man - John Money) and then spends the rest of her career questioning, 'what is this thing gender?"

[@johnsmith7140]

Yes

[@markrussell3428]

@@Celeste-hl1kw thanks. I dont think we are going to find common ground, except you might agree there are ONLY two sexes and from those two you can find genetic variations (abnormalities). People get wrapped around the axel on this, but it shouldn't be when you think of all the genetic anomalies that can happen (i.e., Downs Syndrome, Cystic Fibrosis,). It seems once it involves the traits defining sex (i.e., Intersex) people really get confused and think there is a third sex - news flash, there isnt. When it comes to gender, we have a horrifically false construct. As you point out there are lots of "gender" variations throughout history. These variations are the socially derived differences and it influences our individual personalities. Its all rather boring, but Butler made a name for herself by wrapping this around an idea of being "performative," and their is nothing more "anti-feminist" than that. Her theory relied in reinforcing sterotypes. Its all BS, we are talking about the traits defining personality. Gender theorists distort this and even Butler questions here own thinking. Congrats to all the dimwits that follow. It creates confusion, girls that dont want to be girls.

[@markrussell3428]

@@Celeste-hl1kw Sorry? I was just being honest reading into your initial reply. Rather than start with something obvious I just made it clear that I didnt think you would agree with my initial point. In so doing it means you are even less likely to agree with the more egregious concepts.

[@cancelled_user]

@@Celeste-hl1kw " It’s existed in every culture in different ways, with different terms" Not really. In many languages there's just sex, which is male and female. There's no word for gender, so it's borrowed from English. This also applies to my native language. If gender was a thing throughout history, every language would have a word for it.

[@fizwizzle1989]

Even Money’s views would be considered transphobic in the current environment, he basically still envisioned two sexes but created this concept of gender identity to basically mean if you raise the boy as a girl early enough he can live as a girl without trouble. Anne Fausto Stirling took it further saying gender is a continuum, but still believed in physical biological sex, she just focused on people with DSDs to muddy the waters about male and female categories based on edge cases that are hard to classify, and extremely rare. Then came the holy godmother of the movement, Butler. She didn’t invent the use of the word gender to mean this ambiguous social role thing, feminists in the 70’s had already started to use it that way. Her main “contribution” and what started this madness we see today, is that she said sex, not just gender, is socially constructed. She threw away physical reality altogether, and then said gender is a performance. Like theatre.

[@kimcarsons7036]

