Who's Afraid of Gender? Judith Butler and Jack Halberstam in Conversation
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 3 июн 2024
- In 1990, Judith Butler’s Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity helped revolutionize how we understand sexuality, gender, and the performative dimensions of identity. In the decades since, Butler has become one of our most trenchant and iconic public intellectuals-a thinker who has made countless timely and urgent interventions on questions of violence and peace, language and war, and precarity and cohabitation. Now, in Who’s Afraid of Gender? (2024), Butler returns to the topic that made their name, to illuminate how “anti-gender ideology movements” have become central to reactionary politics and rising authoritarianism worldwide.
In a special launch event, co-presented by Pioneer Works and Dia Art Foundation, Jack Halberstam joined Judith Butler on stage at Dia Chelsea to discuss their new book, what it’s like to be burned in effigy, and so much more.
This program is part of PW Broadcast's Author Talks, a series highlighting authors and thinkers across disciplines.
Subscribe to Pioneer Works: / pioneerworksvideo
Read more on the Pioneer Works Broadcast: pioneerworks.org/broadcast
Video by Max Tannone © 2024 Pioneer Works, Footage courtesy of Dia Art Foundation
This project is supported by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation Program in Public Understanding of Science and Technology, bridging the two cultures of science and the arts. 
Развлечения
I don't understand why it is so difficult to accept that males and females can behave in all sorts of ways and have all sorts of characteristics. But that doesn't mean your sex is just a guess or a social construct.
She's a troll. That's all gender ideology is.
World is easier to cope with, if you just use box everything into categories. Boxes which allow no variance. Then fit yourself in one of those boxes and life is so simple.
Not in my boxes? Enemy. In my boxes? A friend.
Imagine having to consider every person you meet as an variable and complex human being? Horrible waste of energy (Brain chemistry, no joke).
Okay a joke: To reduce emissions, the Green party has banned treating people as individuals.
It really seems like pseudo intellectual babble - the social sciences don’t have the same stringent requirements as the natural sciences - instead they can point to each other as evidence “this person is smart and writes in an intellectual way - therefore it is correct”
Meanwhile someone like Einstein and his theory of relativity- they did two huge expeditions across the planet to get evidence for relativity
Because: a) Queer is a political stance; b) in defiance of all that is normal. It was created to oppose normativity, which (no joke) is a codeword for Capitalism. The aim of Queer is to destabilize the nuclear family by attacking gender, so that the nuclear family no longer remains as the means of production for the Capitalist order; i.e. to end that which reproduces children who are raised to form Capitalist families, and so on. The final end goal is getting rid of Capitalism through violent Revolution and replacing it with Equity (Marxism). That's what this is all about. All the marbles.
I saw some similar thoughts written in sh!t on the wall of an insane asylum
What kind of childhood trauma Butler went thorugh? She generalizes from her own disastrous childhood. Some of us had a great childhood!
That's not childhood trauma it's faulty wiring
Exactly. I had a childhood so bad it gave me PTSD. For real; diagnosed. But I try my best to feel *relief and joy* when I hear other people talk about having grown up with great childhoods. One like mine *should* be abnormal and rare. Even if I never know what that feels like, I can be happy for those other people. Instead of being so self-centered and bitter that I make myself believe they're lying and that all parents are bad.
@@AlexReynard "Exactly. I had a childhood so bad it gave me PTSD. "
You have the right attitude.
There's a "stigma" (shame) about needing psychotherapy which is affecting gender-confused people. They are rejecting it in favour of their religion.
@@viejolincanada Exactly; don't help me accept who I was truly born as. No, transform my body by removing totally healthy reproductive organs, change my name and metaphorically KILL my old male/female version of my self ie "Dead-Naming". Its absurd. Does this not sound like some kind of barbaric ritual you would find in an extant pre-agricultural tribe in fucking South America like 500 years ago!?
