Judith Butler: How the far-right wants to control your body
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 20 мар 2024
- Philosopher and scholar Judith Butler came by JOE Towers on the release of their new book Who's Afraid of Gender?
We chat about the ongoing campaign to demonise and other the trans community, the link between politics and evangelical transphobic and homophobic figures, and Israel's military campaign against the Palestinians.
Subscribe to our new podcast now, or you're a silly goose:
linktr.ee/pubcast
![Jason Aldean - Should've Been A Cowboy [Toby Keith Tribute] (Live from the 59th ACM Awards)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/-B4nR-CgMVA/mqdefault.jpg)
The fact that the joe team have to edit the video title multiple times in the past 24 hours, assumedly because having big scary words like ‘transgender’ or even just ‘gender’ in the title makes the RUclips algorithm either cut ad revenue or straight up suppress the video is so wild
Exactly, and yet it is the left who is always accused of "cancel culture"
I’ve noticed. It’s so unfortunate. 😒
I've noticed comparatively few and tame comments, too - maybe support for gender ideology has reduced as a result of greater public education and recent scandals in Scotland and the Tavistock; also, maybe a lot of trans advocates were, in fact, bots or have gotten cannier in their comments. Whatever it is, it sure is quiet around here compared to a year ago, as if the circus has moved on.
Sad because we'll never move forward without open dialogue. We'll have public speak and that which we use privately.
Its because there are so many little snowflakes in the world these days that will have a meltdown if you say something they feel like hurts their feelings. And unfortunately many large companies and .govs are ingratiating these clowns.
The call for a "return" to an imagined past is one of the core pillars of fascism.
That’s how you know Wokes are fascists - they want to re-racialise society except this time to discriminate against the majority and they want to pretend it’s still the 1950s and society still holds the attitudes toward race and sex that brought about the civil war. Victim nostalgia…
No one can be "born in the wrong body", our brains ARE our body just as much as any other part of it. We are the sex we are, regardless of what our personal relationship is with the sexist stereotypes in society. "Trans" ideology, is regressive and sexist, as there is no "correct way" of being a boy or girl, man or woman, all those terms do is indicate sex and stage of maturity - decoupling sex and gender and trying to make gender into this ludicrous concoction of personality and sexist stereotypes is beyond regressive - it actively harms people who buy into it - the idea that there is something wrong with a kid's body that needs to be chemically altered because they believe living up to sexist stereotypes is some real measure of whether they are a boy or a girl (and man or woman for adults obviously), is insanity.
I have asked hundreds of "activists" and "allies" to explain what they are measuring themselves against to determine that they have a need to transition - NOT ONE person has been able to articulate what that is - not one person is able to distance themselves sufficiently to realise that THEY are the ones with a regressively sexist idea of what it means to be a boy/girl or man/woman and that that is the issue causing all the problems - their own misunderstanding and severely limited perspective/sexist misunderstanding of what sexist stereotypes/"gender norms" actually entail - they are not rules, they are not real boundaries, they are regressive ideas and generalisations - no one needs to live up to any such utter nonsense or feel comfortable with those stereotypes to be a boy/girl/man/woman - all those terms represent, and all they should represent, is sex and stage of maturity - by creating this whole "gender identity" nonsense, THAT IS WHAT CAUSES ALL THE DISTRESS, THIS FABRICATION OF A FRAMEWORK WHICH DISTORTS REALITY.
No one - NO ONE - in the movement has been able to explain or articulate what this supposed "womanly essence" or "manly essence" is that they feel/know/need to transition in order to represent etc. actually is - yet you all actively believe in it and push for it to be accepted. That is ludicrous.
You have no clue what fascism is
@@x16881 I'm literally referencing Umberto Eco, dude
@@x16881 The second somebody types that you are either close to it or you're a undercover fascist saying you're a centrist , DEAR X166881. Fascism is a permanent being, it is everywhere and in everything now.
I think I’m one of those people that wants to live in a simple world and don’t think the gender identity debate deserves the amount of political attention it receives.
That is wanting to live in a simple world. It matters because the culture wars are a bad faith attempt to divide people for political ends.
I completely agree but I think the identity debate isn't solely about gender/sex, it's about choice and what choices can be made and which choices can not. That's the push back, choice has become a dirty word. We are all transient, moving from one place to another, the notion of trans identity interrupts the notion that we are all on a single track, and are fixed into a singular way of being. We can live in this simple world together. 💕 to all
@@ThankYouAndHello What choice do women and girls have when men intrude on their private spaces, sports competitions, changing rooms, prisons, rape crisis centers?
We are not just "uncomfortable" by a man in our changing rooms we are threatened, scared and pissed off. Men, no matter how they identify, have since time immemorial used their power to abuse women.
Good men, no matter how they identify or dress, understand women's need to be safe and to feel safe.
@@opinion3742 100% agreed, but if that is so why do we at the majority give the time of day to the extreme ends of the argument. I would like to think most people could see past the headlines and blatant attempts of manipulation. Maybe wishful thinking
@@tomwood8153 I think that most people do. Especially the young, and it is their world after all.
Was so worried my headphones were mucking up. But it’s just JoePol. Love it.
This interviewer seemed a little nervous, treading carefully with his questions
Love this channel & I loved the interview but could Politics Joe please work on their audio quality?
Perhaps I'm deluded, but was under the impression the original feminists knew perfectly well what a woman was so weren't interested in debating that, rather their concern was resisting oppression and getting the same rights as men.
That, and rights won were sex based rights. The minute you make then gender rights,we'll as we can see it's incredibly problematic.
many early second wave feminist academics debated gender including ann oakley, angela davies and judith butler themself - I'm not sure how far back you are considering 'original' here but Judith is nearly 70, and has been debating this for quite some time. The debate hasn't always been as huge in activist circles as it now is but trans issues have been in public debate to at least some degree since the 50s (perhaps earlier). Debates are always shifting and progressing too and I dont think there is anything wrong with that - the earliest feminists for instance weren't debating rape culture or gender roles because getting the vote seemed like a pretty preeminent issue at the time obviously lol, nothing wrong with shifting the goalposts of the debate and considering needs for inclusivity now people have more capacity to do so. I know from my own studies many trans activists and feminist activists in the 70s and 80s did work together so its probably not as modern as you think, just trans people are the new media bogeyman.
the original feminist movement was also super racist. white women were mad that black men got the right to vote before they did. they took it as a huge offense, so they organized and got themselves the right to vote.
maybe don’t use the morals of people from a hundred years ago? the original feminist got a lot of shit wrong
There have always been women that sell other women.
So, I believe a lot of privileged women relish in how they manage to put men in the same bathrooms as our daughters.
When one thinks of 'original feminists' one thinks of Simone de Beauvoir (her 'The Second Sex' is the feminist Bible) and she is most famous for saying "one is not born but becomes a woman". De Beauvoir stated that although there are biological differences among the sexes, women only become women through social constructions and circumstances (i.e., they are fundamentally defined as relative to men, as 'not men', or, earlier in history, as 'imperfect men'- Thomas Aquinas). According to De Beauvoir, biological facts are never JUST biological facts but they take on the values of social norms. In fact, she busted open the essentialisation of biological facts, and exposed this essentialisation as the prime ideological tool used to justify the oppression and suppression of women. 'What a woman is' was a question and a subject of philosophical investigation for the most 'original' among 'original feminists'.
It wouldn't be a poljoe video without scuffed audio.
Unironic leftist audio 😅
right? it’s like…you had one job…
Audio guy probably campaigns for a 0 day working week
I would be so gutted to get Judith Butler in and totally scuff the audio like this. What she’s saying is so important, and here’s the audio editor sweating bullets to make it usable
Butler's points on gender are interesting and thoughtful, and I think they're really trying to have a more nuanced conversation than what has been happening.
Communication is so important, as is being just as if not more critical of your side of an argument... Society is slowly pulling itself apart and someone needs to be the grown up in the room.
@@theoutsider6191 Where is the evidence that puberty blockers cause untold damage?
@@theoutsider6191 Nice straw man. Try actually saying something factual.
@@squatch545Pathetic answer, but i guess that was what you are going for.
@@theoutsider6191 So you've got nothing then? Thought so.
@@squatch545I've got the ability to read and understand information, which clearly is something you lack. Perhaps the only thing allowing you to even interact on sites like this is predictive text and other such aids for the feeble of mind.
Love this video and the fact you let her talk without interrupting. Just bought the book.
>talk without interrupting.
Aka, a clueless grifter and a coward.