Her concept of the "anti gender" brigade is disingenuous as Both Toril Moi and Jane Clare Jones, in particular are amongst others are anti gender brigade she is speaking of. It reminds me of the way Richard Dawkins discounts Christianity by talking to 7th day Adventists. Its such a low bar, and is basically strawmanning an entire subset. Its an irony that she talks about being anti university, when Universities themselves have been at the forefront of this ant-intellectual movement, when Kathleen Stock was kicked out of the professor role, by a bunch of "pro gender" anti-intellectual bullies. The critiques of these "false caricatures" is itself false as the real world consequences of Butler's theoretical project is indeed being used for the end she dismisses as a phantasm. This 'perverse forms of flattery' is Butler disavowing her own Narcissistic inclinations, i.e that this talk is nothing but steelmanning her own career. her Strawmanning of Gender Critical Feminists is nothing but an empty trope. She offers nothing but a smear in the form of a rebuttal. If she was in anyway genuine she would go back to Moi and Clare Jones critiques of her work and attempt to prove them wrong. She cannot do this, because her theory of gender is itself, incoherent. As Moi suggests, her work subsumes material and biological reality into an ever expanding form of social construction. This is what is meant, when people say is anti-science, but instead of meeting this intellectual concerns, she creates a diversionary tactic by saying she is vaccinated. As if that has anything to do with her anti-materialist/biologically denying discourse. If anything what this says is that she is a consumer of Hegelian State discourse. This Freudian moment shows Butler is primarily a thinker of and for the state. She wants the State to step with its divine right and create a judiciary apparatus to install Gender at the locus of control. its is another irony that she speaks of Apostates & Witches, when it's is the Gender Critical Feminists who are being witchhunted - called Nazi, suck my ladystick and all this harassment, and misogyny. Primarily because they are women, and secondary because the GC mob are going against the grain of Capitalist colonisation. Judy Butler is not a feminist. She is anti-heteronormativity. This is her discourse. Which is why she is perfectly happy to lump the GC's in with the conservatives. Butler's colonization's critique is dubious. She foregrounds gender for her own project, rather than acknowledge the reality that the primary manifestation of colonization is racial, and then sexual. what she is doing here is part of the incoherent nature of her project as she makes sex and gender interchangeable when it suits. then dispenses sex as a category when it fits back into discourse of the heterosexual matrix. her Critique of materialism within Gender Critical feminism is again full of fluff. She throws a dozen names to show her intellectual superiority without actually making any claims to counter gender critical feminism (again the work of Jane Clare Jones). John Money is an abomination. its shocking she can use him to defend her work. 'there is no easy way to delink the body from its materialism' - Yes, for good reason! she is being unconsciously transhumanist here! Speaking of Bone Differences which she does, she doesn't mention that biopharmacopornographic drugs are weakening bone density in children who are taking these hormones! She speaks of medical normativity and experimentation on the subaltern, and that is exactly what is happening now! to Children! in the name of Gender! Look at what happened in Montana with that transgender activist/lawmaker. Trying to legitimise the bio-experimentalise of children! Why did Putin become even more fundamentalist? Because (Stephen F Cohen, Historian) Russia was seen as weak after he opened a hand of friendship to the united states after 9/11. He was seen as weak, a Gorbachev, and so in order to again be strong, he linked himself further within the powerful orthordox Russian Conservative church. Its the same old story. Iran, Afghanistan, etc etc. The U.S, egregious imperialism pushes nations towards more fundamentalism, and then disavows it 20 years later, as Butler is doing. anyone interested in the sex/gender conversation, and Butler's fatal misreading of De Beauvoir (and by extension Wittig) must look at the work of Toril Moi and Jane Clare Jones who deconstruct her deconstruction and re-assert a much needed materialist, situational and relational grounding to her pure semiotic discourse. Jessica Benjamin would be another thinker to look at gender from a clinical/psychotherapeutic tradition

[@aidananstey9848]

I just came for the comments, they have not disappointed, maybe there is hope for humanity😂😂

[@markrussell3428]

Can someone ask Dr Butler if she is attracted to the same sex or same gender? She seems to have a difficult time acknowledging that "sex" is a thing

[@Pazzystar]

The Roman church is diabolical

[@EvanWells1]

1. There are plenty of gender criticalists who read, and who read pro-trans or gender ideology works. 2. Plenty accept that gender ideology is not homogeneous, any more than anyone asserts that feminism is homogeneous 3. That education informs gender is not any more an argument for either side. Where confusion over where identity intersects with sex as a part of that education is concerned, it is neglectful to assume that a completely different, and more active education is not more recent, which is not to say that all prior education is not without its flaws 4. To assume that gender is an "overdetermined" site, is a cop-out. It depends on what one considers "overdetermined". The harm that occurs from "gender ideology", can only be understood in a medical, or a biological developmental sense. This is not to say that all biological development ends up interrupted by gender ideology, whatever that is, or that anyone who has subscribed to gender ideology has gone on puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones. But where this does impact children, it is a legitimate point of concern, and far from "overdetermined." 5. To assume that all assertions of what legitimately constitutes "sex" is at heart religious, is laughably easy to do when the only figure you quote and pit yourself against argumentatively is the Pope himself. It's an omission of the inherent secularism of the gender-criticalists as science-based. Which, it seems you discount as a kind of materialistic deism in the form of a biological determinism. Whereas gender-criticalism only points out the ways in which we are determined, where arguments over what that is can occupy their own territory, but regarding which, no one who is gender criticalist denies the profound impact of hormones in the great transformative capacity of endocrinology, still, they assert it does not change sex, and do not subscribe to a gendered understanding of sex. 6. To conflate gender-criticalism with racism or fascism is a reiteration of constant straw-manning. So much for good-faith engagement by doubting the non-homogeneity of your opposition, and only citing the worst forms of intolerance instead, which also helps to assert the falsity that gender-criticalists are in the same lot with the anti-gay. The fact is that no other identity-rights or identity-based issue has ever overlapped with medical ethics until gender-ideology and the trans issue. The only situations in which medical-ethics would ever concern an identity prior to this would be active medical experiments or attempts at sterilizing a population, in which transgressions were made against a vulnerable population on the basis of race. What we are dealing with here, is instead medical intervention on a doctor-to-patient or clinic-to-patient basis, wherein children are patients. And wherein gender-dysphoria is not the same thing as being trans. This makes it a very different issue, for which it's no surprise it engenders scrutiny from and concerning multiple professions.