"Who's Afraid of Gender?" Worst book I have ever read. Complete gobbledegook. This is not the writing of a genuine academic. I have manually calculated that she uses "scare quotes" 3.1 times on average for every page of text, on individual words and some phrases, and these are inconsistently applied. Why does she do that? For what purpose? Also try this: What does the following on p230 mean? "Its localist appeal to anti-imperialist sentiment is an appropriation of a Left critique, but surely not one." That is verbatim. From the preceding sentences the "Its" might be referring to opposition to gender, English or objection to multilingualism or something else. How would any reader know? Like so much of this book it is convoluted and non-sensical rubbish. And, here is another, same page: "In a multilingual epistemology, there are no foreign languages since every language sounds foreign from within another language; or maybe every language is foreign, which means there are no languages that are foreign." If I had written something as silly, as incomprehensible, as that in my PhD it would not have been passed - in fact the draft would not even have got by my supervisor. The book is a great example of the dubious linguistic contortions that underpin the distortion of reality - and that distortion permeates trans world.
The idea is that if it's near-impossible to make sense of it, it must be very complex and sophisticated and therefore Butler must be some sort of genius.
The funny thing is, one reviewer described 'Who's Afraid of Gender?', rather cattily, as 'the first book Butler has written with actual readers in mind'
@@kardra9714 It has been said before about Butler's works, but it is worth repeating: "Writing this bad is trying to hide something."
Most post-modernist writing is garbage. In Butler's case you need a garbage truck to carry the volume of bad ideas. It's idea laundering, there is no a academic credability to a discipline ending in "studies. These are a continuation of a Marxist agenda which people with luxury beliefs like to propogate. Thank you to Rob Henderson for finally defining the box to pit these academic elitist into.
It's so pathetic to listen to the modern oppressionist that spin colonialism and dominance through the western lens. They pretend to dislike a western liberal democracy and what it has become but in reality it is what funds for their luxury beliefs. Next time maybe open your eyes and explain what China or perhaps Russia. Turn back time and look at oppression and colonization through the eye of people conquered as part of the Sahelian empire as well as those enslaved as part of the Oyo Empire; they accumulated their wealth and power by feeding the demand of the trans-atlantic slave trade.
How can you know what it feels like to be a man if you have never been a man? It’s ludicrous
They are unhappy with some facet of their existence... Then, are told that if they were the other sex, their problems would disappear. Well, we all know thats a crock, but to them, the silver bullet solution is attractive. They can demand to be celebrated for their insanity, or else you are evil...
Also, how can you know what it feels like to be a man if your concept of man is so theoretical that anyone can claim to be a man? How do female trans activists first say that a man is anyone who says they are a man regardless of their anatomy and then turn around and say "I require surgery to live authentically as a man"? If man is just this academic concept that doesn't refer back to anything concrete in the material world, how do women know they want to be men?
Two female dudes talking about how people are aggressing ideas of females being dudes
Lord have mercy.
Butler is a misogynist, being a woman is so distasteful to her.
Idiocracy and hilarity combined. It's metariffic!
Please, dear channel, leave the comment section open!
As someone has pointed out, isn't it "funny" how Butler looks exactly like Lysenko...
I was thinking Robert Durst.
@@paulawade1446 Boooooooobbb!
It's a good thing these people are actually a very tiny minority in the real world. Too much influence though. But we'll prevail.
Yabbut why're they kicking our ass? The assessment, just looking around, is they wield an inordinate amount of power.
What are you talking about?
Woodchipper. Feet first.
Lol...I am trying to figure out where you come down on this issue
Butler is a luxury belief holding anarchist.
She is perfect! Perfectly clueless
Imagine turning something so basic as reproduction into this enormous academic puzzle and then spending your entire working life tinkering with it aimlessly.
The amount of harm these people have caused to society is difficult to estimate. However, we know that it is huge.
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, or what they perceive “trans” people 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 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. Sometimes activists try to slither out of this fact, by claiming they don’t believe in any “essence”. This is pure semantics and sophistry, they will always fall back on claiming there is indeed “something” that can “make a male a woman” that they then can’t even define when pressed… How exactly that is nothing like an essence is anyone’s guess.