Every one who doesn't agree with you Judith isn't on the right.
Huh?
Everyone who agrees with Judith butler is wrong.
When did Judith gain the monopoly on the truth?
@@nigelfrench8894 when did anyone else?
@@nigelfrench8894What?
People who say your biology can't define your limits are conflating two different things, your biology tells you what you are, it doesn't and isn't trying to tell you who you are, that's up to you. Saying that a woman is defined by by her biology is not saying that she is limited to being only her biology, it's kind of tedious to have to explain that point to an adult.
Yet, I saw your other comment which pretty much contradict what you've said here where you very much have conflated sex and gender
Hear, hear. These morons don`t even know that biology is DESCRIPTIVE not prescriptive.
@@calumlambertwhat comment?
From her very first pronouncements - 'that the way in which feminism began, was by calling into question received notions of what a biological woman is' and, 'it's not the specific biology - alone - that defines you as a women...' Just stop right there.
a) I disagree; feminism was NOT originally a battle about perceptions of identity or characteristics. It was about SURVIVAL. Women already knew what they were made of, they weren't interested in personalities, they were quite aware each woman had their own traits. The genesis of feminism was compelled by the collective experiences of women as a whole - and what all women required to survive and to protect themselves - and ultimately their offspring too. It was about rights and protections to support all women, based COMPLETELY on their biological sex - not on identities or orientations or a word game about feelings and characteristics. Really basic rights that were necessary that give autonomy and power to any female that a man also has.
Many rights that were not afforded women, strictly because they were women.
b) Saying biology alone does not define you as a woman is duplicitous word-play when you know that the point of the discussion is; what is the importance of biology in defining a woman? IT IS EVERYTHING. Biology defines the reality. All other feelings about identity are secondary criteria that are as abstract or ephemeral as the wind. The rights and protections women are losing are SEX BASED rights.
I haven't even managed to get past the first 5 minutes of this interview without serious mistrust of Butler who is so intent on disowning women.
This shows you've not read anything written by feminists
I can’t believe this much time and energy is spent on this topic. It’s right up there with the Flat Earth Theory
Such a manipulative woman! It is not just in the UK that women are feeling angered by this movement.
Flat water not earth.
I am completely blown away at how much time is spent talking about this issue .. so much of the discussion just goes in circles - nothing gets resolved.. I want this issue to go away already
@@brianmeen2158 I know right? It's a tiny tiny little group of peopl,e % in society. Why do we have to hear about it so much? I could care less about them, I'm sure they could care less about me. I wish the whole subject would go away.
It's a grift, and it pays well.......Simples!😉
Yes it does
An intellectual, yes, but dishonest, devious, given to deliberate slippages, and bound by a relentless desire to re-write history to fit her endless de-contextualised conflations. Able to emotionally perform when it suits, and still trying to riff off Foucault. Curiously not given to engaging in debate with those who might disagree, but happy to attend interviews where no challenge can be expected.
Your description of Butler is spot on.
I do appreciate your ability to see through her self-aggrandizement.
@@stephanieroth16 You're both _very_ impressive. I wonder if either of you can present a reason to disagree with her about anything.
I think Rob Hastings did a nice job.
As for me, trans ideology seems like misogyny dressed up like a male porn fantasy.
Deeply harmful to women and children,
and tremendously useful to pedophiles.
Yellow smells nice. Please present a reason to disagree with me about that. @@Disentropic1
@@ConceptNull That's easy enough. I don't know of any object called yellow. Since I can't rationally affirm that an object I don't recognize has particular properties, I consequently disagree with your claim that yellow smells nice.
It's amazing how humans can take the most simplest thing and complicate it with the most absolute dribble. It's almost a genius comedy sketch.
*drivel
/pet peeve
How does gravity work?
Why is the sky blue?
What is the simplest question that a human can ask?
@@zacharybosley1935 asking simple questions with complicated answers, does not a simple thing complicate.
What time is it?: look at a clock - answer given
simple question with simple answer.
being able to ask things like "is the clock correct?", "what even is time?" does not complicate the original simple question or the answer.
@@cyfangz9238 so you recognize that simple questions can have complicated answers?
@@cyfangz9238 taken a step further, you recognize that simple things can be complicated upon further examination? Things like Money, Dreams, Gravity and Light are all more complicated than a single sentence can answer, the same seems to hold true for sex and gender.
Love your work so much, but please please get some help with your audio quality 🥴
It's terrible isn't it. Making it hard to listen to which is a massive shame
The arrow of time which always points in the direction of diminishing difference.
That sounds good, but I don’t think it’s true. That only applies to select historical periods and select aspects of the nature of organisms, including humans. The history of life on this planet is a waxing, waning and yet greater waxing of biodiversity as ecology and cataclysm force species in and out of existence and in and out of conflict with one another. The same is true of the tribes and nations of humanity over our existence.
At 14:12 she states she doesn’t see why people wouldn’t want to go in an inclusive direction. She hasn’t spent the time understanding the other viewpoints, only her own. You can’t take someone seriously who hasn’t considered other viewpoints against their own.
Imagine argueing that being tolerant of others is actually intolerance towards the intolerant.
@@MCArt25 imagine replying with basic white chic replies and never thinking for oneself.
Gender critical isn‘t the correct term - we criticise the ideology, not necessarily the term gender. Gender is just a term that is used in many different ways and contexts. One person means sex by gender and the other one means a social role and a third means an innate feeling or perception of self, a fourth one says it‘s the chosen sex AND role you want to become. So there always are many misunderstandings and misconceptions in these discussions bc no one is defining „gender“ when using it to present or defend a certain point of view related to „trans“ in legal matters, social matters, biological matters…
@@OverOnTheWildSideimagine being a sexist? Oh, no you don't have to imagine do you.
@@powderandpaint14 my manliness offends you.
Get your audio in order amateurs
what is wrong with the audio?
I know what a man is. I know what a woman is.
not only that. i know what a female cat is. i know what a male cat is. and i don't ask the cat if it identifies as a male cat. so yes, it is biology alone that decides whether you're a female human (woman) or a male human (man).
Or do you know what a male and female are?
You must've watched Question Time when they had Professor Robert Winston on.... a pre-eminant UK Scientist and Biologist and you had people like this wordplaying tool arguing this sort of point with him.... Unfortunately far too many institutions/companies and Govs have been way too quick to pander and get their virtue points, and have disregarded the consequences of allowing ideologies like this one to go unchecked. And so what you end up with is the Tavistock scandal.
@@theoutsider6191 Quite the opposite - bigots and people who dont understand science are allowed to write scientifically illiterate opinions pieces in the UK press on a daily basis. Tavistock was a badly managed, underfunded and understaffed institution, like many others in the UK today.
@@thomaspolasik6235Do you think a cat identifies as a cat? There is good reason to believe that in making an animal, whether of the furry kind or human, by assigning to it either a male or female role in order to procreate may not come out as cleanly as you imagine it does. We start with the potential for either, something which is determined by the genes in the chromosomes and takes place during gestation, creating both the physical apparatus and the sexual function as determined in the brain. What makes anyone believe that any crossover wouldn't happen? Especially given the obvious reality that is intersex people?
16:26 Eventually that "another one" was Julie Bindel.
Wow. I hope that's true.
@@pupppt I think that because she is one of the half way sensible ones in the TERF pack, and she was not a TERF from the beginning.
@@miriamlana833
JAA TERFS, DAS SIND DIE TERFS, LINKS ZWO DRIE VIER, JUDOLPH BITLER HAS DECLARED, VEE MUST FOLLOW!
Listening to JB it’s as though the enlightenment never happened.
reading all the pithy comments that don't address the specifics of anything she says.
Really gives you faith in the world...
@@Celestina0 I’ve listened to her word salads on more than one occasion where she disregards boring old science in favour of a world where 1+1=3 and XY=XX.
@@antonydavis2764 I wish I had the selfconfidence of someone who completely misunderstands a philosopher and thinks that the philosopher is the one who's completely mistaken, and not them lol
@@Celestina0 curious that you keep trying to bring this round to philosophy instead of science. Is this because you recognise JB’s ‘science’ is shaky and doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. By the way I’m an admirer of philosophy too but not when it seeks to undermine basic scientific principles with gobbledygook. I’m sure you can find some philosopher telling us all that the earth is flat.
@@antonydavis2764 the question of whether the earth is flat is an empirical question
the question of how we categorise people into 'man' and 'woman' is not.
This is the foundation of your misunderstanding of Butler.