[@KR-jq3mj]

Its a pity JB did not pursue a strategy to write for the masses. Instead her texts are written for people who choose as their lifes goals the pursuit of gender studies whatever that is. Understanding and sharing knowledge is not only based on a desire to read but on the generosity of writers who appreciate the busy day to day lives of the billions outside this small field. Engineering, medicine, butchers, artists bakers, actors, posties, shop keepers, drivers, gardeners, ad infinitum. I so appreciate author's who think of humanity as a whole not just a select few academics. Its simply great when academics write for us all. That way more people can digest and think while getting on with the myriad of everyday tasks that dominate outside the gender studies genre or any other genre for that matter. Reading is a joy, as is thinking, food for thought depends upon generosity and thoughtfulness, perhaps the essence of a good society, include inclusive witers. That way all our lives can be respected, whatever direction we take, we need accessible texts. This speech could have been delivered in a much more inclusive style without losing the meaning. Time is the essence of life, we are all battling it and few of us have enough time to indulge such unnecessary exclusive verbosity.

[@willyounts3308]

Thanks for this. I hear you and definitely have a serious distaste/distrust for unnecessarily verbose academics. And I think at this point in Butler's life, they could definitely "mellow out" and write more accessibly. But I don't think it's a pity they haven't done that--their work in the 90s opened doors (yes for academics) that allowed for millions and millions of people to explore gender in an expansive way. I think it's always true that when philosophers dig into stuff in a substantive way it it spreads through "the masses" eventually. Especially when those philosophers are also activists as many of them are. Fred Moten one of those sorts of people talked once about how folks find his writing difficult. He responds by saying Yes it is! Because this shit is hard for me to say! And I admire that a lot; I wonder if Butler would say the same sort of thing.

[@KR-jq3mj]

@@willyounts3308 thanks for your thoughtful reply and I take your points. I just worry in the absence of clarity, interpretation can be full of errors and lead to some terrible social and personal tragedies. Leading to actions that were ultimately inspired by complex thoughts, (granted that were difficult to articulate and that are always challenged in their complexity) perhaps should be stated as such and clearly i.e. tenuous thoughts in progress distinguishing mere opinion from verifiable fact. I worry ivory Tower academics forget or simply can't consider the impact of their work. Its difficult and I dont have an answer but some of these thoughts have seeped into vulnerable minds that don't have the capacity to work through the difficulties and complexity. The sound bite nature of our culture and the consequences therein are quite frankly tragic. I believe communicating complexity simply is achievable by gifted communicators and can provide people with the tools to reason through complexity. Perhaps by emphasising the limits of academic thinking and inability to communicate complex ideas would be helpful. These are simply my thoughts from my head and may be wrong ... i wonder if because thinking and reasoning are processes any conclusions conveyed should come with caveats and intergity otherwise they come across as arrogant and dangerous.

[@willyounts3308]

@@KR-jq3mj I agree w you. as long as there is understanding there will be misunderstanding too.

[@KR-jq3mj]

@@willyounts3308 hence the responsibility perhaps lies with those attempting to understand (that which likely can't be understood at least fully) to support those that likely will misunderstand.

[@willyounts3308]

@@weejoy far right identitarianism? could you expand on this? and which fallacies?

[@gayechapman4448]

Men are not women.

[@Pazzystar]

Every accusation is a confession

[@cancelled_user]

Makes total sense... and I was wondering why the Left/progressives are accusing everyone of "hate speech"

[@sasha_something]

Not true. That’s a cliche that idiots find impressive.

[@markrussell3428]

Given Butler has no fear of transgenderism, despite how this is weaponized to greatly confuse the minds of youth, perhaps Dr Butler can tell us if she is attracted to someone of the "same sex" or "same gender"? One would certainly assume she wouldn't be transphobic, which would then create such an intriguing dilemma for a radical feminist. Is it possible to be a radical feminist and attracted to a MtF? She seems to have a difficult time acknowledging that "sex" is even "a thing".