Chuck Norris was trapped in a woman's body, but then he was born. He's been perfectly fine ever since.
@@TrafficusMaximus 😄
Excellent, and true
Read the Cass report, Judith Butler.
Ah yes the Cass report. The thing that'd been heavily debunked already as ignoring a large number trans studies.
@Acebell72 "Debunked" is doing some heavy lifting there, sparky. A number of studies were rejected for being of Low or Very Low quality. That means that the studies were badly designed, had no controls, lost too many subjects to follow-up etc. Using these poor studies to determine how to treat disturbed children is the opposite of medicine and the opposite of caring for those children.
'Debunked'... by Erin Reed, Alejandra Caraballo, Katy Montgomerie, India Willoughby, Zooey Zephyr, Jessie Gender, Abigail Thorn, and Chase Strangio, no doubt! 0:12 @Acebell72
@@kardra9714 I'd love to see India Willoughby debunking anything. India is a moron
@@XKenny77in fact they aren't low low quality, they're just not the abstract gold standard. As many peer reviewed analyses have pointed out, the reason there aren't any "gold standard" studies is because they would be UNETHICAL to perform. Double blind studies, the "gold standard," are not applicable in every circumstance. In a double blind, one group gets the meds and one group doesn't. The reason this is unethical is because of the high rates of unalive ideation and attempts in the people being studied. In one attempt at a double blind, the gender non-conforming youth in the control group getting the placebo figured it out because their puberty blockers weren't blocking their puberty and left the study. It is well known that a large set of smaller or not quite good standard studies can produce gold results in the aggregate. Not that I expect this, or anything, to convince you.
Claiming to be "trans" really has nothing at all in common with homosexuality. A person's sexuality is not a "gender identity", it is a physical fact, same-sex attraction, and the rights gay people fought for were nothing like what "trans" people are demanding - gay people were never demanding to be recognised by law as another sex than they were, they were not demanding access to spaces reserved for the opposite sex, nor were they demanding others to change a single thing about their behaviour for them, neither sex had to give up any rights or protections in the name of gay rights.
Claiming to be "trans" is not a sexuality. Being gay is a sexuality.
Further, "trans" ideology is at times extremely homophobic, as evidenced by a significant amount of people trying to redefine same-sex attraction as "gender attraction", and the phenomenon of males denying their own homosexuality under the "trans" banner, by claiming to "transition gender" into "women" and thus reframe their same-sex attraction to other males as "not gay" because they are now claiming to be "women attracted to men" - AND, the attempted erasure of lesbian reality by males claiming to be "lesbian" by "transitioning to a woman" and being attracted to females - they are not gay, they are males attracted to females, they are straight, yet trying to redefine same-sex attraction as "same-gender" attraction, which tons of lesbians are appalled by, yet their concerns get shouted down as "transphobic"
And brought to court for trying to keep their spaces lesbian only
'Gays wanted their sexuality to be protected, instead of just leaving the cis straights alone.' 'cis hetero ppl just want to use the bathroom without being worried about being raped by another gay person. That's why we need to ban gay ppl from bathrooms.' What if someone said that? You benefit from trans ppl fighting for your rights, but you want to deny their rights to exist, be safe and have an equal participation in society. Look at the mirror and see how pathetic you are being. Be better.
NO ONE shares some exact "experience" of being a man or a woman, that is why we define a woman as an adult FEMALE, they are all of the same sex, that is what defines them. "Man" or "woman" are not some moral judgement or evaluation of how masculine or feminine they feel or present, it's simply about having a term to describe any adult human male and any adult human female.
This obsession that the "trans" community has with redefining the terms to reflect how they feel etc. is totally pointless. There are no people who truly feel 100% comfortable all of the time, the idea of labelling people "cis" or "trans" is completely unnecessary, there is no "cis" experience and there is no "trans" experience, people are individuals, and as a whole the community fails to come up with any coherent explanation to define their redefinition of "woman" because you cannot come up with a definition that caters to every possibility. That is why the terms "man" and "woman" being rooted in physical reality is the only thing that makes sense, if there are no clear parameters for a definition then it cannot function as a definition. If anyone can identify as a grablar, and the only definition of being a grablar, is feeling like identifying as one, then you haven't defined grablar as anything at all. This is why it is also an obsession with creating more and more boxes.