When you are in a flight simulator that might feel like flying. Nobody will let you fly a plane with 1,000 passengers based upon flight simulator experience alone. Just a ordinairy money grab here. Tell em what they want to hear and grab the money, count the money and spend lots of time thinking what you are going to buy with al that money/
So, you remove comments mentioning Kathleen Stock's sensible criticism of Butler. Who's afraid of contrary opinions? Sad.
You do know RUclips automatically deletes comments for random ass reasons don’t you? I’ve had incredibly non hostile pro-trans comments disappear with no reason. You aren’t special
Who's removing them? That's not this channel doing that. It's happening all over this site.
And ending with "sad"? Who are you, Donald Trump? Lol
Literally my comment saying that some comments get deleted automatically by youtube got deleted. I'm getting notifications for the replies but can't even see my own anymore. Deluded mate. Sad.
@@MrMyers758 any time I even say the name of this website I get hidden
That was completely fascinating. As Oli said - 'revelatory'.
Thank you so much for doing the interview - I could feel whole areas of my mind opening up as Ms Butler explained her thinking.
She should debate an evolutionary biologist or Jordan Peterson. Especially about John Money !!!
Did she ever call out women asking for the traditional male gender role and how these women treat men, who fall out of that category?
This is the very thing we are discussing. Traditional gender roles are for the most part toxic.
We are mammals, just like other mammals. Nothing more, nothing less. Not once did he challenge JB's assertions. Women don't have the luxury of being self-defined in the majority of the world. It's not essentialist or bigoted or right wing to say a woman - female - produces large gametes and a man - male - produces small gametes. We can forget all about gender stereotypes, we don't need to be culturally defined by our sex stereotypes but we are inevitably shaped by our biological body. The project of feminism is about the destruction of preconceived ideas about what a woman is capable of even though she produces large gametes. I don't think it was ever feminism's intention to ignore the fact that a woman produces large gametes and the real-life consequences that flow from being female and her vital role in the reproduction of the species.
@alisonteal2317 This ^^^
"The project of feminism is about the destruction of preconceived ideas about what a woman is capable of even though she produces large gametes." Why women though? Why not everyone? I understand both feminists and some non feminists once focused on women in the sense that women were not organized after being brought back into the labor force, or maybe did not get the vote as early as most men got it. But once those are achieved, it seems feminism essentially IS just acting out of sex stereotypes, including the flawed idea that most women are oppressed relative to most men
Buy no other mammals have a neo cortex, and can't do art, mathematics, or classical music, or computer science, physics, chemistry, chess etc. Or am I just making shit up? Do.youbstand by that assertion, that we are "nothing but mammals", meaning there is no difference between, cats, dogs, chimpanzees and humans? Of course you don't, because you're not that smart
.
Not all humans produce gametes. Genetic abnormalities or conditions, such as Turner Syndrome in females (where there is a missing or partially missing X chromosome) and Klinefelter Syndrome in males (where there is an extra X chromosome, XXY instead of XY), can affect gamete production.
@@leonepearsall5067exceptions do not annul a biological fact.
Fantastic interview! But seriously guys, can we figure out the audio situation?
A Sophist if there ever was one.
Yes. And her comment about exiting the stage quickly due to the 'anxiety of being confronted in unwanted ways' is quite ironic considering the topic.
That is exactly the word.
@@jorvikaengelskvinna7157 That was notable!
She is unbelievably manipulative, and misrepresents the arguments of the gender critical feminists in shocking ways.
Spot On!
Why constant references to the right, many left leaning people question modern gender theory.
Easier to ignore that, pretend they don't exist, or just dismiss them as not 'true left'. Which, ironically, would be anti-thesis to their claim that you are what you identify as. Tad hypocritical, don't you think?
Also, it plays on ever present dominant narrative force in our corporate media space - Conservative and right = bad. By doing that, they don't need to put much effort to shun people away and portray them as undesirable.
@@mi__ran There is plenty of in fighting in leftist politics and culture.
But who are these left leaning people? Because I have seen a fair amount of criticism of people within these wide boarders. In fact there has always been plenty of criticism and disagreement within leftist circles.
@@opinion3742 give me a few concrete examples.
@@mi__ran Lol. Joking right?
The older and farther away from college I get, the less threatening and relevant people like Judith seem. Something weirdly soothing about hearing a smooth clueless voice babbling on about the "beauty of Marxist criticism" like it hasn't been responsible for millions of deaths around the world. It's almost pleasant to hear someone who is so detached from reality.
It's just ridiculous
Ever heard of Hiroshima?
@@kimcarsons7036 That is a single car crash compared to the many millions killed by Marxist governments over the past hundred years. So that was an ignorant argument.
I truly believe and have deep inner feelings since I've been 2 and my family and friends support, affirm and believe me, that I am Napoleon.
It is Napoleonphobic that the French government won't put me in charge of their military.
If by 'I'm napoleon' you mean you're the corsican general born in 1769, then you would be incorrect.
If by 'I'm a woman' you mean you prefer people call you a woman, prefer to dress a certain way, than that may very well be correct, and perfectly believeable.
Lol.
@@Celestina0 Both are delusional ideas.
@@catwoman7462how can preferences be delusional? Can I be deluded about the fact I prefer chocolate to vanilla icecream?
But you can't argue with your chromosomes and your lady or man parts. Muscles, lung capacity, height. @@Celestina0
Seminal feminist theorist to Sadiq Cans in a week. Our boy has range.
The move from a structuralist account in which capital is understood to structure social relations in relatively homologous ways to a view of hegemony in which power relations are subject to repetition, convergence, and rearticulation brought the question of temporality into the thinking of structure, and marked a shift from a form of Althusserian theory that takes structural totalities as theoretical objects to one in which the insights into the contingent possibility of structure inaugurate a renewed conception of hegemony as bound up with the contingent sites and strategies of the rearticulation of power.
Careful now, someone might not get the joke and think you're being serious (great parody btw).
@@Pedro17841 I think it's the actual quote for which Butler won the 'Bad Prose Award'...
@@daramccluskey
If not, it most definitely should be.
I think that’s from Kafka right
Judith represents a very fringe view. She's out there with flat earthers.
No, she doesn't.
Yeah... Yeah she does, and the more people this idiocy touches the more the counter you get... You had your time while most of the population was not aware of this idiocy spreading.@@powderandpaint14
I'm curious what you get when you Google "transgender"? My entire first page of results is from internationally and/or nationally recognised organisations all of whom define the word in roughly the same way as does Wikipedia: "A transgender person is someone whose gender identity differs from that typically associated with the sex they were assigned at birth." On the other hand, when I Google the word "Earth" I get a whole page full of round Earths, again posted by internationally recognised organisations. It seems to me that these are both mainstream views, but maybe Google's algorithm treats you very differently from me? I'd be very curious to hear the results of your search.
The culture war gave you brain damage.
Early feminists questioned the things that they were not allowed to "do". They were not questioning what a woman "is". Conflating these two concepts is just intellectually dishonest.
that’s a lie. feminist have always had discussions about what being a woman really is.
edit: changed “meant” to “is”
@@aaabbc379 that's not the same as questioning what a woman "is".
No. It's both. A woman was, in many cultures in the west, not an equal to men. In fact a woman was property. The idea of feminism is that a woman isn't property, isn't "weaker" or whatever. A woman is a leader, a lawyer, a firefighter etc etc.
It's not just things they can do, it's how they are perceived, so it is both what a woman can do and what a woman is.
@@pieinsky3142 hold on i edited my comment so you could keep up with the conversation.
Yes - feminism has changed very recently from discussing who a woman can be to who can be a woman.
That’s a big change and most women don’t like it.
We should bear in mind that only 15-20 percent of UK women identify as feminist so feminism represents the views of a small minority of women and gender ideologues an even smaller group…
If we cant define women, how can we give them rights?😂
Well easy, you dont condition rights on gender.
You only condition on capacity. You can Bear children ? Here are associated rights. You can't walk ? Here are specific rights...
But, gender exists in people mind like money or race, so discrimination based on gender exists eventhough gender itself doesn't have to. In this framework, the only gender you have to recognize is the one that's used to discriminate. A women is someone who is discrimated as a women. That's all society need to consider, the rest is poetry.
Who said we can't define what is a "woman"? last time I checked, only the most dumb of fanatic conservatives can't define what a "woman" is, even when repeatedly explained and provided sorces.
But then they are conservatives, so they don't count.
You can bear children? Now how do we call these people again…? I’m sure we had a word for it.
@@impossibleagent3663
Adult human females
@@NoLefTurnUnStoned.With no specific condition.