[@peacockLife]

as always

[@cancelled_user]

As far as I know, Butler self-identifies as they/them.

[@markrussell3428]

@@cancelled_user so what does that mean? She is pronoun attracted or same-sex attracted?

[@cancelled_user]

@@markrussell3428 Who knows... probably asexual or pansexual or zoophile or whatever 😅

[@TracyPicabia]

She keeps referring to the anti-gender ideology. ??? I guess she means all of the vastly diverse groups of more or less rational people who regard homo sapiens as a dimorphic species and biological sex as a thing in nature that does not need to be observed by post structuralist academics (or anybody else) to be that thing.

[@peterrook9019]

Biologically there is a sex binary, it is not a question of forcing that truth, it is a fact. If people want or must live outside that binary they can, but they should not lie about their biological sex, whatever their gender ideology is. I found this a convoluted speech, designed to confuse and invert ideas perhaps?

[@tigerburn81]

Welcome to Critical Theories.

[@qbytx]

you found it convoluted because you're a dip-dip. a bottle of mayonnaise is more discerning than you, hope this helps 👍

[@heliusfacenna4109]

Easy to say when you fit the given binary stereotypes. What about those who don't?

[@urbandiscount]

Biologically, there is no sex binary

[@gparsr]

@@heliusfacenna4109 Those that don’t, should just don’t!! Instead, many want to reinforce those stereotypes rather than just being themselves. I am a heterosexual male who grew up in a deeply feminist environment that freed me from many male stereotypes, so should I be calling myself a trans woman? Why not if stereotypes are the definition. Who has the more “radical” position? Those that want to reinforce stereotypes (but also by introducing incoherent labels and categories), or those that break the stereotypes and not have to introduce infinite muckery & inanity into the language. If sex and gender are social constructs, so is trans! And if sex and gender can be messed up from “social construction” by the dominant group(s), what makes trans so immune from human stupidity, self deception and their own “prisons” around roles, expectations and sexuality.

[@thenicolascage4355]

I never heard Judith Buttler take accountability for the absolute chaos, hate and pain her ideas about men and women have caused. Let her debate an evolutionary biologist or even Jordan Peterson!

[@sanallit222]

Gender is the new philosophy related to humanity ,the reality need human philosophy .

[@noor5x9]

Starts at 02:10

[@alinafechibwana3082]

Gender, culture and sexuality are crucial dimensions that need to be tackled systematically if we need more progress in the development area. Great talk!

[@cervenypes123]

"...the anti-intellectualism, the refusal to read, to discuss, to affirm an open form of inquiry is also an attack on the academy." Read the lecturer into her Apple earbuds

[@cervenypes123]

I bristle at the telling use metaphor. Movements and attacks---the former should live only briefly in philosophy, the latter not at all

[@mcollings1000]

This is a superb and helpful talk.

[@markrussell3428]

Really? Why? Please tell me I am intrigued. What about this is superb

[@battags22]

I too wish to understand.

[@cancelled_user]

I think the obscure gobbledygook simply turns some people on.

[@markrussell3428]

@@cancelled_user 😆 🤣 😂

[@nts4906]

@@cancelled_user Just because it went over your head, doesn't mean it went over everyone else's. Try to let people who are smarter and better than you enjoy things. These things are not meant for people like you.

[@themoose70]

As a Christian, her comments about how christian colonialism was the root of all evil is just not true. The Puritans encouraged women to read when most women were illiterate. Christians were at the forefront of abolitionism and aside from some fringe Christian denominations, most are loving towards anyone regardless of how they identify, even if they may disagree with their lifestyle. She also claims that those who oppose gender theory just don't want to read critically is unfair. Watch some James Lindsay who is a brilliant scholar who critically dissects many of the gender and other critical theories.

[@cancelled_user]

@@Celeste-hl1kw Would you require the same thing for example from feminists? Acknowledging all the harm they've done and ask them not to say "not all feminists" (though they usually use a no true Scotsman fallacy "those are not true feminists")? Or does that requirement only apply to your ideological opposition?