We all start with our biology, we're all a product of our biology & we can't deny our biology.
Everything else - leads from our biology.
thank you, all mainstream biology and genetics agrees with trans people. We are no longer in the 1700s mate
Idc who he/she/it(Judith) is, but its an idiot...
Whatever that means.
Biology has only ever been, at most, half of the equation. There's a reason no scientists believe that a man is made entirely of their nature.
This interview is so much projection is hilarious
It's a staple of "trans" activism.
If Judith Butler doesn't understand the link between queer theory and minor attracted persons, perhaps she should read one of her own books or essays. Starting with Gender Trouble, chapter 1, and its discussion of incest.
Call them as they are: PDF files that are supposed to be in recycle bin.
The idea of any politics or really any idea that has an issue with material reality is just so absurd to me. I mean, as long as we're just making things up, you can basically justify anything you want.
How is what Butler says contradicting material reality?
Nothing they said denies material reality. Many of you are just crude materialists and naive realists.
Talking about the "sex assignment" of infants as if it were just as arbitrary and made up as an infant's name is denying material reality.
@@puppptnobody's denying that penises and vaginas exist, they're denying that a woman is necessarily defined by having a vagina. We don't disagree over empirical reality, but how we categorise that reality.
@@puppptso many of you are just so confused. No one has denied anatomical material/physical facts. We do disagree on how we should draw the distinctions in classifying and distinguishing between those material facts though in terms of what the referents of the terms woman/man should be.
Various parts of the NHS have actually sought to abolish the words mother and breastfeeding.
That’s insane for wht reason ? There are ppl that identify as a mother and let’s face facts breastfeeding is breastfeeding
@@niyyy2667In order to pander to/for fear of threats from the trans community.
For example the NHS doesn't claim to assign sex at birth. It does however use that language for trans ppl because that "audience" is more comfortable with that language.
There was also a recent pseudo scientific claim that males could breastfeed equally to females (in Sussex I think?). No mention of the clear safeguarding red flag that should be raised by any male that tries to was mentioned.
@@robertmarshall2502 Well, Nominal Naomi is managing to breastfeed, and she was amab.
@@paulhammond6978 Maybe I wasn't clear. The benefits of breastfeeding come from the mother naturally breastfeeding her child. A male using drugs to excrete from his nipples isn't equal in the sense it doesn't have the same benefits to the baby. I'm thinking about the baby not the male using a baby to either feel "affirmed" or act out a paraphilia.
Women are also warned about what they eat or take as medicine when breastfeeding. These rules don't seem to apply to trans identifying males. Who can't produce enough to feed a baby even with the drugs.
Or are you arguing that all males regardless of gender identity are equally as good at breastfeeding as women?
@@niyyy2667it doesn't matter what someone identifies as. Only women can be mothers.
Answering a question on the validity of biological arguments with an answer about the relativity and complexity of materialist phylosophy is an excellent way of dodging the issue. If you listen to Butler enough, you realize that probably all her claims, views and answers are anchored in phylosophy only, as if phylosophical thought alone holds the keys to understanding the world we live in.
How else would we understand the world we live in if not through some form of philosophy? The way we legitimise and understand certain arguments and give credit to facts come from a certain epistemological understanding. Biological arguments just one of the arguments. She rightly pointed out that saying trans people exist or non-binary people exist are facts too. Their experiences are valid and are grounded materialistically as well. (socio-economic situations etc.) So you can argue how biological arguments of gender identity are not compelling. Ironically, feminists have been fighting against biological and reductionist arguments for a long time why women are incapable of doing certain things men do due to biology and why women are not like men etc. these are now considered sexist.
A hundred years ago, G.K. Chesterton wrote, ''If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it, for in many ways, his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment.'' He is not hampered by a sense of humor, or by charity, or by the dumb certainties of experience. He is the more logical for losing certain sane affections. Indeed, the common phrase for insanity is in this respect a misleading one. The madman is not the man who has lost his reason. The madman is the man who has lost everything except his reason.
An excerpt from “How to Think” by Alan Jacobs
Why are obvious psychopaths allowed to define ANYTHING in society?
Yes it's pretty ridiculous that people like this are given a platform to spread blatant lies and disinformation.
they want to control ppl, and when you define something you excerpt control
That's very well said. @@IcoOst
Luxury beleifs 🙄
Never use an argument that your enemy could use without changing a single word to mean the same. The fact that this can be done is a proof that there is literally no logic behind the argument.
When you go on a tangent about reality being just an idea you forget how much sexism affects people & how sexual perversions linked to control & power diminish all our safety especially children & mentally limited.
The only person here not having a firm grasp on reality is you, where in the video do they say reality is 'just an idea'?
Yes, the feminist philosopher who writes extensively on gender and political power and violence doesn't understand sexism.
And what do you mean by 'sexual perversion'? Because it never seems to mean the actual agents of sexual violence does it.
I probably disagree with all of you, but as an ex-feminist and still leftist, I don't see how most feminist intellectuals or feminist activists can understand violence or sexism. Feminists literally cause quite a lot of both, in criminal justice for example@@isaacmarsh6025
@@isaacmarsh6025 who are the "actual agents of sexual violence"?
its 2024, caring about kids is so 1990es.... 😐
@@isaacmarsh6025
''Yes, the feminist philosopher who writes extensively on gender and political power and violence doesn't understand sexism.''
No to this all, the feminist philosopher who writes extensively on gender and political power and violence doesn't understand or devalues the importance of biological, undisputable sex on human behaviour.
Fixed that for you, you're welcome.
A word salad of obfuscation.
Dear God, I'm only halfway through this and Butler has said nothing, she's talked for 30 minutes and said absolutely nothing, it's just meaningless word salad. I feel like it's a conversation with AI.
I wish.
That's female "thinkers" for you... You can count on three hands throughout whole human history women who dont do the same...
Incredible interview. Let’s get back to the origins of feminism refusing to accept society’s view of what being a woman means
Let's not...
This was the first long interview of Butler that Iv listened to. My impression was that she is very smart but that pretty much all of her discussion of her position/idiology on gender was demonstrably just a whole lot of empty sophistry. Many people don't agree with her position because her type of logic makes no sense to them and make serious and intelligent good faith attempts to civilly argue their counter positions, rather than adressing those well intentioned, coherent and well structured arguments she just waves them away with an assertion that no position or 'reality' on these issues can be more true or rational than any other, before pulling a sneaky strawman by focusing her actual critique on the authoritarian positions and retoric of the most simple minded and extreme right wing people who disagree with her, as if doing the later is anything like or serves as any kind of meaningful rebuttal of the former. Then as an extension of that there is just a whole lot of 'facisists arnt postmodernists, so if you're not a postmodernist, it seems like you must also be a facist'. Talk about arguing from assertion and logical falacy, as if those are the only two positions people could possibly have. It can be frustrating how very smart idiologes can make clearly over simplistic nonsense sound complex and profound to people who just really want to agree with them. Just not sure if she can tell shes doing it or if she sees the inherent contradiction between arguing from a fundational position that all 'realities' are equally true and valid in order to try and persuade people that her 'reality' is more true and morally superior than theirs, but just dosnt care for for the reasons sophists never really care if what their saying makes sense so long as they expect it will persuade.
while i largely agree with your take, i think this is a pretty common disease on the right, center, and left in the social sciences.
Agreed, very disturbing trend in general. But personally as a fairly old school lefty of the Chomskian sort of variety, I find it most disturbing of all when people who are claiming/trying to be champions of working class emancipation allow themsleves to fall into doing that sort of thing. We need to hold ourselves to higher standards than that if we're going to keep any hope of succeeding.
Yes. But we should not be afraid to take that logic to the end. If Chomsky only dealt academically with social affairs he would be out of a job before he ever got one. Linguistics is how he held on and stayed out of trouble. As the price that comes with their stand, activists drive taxis, or go to jail or the morgue, or sell 5000 books on a small press, while teaching at a community college somewhere. It should be suspicious that Butler is somehow a radical marxist leftist, but famous, and not persecuted. It has to do with the sloppy obscurantism and gender feminism (which is a very corporate friendly ideology) and so on. @@anthonyderosa7757
@emilianosintarias7337 Fully agree, only I'd say even more directly and generally what I think you're driving at, that it's more than just suspicious. I think the case that Chomsky made some time around the mid 60's that the rapid growth of the whole Foucoult type fux accademic fux radical incoherent obscuritanist theoretical trends that became major if not dominant in many social science departments of many academic institutions resulted from a natural informal alliance forming between people who wanted academic and heroic status while having little of the required intellect and none of the required integrity, and wealthy institutions that were desperare to redirect the growing actual radicalsim they feared away from threatening the control and power of corporate and poitical elites and towards issues that threatened little to no impact on the actual centers of power. I think that assessment is as correct now as it was then in general, although, of course, there are plenty major exceptions. I don't think it would be wise or fair for me to categorise Butler squarly in that kind of hack fux radical academic catogory on the basis of a single interview, but it was the strong impression I was getting from the endless sophistry she seemed to genuinly think counted as profound philosophy.
except all of mainstream science agrees with trans people, gender and sex are not binary. No need to play with words when the science is on her side
If biological sex has nothing to do with gender identity, why take hormones? Why irreversibly harm your body and your ability to reproduce? Also what is a woman, without using the word 'woman' in the answer? (hint: adult human female)
For people with Gender Dysphoria gender affirming care is not harming them quite the opposite including most people who go on to fully transition.
For a junkie taking heroin is not harming them its making them a hero. That is your logic. I weep at your reasoning capacity. But as long as you make people feel good you dont care if you talk out of your ass, do you? @@MrRailjunkie
"If biological sex has nothing to do with gender identity, why take hormones?"
Yeah... Puberty causes permanent irreversable changes. That's why puberty blockers exist.
"(hint: adult human female)"
And what is a female, except what society considers a predominance of characteristics that are socially accepted as feminine.
@@arturferrao7353
Even a dog knows what a female is.
Wow this is dreadful... please read Helen Joyce for the truth!
Would be great if the host could have the courage to interview Ms Joyce. Also for more left leaning gender critical feminists, there are Kara Dansky, Jennifer Belik and from the UK Julie Bindel, and Allison Bailey
@@maureensansburn6413 He's a coward and a grifter.
Judith Butler?! What a great person to have on!
😂 no she is delusional
Oli looks like he's coming down 😂
In the podcast he said he'd been drinking heavily ) He's hanging
2 bottles of red, in need of a steam room/sauna, but you add the payer of not wanting to look like a tit Infront of someone he respects
Omg, imagine discussing materialism hungover xD
@@veggienugnugs
Imagine being a smug victim of Marxist brainwashing!
Great interview. I've already ordered the book!
Feel sorry for you.
No.
I would love to listen to it later (i dont have time now), and Im one who would do so in a goodwill spirit. But I can't because you dont allow to include your video in a list. I dont understand why you do that. Very disapointing.
It will be in your watch history. Or you can just write down the title of the video and search again. RUclips normally remembers how far through the video you got even if it isn't in a playlist.
I came to this interview seeking some clear and concise points. It is hard to be persuasive when points are overly-complex and rely on jargon. Maybe the next book should focus on varying ways of defining a human separately from other living creatures (10:27). Finding common ground seems impossible and even undesirable in these academic debates.
It's because people like her aren't academics. They are damaged and dishonest ideologues that don't deserve the time of day, intellectually.
Judith Butler talks so much rubbish.
@pablodelnorte9746 - Not if you listen carefully.
Aaah sifting the properly pronounced words and correct grammar in the mountain of rubbish. Definitely have to listen so carefully.@@MossyMozart
Not one bit of pushback. Embarrassing stuff.
What would you have him push back?
@@john.premose
A few simple examples
-Her absolute strawmanning of ppl who disagree with her
-Her analysis of Latin America, Italy and Eastern Europe and equating them with the UK. She clearly doesn't speak languages from these areas. Including English.
-Her claim that trans women are feminists
-Her claims on past ideas of facts and the ramifications of what that means. Essentially that gender identity exists on a non-factual basis whereas sex exists factually.
He should at least bring up when sex is far more important than gender. As in for basically everything. He should challenge her on single-sex female spaces and the indisputable history of crime. Also that gender is inherently regressive and why most ppl in the West were steadily moving away from treating ppl based on gender.
Frankly he could just occasionally say, I'll stop you there cos you've made no points and what you have said is objectively false and shows a historical ignorance that you should be ashamed of.
@@robertmarshall2502 well, I found nothing objectionable in anything she said, and I find it surprising that anyone really would to the extent you seem to. And I'm by no means particularly "pro train" (I won't spell it right so I don't get taken down). I mean, I am 100% for acceptance and political rights of trains, but I don't necessarily buy into all their ideas.
I do agree with you on one point. That is that I agree that society was on track to stop fixating on these distinctions, and I do find a lot of the current debates being brought up to be regressive in that sense.
But I have a different perspective. I believe the commodification of identities is a techniques of current consumerist capitalism, which attempts to sell people identities, and thus control them. So I see the train ideology in the popular media and academia to be basically bourgeois and reactionary. That's why the media promotes it so much. If it truly were revolutionary or radical, the establishment media would be trying to suppress it, not sensationalise and popularise it.
@@robertmarshall2502 so yeah, if there was one thing I would have had him ask her, it would have been "do you think the current explosion of identities is a commodification of our very personalities and identities, a very extreme form of alienation?" That is the aspect of it that interests me.
@@robertmarshall2502 but also I will say, you seem guilty of straw manning yourself. I never heard her say "train women are feminists". What she said is that feminists have always played with and tried to expand what it meant to be a woman, and challenged the traditional notions, and that's also top some degree what the train movement does. Remember this isn't just about women. I find it interesting that, according to the way most people talk, it would seem that the only train that exist are the female ones. There are also men and all sorts of other non-conforming varieties. But to hear you lot, it's always only about the women. That's revealing.
Biology has a fairly strong position on what makes a woman. This statement should not be controversial.
its not the whole picture though is it
Oh yeah? Do enlighten us...with some peer reviewed articles!
@@vincentvangogh8092 correct, it definitely isn't. The right wing like black and white simpleton consensus despite the fact there is nuance ✌️
Does it? What do you say that biology says about what makes a woman?
@@paulhammond6978 Sex is about the biology of reproduction. Chromosomes, big and small gamets, intersex is a disorder of sex development. etc, etc...
I'm an Eastern European commie so what the hell do I know, but I can't help but notice we're still debating neoliberal trust fund kids' issues and semiotics, not actual collective problems coming for all of us....
In other words, this is liberalism at its finest, and its about time we stop associating it with the left.
Are you saying that you don't think there are poor kids who experience gender dysphoria?
@@B99994 I'm sure there are. The bigger problem is we have poor kids.
@@the_smart_cookies_pod Can't we address both problems? Hunger can kill you, but so can gender dysphoria.
@@B99994 Absolutely. The problem is ALL I'm hearing is identity issues. Any sort of discussion about class politics is NON existent... which is absolutely perfect for global capital.
@@the_smart_cookies_pod I hear that. But is it the fault of trans folk and their allies? Isn't it politicians and mainstream media trying to create a diversion? And if so, wouldn't it be better to take them to task?
When you paint it as Left / Right, you immediately degrade the strength of the argument. So if your claim is subjective, am I not free to reject it?
Clearly not.... hence The Tavistock et al....
No, that is what the whole idea of "lived experience" is about. It invokes a heirarchy of veracity and meaning. This is how the queer assert dominance and shame you or beat you into silence.
@@ivermec-tin666love your moniker.
@@ivermec-tin666: The very same can be said of those who identify as heterosexual.
For the longest time I thought Judith Butler was dead ;-; Holly shit my worldview is fucked
if only, less garbage terminology and unfalsifiable drivel would flood the world.
Biology does define a woman and man. Anything else is just wasting everyone's time and foolishly muddying waters
Biology also changes as does our understandings of it. Our Biology in our brains changes constantly as does the neurological and psychological aspect. It's not understood well at all. I find that people who want to put things in neat boxes and not talk about how things changes aren't right they really are just not wanting to listen to new information and understanding. For example, my Biology changes over time slightly when I cross hormone. I develop Biology of the opposite sex. Fat redistribution. Muscle gain or loss. Breast development. Gential changes. Changes in hair growth. Voice changes. Psychological changes. Differences in sex drive. This is all Biology but yet this part is often ignored because people can't get past the first block of 'I know everything because I can see it' but they completely don't seem to understand they if they lived 1000 years ago that they would have thought that the earth was flat because they could see it. Its not muddying the waters; it's science and its constantly updating. So you want to talk about Biology and science? Let's do that. But your ground is much weaker than you think it is. You're actually more akin to the religious viewpoint.
I'm far right, and I don't want anything to do with your body.