[@cancelled_user]

@@Celeste-hl1kw Well, I wasn't talking about individuals either. There has always been certain sinister undercurrent within each wave of feminism, but the latest one seems to be the worst in terms of misandry. Systematic downplaying and denying of men's issues, intimidating researchers who don't conform to feminist narratives, that's not a matter of just some individual feminists. It's the issue with feminism itself. It's rather the other way around, i.e. there are some good feminists here and there, but feminism as whole is not that good and can even be harmful. Researcher Murray Straus has done a study where he analysed more than 200 studies of marital vioIence. It's called "Thirty Years of Denying the Evidence on Gender Symmetry in Partner Violence: Implications for Prevention and Treatment" An example of a good and very rational feminist would be Cathy Young. She writes: "For the most part, feminists’ reactions to reports of female violence toward men have ranged from dismissal to outright hostility. Straus chronicles a troubling history of attempts to suppress research on the subject, including intimidation of heretical scholars of both sexes and tendentious interpretation of the data to portray women’s violence as defensive." "But this woman-as-victim bias is at odds with the feminist emphasis on equality of the sexes. If we want our culture to recognize women’s capacity for leadership and competition, it is hypocritical to deny or downplay women’s capacity for aggression and even evil. We cannot argue that biology should not keep women from being soldiers while treating women as fragile and harmless in domestic battles. Traditional stereotypes both of female weakness and female innocence have led to double standards that often cause women’s violence-especially against men-to be trivialized, excused, or even (like Solange’s assault on Jay Z) treated as humorous. Today, simplistic feminist assumptions about male power and female oppression effectively perpetuate those stereotypes. It is time to see women as fully human-which includes the dark side of humanity." So, this is a view that very few feminists share. If you google "feminist vocabulary" you will find many derogatory terms against men, such as mansplaining, manterrupting, manspreading, manimony, etc. How in the world is this a progress, or anything good for men? I would also argue about the "patriarchy" which is not really a thing in the West these days, although it's still the main pillar of feminism. I could write about more things that are wrong with feminism, but you probably agree that it's a very complex topic for youtube comment section.

[@capndye91]

What if you just don't like Marxists?

[@finnmcginn9931]

Spot on

[@noor5x9]

What then?

[@cancelled_user]

and their pseudoscience and intolerance

[@peacockLife]

no one is afraid of gender.. people who don't know who they are are more afraid and need external validation. Sex and gender is highly determinate in nature. Some people seem to think, and that is merely thought, that you can manipulate your sex and gender through your mind. and that is where we are wrong. IF gender was in the mind, we should be able to transform ourselves. but can we? NO, it remains in the mind. and NO MATTER WHAT YOU DO, you cannot change your genetic sex and therefore gender. In the west gender was externalized because you believe that only women and do certain things and not others. I don't even agree that there needs to be a conversation. when you say there was never a solid theory about it over pace and time, you are saying that people in ancient times did not know who they were and in that I WILL dispute you.

[@MatthewCollings-zy3ro]

@TracyPicabia, I don't know what bit you find pseudo intellectual or irrational?

[@bahez761]

I love this philosopher, her theory and her criticism towards the human condition, wars and the all types of inequalities.

[@blairsantillana]

Judith isn’t a philosopher at all. Otherwise she joke understand her logic makes no sense.

[@GGTutor1]

Wow, try listening to this but every time she says 'gender' change it to 'patriarchy'. The chickens have come home to roost, Judith.

[@botchedmandala5197]

Great talk. Thank you. Would be really interested to hear more from Judith about gender itself and its performativity and social construction

[@idavies16]

boy do i have a book for you

[@heliusfacenna4109]

@@idavies16 Which one? Undoing Gender or Gender Trouble?

[@AnaMaria-xh1sg]

@@heliusfacenna4109Gender Trouble

[@johnsmith7140]

Lol

[@markrussell3428]

Given Butler has no fear of transgenderism, despite how this is weaponized to greatly confuse the minds of youth, perhaps Dr Butler can tell us if she is attracted to someone of the "same sex" or "same gender"? One would certainly assume she wouldn't be transphobic, which would then create such an intriguing dilemma for a radical feminist. Is it possible to be a radical feminist and attracted to a MtF? She seems to have a difficult time acknowledging that "sex" is even "a thing"

[@billyray105]

Tic Toc Judy Tic Toc

[@craigjohnston3701]

Wonderful talk. Thank you.

[@battags22]

How about we all just be kind to each other and you can stop convoluting gender.