I'm 5 days into taking feminising hormones & this discussion is fascinating! As far as I'm concerned I'd just like to be able to exist in a way that doesn't feel intensely uncomfortable or unsafe physically, socially etc. Outside of the very real threat of the extremist right, it feels like a large sum of the discourse & anger out there comes from miscommunication of (broadly) similar ideals rather than diametrically opposed ones from what Judith is saying. Thanks for giving her a platform to speak :)
good on you! You have more allies than youtube comments would have you think!
Do whatever the fuck you like with your body. Literally nobody cares. Just stay the fuck out of women's spaces and sports.
Yep...stay out of women's spaces....
Live your life free of terror and I wish the best for you. However I hope you support keeping women's sports for women and preserving women's safe spaces. If you care about women you will want to keep them safe. I also hope you support not performing medical procedures on children. In any case, good luck.
Instead of chemical mutilation, you should seek treatment to help you accept biological reality and live in concordance with the objective state of things. You are a male born in a male body. Your best possible outcome is to accept that objective fact, and find a way to live with THAT.
Social construction as a theoretical school is fine, if used in appropriate situations.
How does advertising affect our sense of self? Social construction is the correct stance.
What is a woman?
Biology is the correct stance.
If I used economic theory to decide whether or not to apply medical treatments, you would call me a monster. If I used humanitarian theory to decide how to run my bathroom appliance business, I would go bust.
Knowing which social theory to apply, and when to apply it (and its limitations therein) is essential to a complete application of social science and philosophy.
What modern theorists (of almost all schools) fail to understand is "just because you studied this one thing and got a doctorate in it, and wrote some books in it, doesn't mean there are no other valid social theories to Problem X"...
Please understand this people. Nuance will prevail, but only if you understand the roots of your ontological (and resulting epistemological) position.
I disagree whole heartedly with Judith.
Agree - taking medical advice from a philosopher is like taking legal advice from a chiropodist...
Yes, nuance will prevail. Like understanding that one generally needs to learn and synthesize information from multiple disciplines in order to attain something like knowledge or wisdom on a subject.
Do you understand what ontology or epistemology means? Because no where in this video does Butler make a metaphysical argument or any argument for the way in which we acquire knowledge.
If you understood theories of social construction, you'd understand that they do not make ontological arguments, because there is nothing metaphysical about suggesting that concepts are socially constructed. Believing that social construction negates existence just means that you don't understand what social construction is.
Theories which discuss social construction simply describe relationships between people, how we conceptualize them and how that affects social, cultural and political relationships and power.
As Butler mentioned (literally in this video) the discipline of biology is hugely influenced by who is doing the biology and for what purposes. Just consider the way the Atlantic slave trade was in part 'justified' by the then emerging discipline of biology and 'race science'.
As Butler points out (again, in the video) the problem with a positivist argument is that what is considered settled facts changes. Most of society once believed the earth was flat, based on the both the tools and the dominant political order of the time. When our instruments got better, the 'fact' that the earth is spherical didn't immediately become settled fact. There was a great deal of political and religious backlash to the idea for a long time.
Also, again very basic philosophy, but knowing what is (i.e. settled fact) doesn't automatically therefore follow what to do about that. It's the Is/Aught gap. That's why theories of social construction - and synthesizing information from many disciplines - is so important. Scientists can make all kids of discoveries, but it is what we do with them that actually makes the largest difference to our society.
@@isaacmarsh6025 Do you have any recent examples - say within the last 50 years - of biology changing owing to the identity of the biologists?
The example you cite from the 19th century is hardly useful in advancing your argument.
At that time, evolution, DNA, germ theory, the periodic table, and pretty much all of modern biology had not been discovered.
Can you point to a recent example of biology changing based on who was doing the biology?
Many people still believe the earth is flat and are immune to contrary evidence-does that mean the question is still open or truth of earth-flatness depends on who asks the question?
something tells me this person already made up their mind a priori
@isaacmarsh6025 If you don't think post modern social constructivism has any has any underlying assumptions about and implications on epistemology you must have simply never encountered any serious epistemological critique of the idiology. You should go check out the old debate between Noam Chomsky and Foucault, might learn something about why so many non authoritarian egalitarians have no time for the incoherent circularity of postmodern ideological stances, despite fully understanding that much of how we think and value things contains elements of social construction
Watching for signs of Oli's hangover like a true poljoe nerd 😂
Likewise... I think there was a sniff of it perhaps. Maybe...
@@jnielson1121 deffo moments it showed lmao
I know a borderline when I see one.
Exactly.
Liberalism is the dominant ideology. I must have missed something in that it has been extremely active in promoting censorship. It's no accident that liberalism has facilitated neo-liberalism. It isn't about politics but economics. Liberalism has been extremely effective in marginalising politics which feeds into the neo-liberal agenda. Both the left and the right have been played and played extremely well.
When you say dominant - do you mean numbers wise or in aggression... I'm guessing you don't mean intellectually dominant intellectually by the rest of your comment. I wonder if you can evidence your views? In my experience lately the far right have been more active in marginalisation lately. Across several nations.
Do you mean anti-liberalisim or postmodernism?
Excellent again. I'm impressed with your content lately
Can you change the title to something less inflammatory? The first one was better. Stoking the fire by using an intentionally aggravating title won’t get more viewers.
Anyways, I liked how Butler presented their arguments here, it is pretty concise imo.
What was the first title?
Click bait is very effective though you have to admit
“An inclusice direction” - lesbians must allow trans women into their “dating pool”……
There can be no gay or straight, only bisexuals are allowed….?
What I find hilarious is how Butler drones on about challenging freedom, social construction, gender performance, sex expectations and then presents herself as a stereotypical lesbian in a short haircut, hiking books, no makeup, slightly masculine manner. She's talking about freedom and breaking out of boxes while remaining firmly in hers. It just shows her own banal thinking and lack of imagination that her 'performance' of gender offers nothing new or interesting....
@@daramccluskey she didn’t put herself in a box. you did.
she did what she wanted, and your response is “ugh how stereotypical”. ffs do you give straight ladies that much shit for wearing makeup too? what if a straight man likes working with tools. do you get pissy about him freely choosing to be “stereotypical”?
@@aaabbc379 I didn't say 'ugh', which is an expression of disgust;
I said that if someone tells me that women are under terrible pressure to conform to narrow stereotypes from which they need to be released and against which they must rebel, I might ask why that person hasn't released themselves, instead of reinforcing long-existing stereotypes.
Likewise, if someone tells me women are under terrible pressure to conform to narrow stereotypes from which they need to be released, against which they must rebel, and that person is sitting there wearing an inch of conventional female makeup, push-up bra, cleavage, a micro-mini, sheer tights and 6-inch heels, I may ask myself how serious she can be about her beliefs given the complete conformity of her behaviour.
Most people would ask themselves how seriously she takes her beliefs, given her presentation in precisely the form against which she rails.
I don't care what people wear, but if what they say and what they do are entirely different, most people are liable to think they might be hypocrites.
I'm just off to get my Leprechaun outfit to go to the protest against the historical stereotyping of Irish people...
@@daramccluskey i’m starting to get what you’re saying, and it’s not a great point. people don’t have to be nonconforming to say “compulsive gender conformity is bad”. it’s perfectly fine for people to fit a stereotype, it’s only when those stereotypes become enforced that there’s a problem.
the whole point is that people have a choice in how they express themselves and their gender, not that they have to personally break the barrier.
"Man" and "woman" are the human equivalent of "stag" and "doe" in deer. They denote males and females of a species, it's not nearly as complicated as so many want to try to make it for whaatever reason
Cow and bull…… x
Humans are not animals though. Try again. Think a little this time
@@Anonymous-xm8ir that statement is completely and utterly stupid, nuclear waste level, American stupidity. We are mamels, didn’t you ever listen to the Blood Hound Group. Hahaha
We literally are bipedal mamels, with an obstetrical dilemma - mothers carry the infants, who can’t even hold up their own head during the altricial phase of life (unlike an elephant or a horse).
Oh help us Jesus, from the collective stupidity and mind virus breading ground that is the internet, where people like Judith’s Butler aren’t immediatley dethroned for fundamental paucity
@@Anonymous-xm8ir Are we plants then? Fungi? Please do enlighten me
@@Anonymous-xm8ir: ''Humans are not animals though''
What the hell are you going on about? 😂
A damn fine conversation. Dugmore is already a very good interviewer. Global clearly see him as O'Brien's successor and fair go. We have to respect anyone who bothers with research. Butler is a thinker up my street, but at 10pm on a Thursday night I've not done her thoughts justice. That will of course, change. For the love of humanity, we need more philosophers right now. Preferably utilitarians assuming Murdoch's been disposed of. A vid that needs a few re-watches, as per previous PolJoe interviews. Keep on prodding the dying world in which we live. Lots of love. xXx
Yes, it has been "revelatory" to me as well. Maybe not in the same sense as it had been to the host. Speaking as a leftist, that is.
now put interview Julie Bindel, Jane Clare Jones. Kathleen Stock or any number of feminists, academics or philosophers who have a sex realist view and think gender is regressibe
That would be great! I'd also like to see Kathleen Stock, who is a trained philosopher; as is Judith Butler, to have a dialogue. Unfortunately, that is not happening because, AFAIK, Butler is not willing to do it. And that tells me a lot!
I really don’t understand your reluctance to this particular feminist perspective.
Back in the late 70’s, 80’s & 90’s when I was active on the scene there was not this level of outrage amongst feminists around gender fluidity.
What is deeply sad is that lots of trans picketed & stood side-by-side for our freedoms un-yet today there appears to be a lot of resentment-shame because we are all other
Today on "The Paradox of Tolerance-"
L
Didn't even read the book they're on about
Barking lol
I can not even begin to write what I think of this woman 🤡
Is the intervewer a woman?
Thanks, Judith, for so consistently offering yourself as psychological case study of internalized misogyny and projection, and rhetorical case study of straw man argumentation. Or, how not to be honest, brave, or even a little bit thoughtful. You never fail to disappoint.
It’s really important to view Butler’s premises and conclusions with a critical eye. Does she contradict herself? Does she retreat to abstract theory when faced with real world examples?
When will Butler be willing to engage in a rigorous debate with someone who is able to challenge her premises and conclusions - rather than pontificate to someone who agrees with her?
Please explore the reading of an article published by Martha Nussbaum available on RUclips - The Professor of Parody: Judith Butler.
I understood the position to be that sex is real and so is how one identifies.
Very, very interesting essay by Nussbaum and thank you for posting it.
Unfortunately it confirms my worst - non-scholarly - intuitions about Butler and the gender theorists, based not so much on theory but on the indifference to harmful outcomes for women and children.
I can feel in the discourse a sado-masochism whose masochism is expressed in the rush of young women to renounce their rights to their own identity, speech, privacy and bodily integrity and in the violent, sadistic fantasies of many trans activists when attacking what they call terfs, also in the indifference to the obvious risks and harms to very vulnerable children.
At the centre of every revolution, as Orwell depicts in 1984, is a torture chamber and I think we will find that the torture chamber at the centre of this revolution is the gender clinic.
I wasn't aware of the quietism at the centre of Butler's writing, which Nussbaum points out, which encourages women to be passive sufferers and which values pain and victimhood itself as a good - this, frankly, is psychopathic thinking.
While one can't always draw a straight line between philosophers' lives and their philosophies, in the case of gender theory, which draws so heavily on an avowed misogynist like Nietzsche, a Nazi such as Heidegger, a sadomasochistic, paedophile anti-human like Foucault, and which, in Butler, not merely describe but recommends the world as a hellish zone of domination and depravity, one really is entering into a very disturbing area of thought and, lately behaviour and medicine.
I have noticed the disturbing effect exposure to gender theory and radical feminism can have on the minds and emotions of certain types of vulnerable young women, particularly those raised in a somewhat sheltered environment.
I didn't realise precisely why, but listening to Nussbaum, one can see that the effect of Butlerian thought is to make certain young women feel they are being permanently held down and violated by the world and - incredibly - that to remain in that position is a good and necessary revolutionary activity.
This clarifies my own intuitions that a lot of gender studies have devolved into a sort of giant rape fantasy, a sadomasochistic game between professors who stoke the minds and emotions of virginal young students as formerly male professors preyed on their bodies.
That might sound like an overly Gothic reading of the field, but there is a very strong element of the Gothic and of the bodice-ripper in Dworkin's writing going back to the 80s and what Nussbaum was complaining of in the late 90s has surely intensified and metastasised in the decades since into a system not just of thought but of government and medicine that, frankly, resembles that of certain German doctors who thought they could change people's races by changing the colour of their eyes.
Thanks for posting that essay - it makes for depressing but clarifying listening.
I've been saying for years that Butler vs Peterson is a necessary debate, but Butler is unlikely to accept the challenge of a qualified opponent.
Maybe Nussbaum could do the job if she's still around...
@@daramccluskey Wow. Good insights. Butler has a responsibility to speak out against what is happening to kids with gender dysphoria today. She is ground zero for this transgender explosion. You may want to check out Gender Dysphoria Alliance on RUclips. It’s an organization headed by 2 transmen that gives me hope. They were recently a part of an opinion piece in The NY Times. They were taken in by gender theory as they wrestled with their gender dysphoria. One of their goals is to address the reality of the exponential rise in gender dysphoria today by supporting evidenced-based research regarding its many causes - in order to provide effective individualized treatment, especially for kids.
@@dcostarasHow one identifies is fantasy.
Never. Idealogues like Butler never expose themselves to critique. They are dishonest and cowardly.
It’s an old chestnut, but sometimes truth sounds like hate to those who hate the truth.
Ah yes, a phrase that has historically always held right
I think old Oli should have began by saying "Hello, Well today we interview the leading feminist & philosopher, Miss Judith Butler. I will ask the questions, naturally, and Miss Butler will either fail to engage with them entirely or even sometimes answer them. But even on the rare occasion when she does answer, I will merely nod along in an encouraging way. Miss Butler is a delicate flower & easily upset."
I’m curious what makes you think Judith Butler is easily upset?
@@B99994 didn't you listen to her interview?
Yes I did, and I’ve seen her lots of times. To me she seems unfailingly calm. Maybe we have different definitions of delicacy?
@@B99994 well there's not a lot of point spending too much time on this, but I had in mind her comment about how she liked to sneak off after a lecture to avoid confrontation. That suggests she's easily upset, no?
Do you think, if that’s all you’re basing it on your comment might be a bit harsh? If her ideas make you angry maybe that feeling is worth interrogating rather than acting as if Butler’s personality is the problem.
Butler is the old feminism before trans was a part of the discussion and if she is NOT transfobic I can be to despite the fact that I draw my pronounce totally from my vulva not from some gender-identity that exists outside everything social and biological.
/Bi-cis-woman
If I had to invent something that would frustrate class consciousness and the working class organising to advocate for themselves it would be something like this rubbish.
Human rights are workers rights.
I’d suggest that you’re not really concerned with class consciousness or working class organising at all.
i would say feminism at large fulfills that role. Imagine if the abortion question was about reproductive rights or bodily autonomy in general, for everyone, rather than a conspiracy theory that men want to control women's bodies. Women don't have anywhere near enough reproductive rights or bodily autonomy, but they certainly have more than men - in the west anyway.
Im surprised she has the "balls" to poke her head out on any podcast after the #WpathFiles have been released. The incredibly sophisticated way she delivers her gobbledygook on this interview astonishingly has stirred my admiration of her communication style. I disagree with her vehemently but I can see why its convincing to people who really dont understand basic science & or already are mentally vulnerable.
Basic Sciences?
Oh god, the 4chan trolls are here
I’m curious what “basic science” you think people (presumably trans people?) don’t understand?
Also have you read the WPATH files?
@BetteB999 Not just trans people but people in general. It's easy to convince science illiterate people or at least get them to tacitly agree that sex is a spectrum & blocking children's puberty is a healthy viable medical treatment for assumed gender dysphoria,oh & to lump autogynophiles,drag,kink & gender non-conforming persons under the term transgender ie: "you don't have to have gender dysphoria to be trans" ideaology pushed by trans activist today.
For example to any person understanding the scientific concept of biological pathology & the what sex scientifically is can see the "intersex" explanations used to defend the "sex is a spectrum" primise are disingenuous at worst & poor science at the least.
@RealFemale69 oh god the trans religion fanatics are here defending their neo-religion with ad-hominem attacks because they intrinsically know their science is bogus
More idiocy: she says science cannot say "who someone is", as if science can't say "based on your physical attributes, you are human, so this is who you are (not a cow or a flower), and thus it is best that you engage in life according to what humans are". To be clear, I'm not saying sexuality (the behavior) is limited to following the binary arrangement that nature has long ago established for humankind.