[@ElizabethDohertyThomas]

Really interesting and I now "get" why some people may put her in a god category. She is wicked smart, mentally very agile, well-read, calm, and able to appreciate multi-variant philosophies that are grouped together but between them mightily disagree. What I am mostly taking away is the vast majority of us are invisible in academia (or the anti-academic ultra-right thought philosophies.) Gender expression is cool and should be accepted. At the very end of the day, however, people get horny and all identity comes down to flesh and the ability to procreate (or avoid that) depending on the bits each fleshy human has. I will go a bit whistful to end...raised in ultra-liberalism. I would be utterly fascinated to see a self-described lesbian or non-binary XX who loves this whole topic but also has cosmetic surgery, breast implants, dresses in the very lastest fashions with the perfect, most on-trend make-up. I say this not because those things matter (or are trivial) but because it gets to the heart of her early references to the stereotypes she so hates (rightfully) about her gender studies field. That in turn begs the question then if this is not itself worthy of deconstructing, why this faux-woman I invented is not front and center...if she exists at all in that academic strain of thought/movement. I would posit that my faux person would be ostracized and unwelcomed socially and culturally...as would many other women who dress to the nines in their own non-Euro cultures. I would argue the only human who COULD get away with that fancy stuff without socially being unwelcomed into this movement is....drumroll... a transwoman who wishes to go full-in on stereotypes of femaleness. Thus, I remain an unvoiced moderate watching two extremes fight it out with fancy words, fancy footnotes, impressed and fascinated at the advances of civilization that allow us such thinking, disconnected from our ancestors' basic needs of food/shelter.... and from a billion or so humans whose goal is still basic food/shelter. We humans are fascinating animals trying so hard not to be! :-)

[@shelliematt5170]

Thank you for this perspective e Elizabeth! I appreciate it and wholeheartedly agree.

[@kimcarsons7036]

XX is female though. do you mean XY or something else?

[@user-se1et3fs4j]

Gender fluidity is woke bullshit. Forget conservatives, even Karl Marx would have shitted on today's woke liberals.

[@lewreed1871]

I'm sure you have an eminent future to look forward to in your academic pursuits, especially when you come out with such profundities as: "Gender expression is cool and should be accepted."

[@johnsmith7140]

​@@user-se1et3fs4jIndeed

[@LucPatry]

i love her . i get nothing ❤☭

[@francescocerasuolo4064]

hm?

[@markrussell3428]

Why? What is in its talk that makes any sense?

[@francescocerasuolo4064]

@@markrussell3428 she's right about everything

[@markrussell3428]

@@francescocerasuolo4064 Hum? I would appreciate its insight on why gender is even a valid construct to begin with? Humans (assuming Butler identifies as one) are a species with specific sex catagories (1 of 2) and we have a personality which takes many shapes and forms (arguably infinite). It is our individual personality which varies greatly over time and this is based on social experiences and maturity (intellectual, bio-physical and other innate trait characteristics) Given Butler has no fear of transgenderism, including how this is now weaponized to confuse the minds of youth, perhaps this faux doctor can tell us if it is attracted to someone of the "same sex" or "same gender"? One would certainly assume Butler wouldn't be transphobic, which would then create such an intriguing dilemma for a radical feminist. Is it possible to be a radical feminist and be attracted to a MtF person? This person seems to have a difficult time acknowledging that "sex" categories are even "a thing". This person goes out of its way to always refer to gender. A "thing" which arguably doesnt really exist - hence this a talk that is a lot about nothing. This becomes all the more evident when the discussion further collapses into confusion surrounding non-binary, another word for non-existent. The good doctor now ducks away from gender given the chaos and destruction and is firmly rooted in Queer Theory. Another brilliently empty construct that is a fast track to pedophilia- something advocated for by Butler's post-modernist hero: Foucault.