Certainly we don't only engage in sex for procreation; we've found other benefits to having intercourse, even though biology set up our sexual organs for the vital function of procreation. But if one is born with a male body, for example, don't dismiss that biology in favor of pretending to be an AUTHENTIC female just because one would prefer to be female. I'd prefer to be God, but I can live with being what science informs me I am. If I want to play God, I can write a novel to Generate, Operate, and Destroy life in that realm.
Shes so bloody banal - science doesn’t pretend to say who you are, but it can say what you are…
Sex feels good because that motivates us to procreate.
Sex is not binary, thats your first mistake.
@@daramccluskey thats why science, psychology, genetics and biology agrees with what trans people are saying.
@@DavidGraeberWasRight I doubt genetics & biology agrees they're women. Those fields wouldn't even have a proper measurement within their domain to measure anyone's or anything's psyche to ascertain gender identity.
It seems extremely contradicted that, she was totally aware the binary symbols like male/female is never a natural thing and constructed in her early works, but now is just fallen into the binary symbols of left/far-right rooted in our own bipartisan system.
Additionally, I think 2次元(nijigen) community are always more tolerant toward gender orients than mainstream for quite a long time, even decades before nowadays LGBTQ+ era until now. The interesting thing is that, they don't even bother with the symbols/categories of gender, but just live with an extremely continuous and mutable sexual orients without any discrete constructions and forced alignment, in which people can embrace hetero-orient works and yaoi, yuri, etc. together. Although, I totally respect her though of reversing the discontinuity of gender, but can't help to wonder if it's not for the "representatives" system, what is the exact clue she has that infinite discrete gender will lead us toward a continuous gender system?
There is no point is asking her to define "gender" at the start then letting her use the word in a variety of different ways without acknowledgement of it's sliding meaning or pause for a redefinition.
Leftists like her have no integrity.
She did say the debate is fluid, so what!! 😮
That IS what the whole rhetoric, not scientific or philosophical strategy consists of. That is plainly it.
Sorry it's hard for you to follow conversations
I think she clearly acknowledges the shifting definition from the outset and I don't think your comment is in good faith for that reason.
Queer icon, not feminist icon
Not even an icon. Just a dummy.
They're the same thing
@@RealFemale69 Nope
@@ComplexConfiguration they've been intertwined for like 50 - 60 years
@@RealFemale69 It's not necessary. You can advocate for women's (female's) rights without saying that males should have a right to female spaces or legal recognition as women. In fact, you can argue the opposite from the standpoint of female rights. You can even separate it from gay rights. So they are not the same thing.
Sex assignment? Sex observed.
When do doctors view the baby's karyotypes at birth mate?
@@DavidGraeberWasRight sex observed then.
Assignment. That’s how we know trans people are about, because sometimes the assignment is wrong :)
you sound like somebody who aint never observed sex
Being trans is just an idea. Trans does not exist physically as sex does.
have just read the following critique about her last book "Who’s Afraid of Gender?" in The Economist. Here an extract. This is exactly what you can expect of her:
"The problem is that pretty soon, the author leaves the path of gay-rights advocacy and disappears down an ideological rabbit hole. Soon after critiques of “the so-called facts of sex”, the tq+ overwhelms the lgb. The result is a stir-fry of disingenuous provocations, served up with a large portion of post-modern word salad. The reader is left wondering how Butler ever became so influential. Butler smears the growing army of liberal-minded women who oppose these views on sex and gender, including J.K. Rowling, as hysterical right-wingers allied with the pope, Mr Trump and Vladimir Putin. Soon the author descends into the quicksand of intersectionality, where all oppressions overlap, accusing people who criticise the Butler perspective of buttressing “white supremacy”. By the end, all opponents are extremists. The words “fascism” and “fascist” appear nearly 70 times.
The book is a lesson in how well-meaning activism can overreach. The author has lent intellectual credibility to a theory that has, as recently revealed in the Cass Review commissioned about England’s youth-gender services, caused harm to many young people, some of whom are autistic, depressed or simply gay. Channelling Butler’s theories, some activists are labelling those who oppose giving minors cross-sex hormones as “bigots”.
Changing the definition of gender to suit your agenda has made this issue contentious. I have no problem with trans/gay people because it's their brain telling them something different from their birth sex.
If the agenda is improving trans-people's happiness and wellbeing, then changing the definition might be a good idea
@@Celestina0 The agenda is simply creating division and friction, which is likely the real intention.
do not lump gay people in the same sentence as trans cos us gay people want nothing to do with their bullshit
Gay men are still men, lesbian women are still women, hetro men remain men, & hetro women are Women. Trans-men are women & Trans-women are men = very confusing for the uninitiated but these are the biological facts of Human nature.
It's not suiting an agenda, it's suiting the facts and the reality. That's how science works.
In general usage, a "phobia" is an actual diagnosis done by a mental health professional and it bothers me that is it bandied about to label anyone who disagrees with someone. There is no official diagnosis from the mental health community that there is such a thing as transphobia or homophobia. Technically speaking, a phobia is a fear so great it stops you in your tracks and you cannot go forward without being knocked unconscious by drugs. For instance, a person with severe social phobia (which is real), cannot leave their home. How do they go shopping? How do they go to appointments? etc. Another example would be arachnophobia where a person is absolutely frozen in place when they see a spider. Or fear of heights, which I happen to suffer from, I literally cannot move my body if I am 3 rungs up a ladder. it's quite silly really, but I literally cannot make my body move. This "phobia" of other peoples' life-style is simply a disparaging remark against someone you actually don't have to say anything to.
Outside of technical, scientific terms the meanings of words are user- and context-dependent. There is a technical, medical use of the term 'phobia' and then there is its normal use in the English language, which most people understand and agree on. Most people understand what is meant by transphobia as used in this interview and would use it to mean much the same thing. It's clearly not intended as a medical diagnosis in this context. (Similarly, if somebody asks me my weight, I don't normally give my answer in newtons.)
@@brianpatterson7332Accurate to certain point. The problem in this context though is the use of the phobia add on is to shut down and cancel any other person's point of view, be it correct or not. So it is not a simple case of oh well people know what is meant by transphobia... the label is designed to prevent anyone asking a really difficult question such as the one mentioned herein by the presenter and guest: what is a woman? A really demanding question is it not? And this weaponising of language has resulted in some of the landmines that have been stepped on by various parts of the "medical" community in the UK for example. So to dismiss it casually as you have i think does not give enough weight to why this sort of problem needs to be better handled than it has been.
I think that women in prison may fear trans women being allowed into their prison. The question is whether all types of fears are phobias.
@theoutsider6191 No, the label is designed to - quite rightly, in my opinion - call out bigotry for what it is. From a biological perspective, what defines a woman is actually extremely complex; so much dmso that several biologists have written entire books on the subject. In terms of gender, it's different again and not something a politician should be expected to articulate off the top of his head in Parliament. Such a question coming from Sunak - a man who has never shown the slightest concern for women's rights in any other context - is clearly motivated by anti-trans bigotry (ie transphobia) and it's naive to the point of idiocy to think otherwise.
So a social phobia requires not being able to leave the house? Who made you an expert? Phobia has to match the specifics of your case? Check ANY dictionary... You dont get to redefine words with yourself as the reference point for everything 😂
What a visionary. Still pumping out giga intellectual analysis - global level at this point. Delightful - and great to see Prof. Butler looking healthy - we need more public intellectuals.
Visionary in what regard?
I would say expanding gender and sexuality in psychoanalysis@@chrisbfreelance but I fear you will be a tater tot.
@@chrisbfreelance giga intellectual !
😂@@georgeanthony4834
This must be a joke? 🤣😂
Title of follow-up:
"How the far-left says 'Ride with the punches that feel good to you'"
LOL
Cow don't make ham.
Ask the cow if she understands herself (i.e., if she is aware of her own existence) as a woman -cow, whatever it is she makes. Eagerly awaiting the cows response (which, I'm sure, you'll relate verbatim without your own embellishments).
Biological fact is not dependant on self awareness
@@cathalbuckley3606 Human's are (self)related to their bodies (i.e., they experience their bodies as their own, and that embodiment is an issue for them)...unless you are the exception to that. And nobody is saying there is no biological facticity, is how that 'fact' is experienced that fires the whole debate. Being fatuous does not count as a contribution to the debate.
Cancel
Reply
@allegory6393 I appreciate your attempt to bombard people with word salad so they assume you're correct and bow out....I am not one of those people
Address my above point please and address it devoid of ideology
@cathalbuckley3606 I personally didn't hear Butler claim biological sex was based on self awareness so I'm not sure what point you're making?