[@francescocerasuolo4064]

​@@markrussell3428 God, this is just awful. i don't have time to entertain myself with someone who uses the right-wing dogwhistle "transgenderism" and "mind-corruption" as if trans people weren't a thing and they weren't pushed towards gender dypshoric catastrophes just because they are gender-non-conforming in respect of our current understanding of bodies(or how we produce bodies), we produce some men bodies, we produce some women bodies, we produce something else entirely, nonhuman sexes, machinic, robotic sexes etc. Gender is just the way we describe such a surface, the way those signs gets shaped and define how we define menness/womanness et else - the way in which we restrict freely expressed modes of signification truly ends up producing gender dypshoria - it is a burden put upon trans people because they crave an outside - of the gender binary. anyway, now, done this short introduction and undermined the crazy dogwhistle of your crappy arguments that i don't wanna entertain - let's respond to the less relevant questions in a bullet-point fashion. > We are a specific sex (1 of 2) - no, lmfao, this is anti-human-sciences as well as anti-natural-sciences, it entertains the idiotic idea that we haven't produce studies in philosophy, sociology and psychopedagogy AS WELL AS BIOLOGY - regressing toward the eradication of sexual differences already well-established in the literature of natural sciences, as well as the existence of intersex people, either with symbolic and semiotic violence or through unnecessary medicalization at young ages(funny how that wasn't "castrating the youth", right? ahah, jesus). > One would certainly assume she wouldn't be transphobic, which would then create such an intriguing dilemma for a radical feminist. - no, actual feminism(steaming from the latest currents xenofeminism/transfeminism and intersectional anti-classist feminism) has always been pro: the liberation of body, the constrain of gender(starting from space, vote, and doing, reproductive rights etc ofc) - glad i could clarify this for you, there is no dilemma, bodies are produced in a way that is defined through semiotics, and understood as such, not everybody is a woman - but those who abide by a certain set of body characteristics and signs that are cultivated by x/y societies at a given time - therefore someone attracted to the same sex/gender entertain this production and in doing so, produces them too - even through kinks and other power-dynamics. > She seems to have a difficult time acknowledging that "sex" categories are even "a thing". - she doesn't. > She goes out of her way to always refer to gender. Which doesnt really exist - porn wouldn't exist either according by your definition of exists/doesn't exist(binary opposition that you really haven't precisely defined) but porn seems to have a rather consistent effect on your penis. (same would go for language and a lot of other institutions you don't wish to critique for some reason or another). don't reply back since i have pretty much clarified any doubt you could have, i'm not gonna engage in intellectual debauchery or anti-intellecturalism - and to any trans person or any educated person you go out saying ""transgenderism""" has any right to tell you f-ck 0ff without explaining you anything, i have done you a favor. Regards.

[@kabutoyakushi6144]

A fake discipline, useless field

[@honeychurchgipsy6]

@Kabuto Yakushi - which discipline in particular do you think is fake, and useless? Is it the entirety of literary criticism that you have issue with, or are you only against anything connected to gender/feminism?

[@urbandiscount]

@@xplicitfishin where exacxtly? Sources please

[@catspeakegroove]

​@@xplicitfishin omg😮!!!!!

[@markrussell3428]

@@honeychurchgipsy6 that's a little sexist to associate gender with feminism. It seems gender is being used as a tool to define how people separate to their sex. How valid are the concepts when the high priestess cant seem to present ideas without a script.

[@JeeprzCreepers56]

@@xplicitfishin NO, she does not "approve of child sexual abuse" apparently you just like selecting quotes to "prove" your point. But all you're proving is that you can't read or understand what's being discussed from a psychoanalytic perspective you potato. Pg 155 " By refusing to consider what happens to the child’s love and desire in the traumatic incestuous relation with an adult, we fail to describe the depth and psychic consequence of that trauma."

[@derbucherwurm]

I think the pope is right and I´m not catholic or something because Gender is a problematic overinterpretation of sex.

[@honeychurchgipsy6]

Forgive me if I don't think the Pope is likely to have a good understanding of these complex issues. He thinks there's a man in the sky and that he is his earthly representative - which makes him an unreliable, narcissistic fantasist - imho.

[@urbandiscount]

Oh shut it.

[@moocha4030]

If you actually wanted people to read your stuff, you'd make it readable.

[@sasha_something]

It is readable. Make the effort. Philosophy isn’t Harry Potter.

[@moocha4030]

​@@sasha_something It's typical, the priests want to exclude everyone by not letting them be able to read it themselves.

[@sasha_something]

@@moocha4030 Make the effort.

[@moocha4030]

@@sasha_something exclusionary

[@sasha_something]

@@moocha4030keep trying

[@razimusrazimus8622]

Very interesting talk and I agree with nearly everything Dr. Butler says. However, the same argument that Dr. Butler uses to dispel the far right can be used to dispel the far left (Woke movement). With the exception of the small percentage of philosophers (e.g. Dr. Butler) at the very top who synthesize these ideas/analyses, the vast majority of those who adhere to the concept of wokeism have neither the critical thinking ability nor the reading depth that Dr. Butler points to. Indeed, the vast majority of SJW are children who shout ideas that they partially understand. A more recent phenomenon is the inability of SJW to define a woman/man because they don't identify as a woman/man. This muddy thinking would mean that Dr. Butler would have no idea what defines a man if Dr. Butler does not identify as a man; however, this is absurd. How can someone at the pinnacle of Gender Studies not know how to define a gender that defines a large swath of society? By Dr. Butler's words, the definition of woman/man may be fluid and constantly changing, but to not have a definition/thought at all is absurd. The ideas put forward by individuals like Dr. Butler are fantastic for the academic setting where they can be understood, appreciated, and built upon. However, they are extremely dangerous in the populous where they are not understood. It takes tremendous time and effort to build the critical thinking that Dr. Butler refers to. Indeed, I argue, that at least in the fundamental sciences, this ability is not realized until one formulates and successfully defends a dissertation at a PhD level. Very rare undergraduates are able to perform true critical thinking. The vast majority of those that promote wokeism do not have this ability and are unable to fully appreciate the ideas put forth by philosophers like Dr. Butler. Rather, these SJW are just that, warriors. Mindless drones ready to rush into battle to die for a cause they don't fully understand. A perfect example is the teaching of this material to young children. How does a child possess the ability to appreciate the sophistication of this material? They simply do not, and this is why I label the teaching as indoctrination.

[@robertdownes705]

This statement is really lacking in critical thinking via your reductive use of terms like far left, woke movement, SJW, mindless drones, indoctrination. Who is teaching this material to children and what material are you referring to?

[@razimusrazimus8622]

@@robertdownes705 Interesting that you choose not to respond to the comment, but I'll respond to yours. The terms you speak of (e.g. far left, woke movement, SJW...) can be further expanded upon by a simple web search. I've not redefined anything. I don't redefine because it doesn't make any difference to the observable universe the natural laws that govern it (e.g. theory of special relativity... not laws of Homosapien and their feelings). Your use of the term reductive is misplaced. You're seeking to stall and control the discussion. The material I refer to is the material Dr. Butler refers to: Gender. Paraphrasing what Dr. Butler says is not a good use of time. You're clearly trying to sound intelligent and thoughtful by using double talk. You enjoy entangling conversations on use of terms and definitions (e.g. it's really not blue, it's cyan) and not really discuss anything of value. Rather than point to an Oxford English Dictionary to identify the accepted definition of a term, you'd rather refine the term to support your ideology -whatever that may be. You're clever in muddying the water to confuse your opponent and attain a stale mate. I've said something of substance. Something that makes people think. You're chasing definitions to make yourself feel good.

[@robertdownes705]

@@razimusrazimus8622 Seems you are describing your own post.

[@razimusrazimus8622]

@@robertdownes705 You still have nothing of substance to say? I am saddened by that. I was hoping to have some sort of intellectual conversation given that the speaker is an intellectual. But, as my post said, followers of intellectuals are not necessarily intellectual. Many do not understand the message, try to simplify it, and misconstrue it to a perversion. Look at what the Conquistadors and the Ottoman Empire did when they spread the message of the "Good Lord". I will refrain from looking for a meaningful discussion here. Take care.

[@robertdownes705]

@@razimusrazimus8622 This is not intellectual: "The vast majority of those that promote wokeism do not have this ability and are unable to fully appreciate the ideas put forth by philosophers like Dr. Butler. Rather, these SJW are just that, warriors. Mindless drones ready to rush into battle to die for a cause they don't fully understand. A perfect example is the teaching of this material to young children. How does a child possess the ability to appreciate the sophistication of this material? They simply do not, and this is why I label the teaching as indoctrination".

[@nemezidanemezida5110]

это не философия это что угодно но не философия

[@AKRLUC2012]

Please note that not everyone is ready for what some of you are offering. Back in my day, and still is the very image of two people, ADAM and Eve, nothing more.

[@willymuller4126]

What a flood of nonsense.