The terms "man" and "woman" encompass every possible personality, within physical boundaries, any man or woman is free to act, think, look, behave however they want, that they as individuals are labelled as men or women is purely about the physical - saying a man is an adult human male, and a woman an adult human female does not restrict anyone's self-expression, not wanting to acknowledge one's physical reality is a fool's errand, the sex someone is doesn't change based on how anyone feels or dresses - so it is the "trans" side that 100% is creating this false narrative that acknowledging a person's sex is somehow restrictive, they are the side saying men or women behave like this or that. I mean if they weren't doing that, then they would agree that the umbrella terms based on sex, man and woman, were perfectly fine - but they don't! They say no no, if someone doesn't FEEL like the sex they are, they can't be it, though they cannot explain what "feeling cis" even really means, because NO ONE shares the exact same experiences emotionally. What "they" are trying to do is swap a definition that has a physical basis, for a definition that is entirely rooted in feelings and often in validating sexist stereotypes associated with either sex.
This "woman is a social construct" thing IS the part that validates and perpetuates sexist stereotypes - woman isn't a social construct in that sense, it is a word society has chosen yes, but to describe a PHYSICAL state of being, not anyone's emotional states or where they fall on some spectrum of masculinity or femininity. There is a fundamental misunderstanding here of what the definition of man and woman means. The notion that people need to live up to sexist stereotypes of what "real men" or "real women" are, is complete fantasy. The fact that many people act as if sexist stereotypes were valid ways of measuring "real men" or real women" is a problem with the individual and their sexist bias, not with the terms themselves, as the terms themselves have none of the expectational baggage that people who internalise sexist stereotypes associate with them.
Wow; incredibly well written and well thought and 100% rooted in REALITY. Refreshing. I hope we will return to science based sanity in the next few years and will look back on this in absolute shame for letting the lunatics run the asylum.
What a out the experience of intersex people. What about people who do not fit the gendered binary? How can we talk about simple physical truths when sex itself in it's most physical conceptualization is not entirely binary?
If it actually was the case as you've described, then on what grounds coulp physical attributes dictate societal expectations and social positions?
Even if the question was as simple and one dimensional as you've described it still would not make a compelling case for such argument.
@@clarkbowler157 Why are you using the outdated by consensus (Chicago Consensus) and wildly misleading term "intersex" when the correct terminology is Disorders of Sexual Development? Everyone with a DSD is still either male or female just like everyone else, in fact many of the conditions are completely sex-specific, only ever affecting one particular sex.
There are no "in-betweens", no one is "slightly more female" etc. Sex is not a spectrum, you just haven't "educated yourself" on the matter. 99% of people claiming to be "trans" do not have a DSD anyway, so it is completely IRRELEVANT to the discussion.
@@ambientjohnny "Disorders of sexual development".
Here we can discuss the formulations of bodies and states of bodies. Can a certain morphology of body be disordered, how and influenced by what cultural factors would such a framing ensue?
We have to think critically about the things we learn and the things we read. We have to ask ourselves about formulations and ways of formulating situations.
So what you're saying is that the definitive sex characteristic is chromosomal? Or should we look at other indicators and explore the complexity of the situation we're trying to describe?
@@clarkbowler157 Do you actually believe, that the sex of every single human cannot be objectively verified? Male, or female, there are no other options. Disorders of development do not make anyone less of the sex they are, or a bit of the other one etc. Sex is determined by anatomy geared towards the facilitation of either large or small gametes, since it is complex whole, some details being altered through defects, aging, accidents, surgery etc. does nothing to change what sex a body is.
I've been involved in Science and I cannot understand how people like Butler are taken seriously.
I'm an Atheist not because I fear God, but because I find the entire religious ideology ridiculous. Not because I'm leftwing or rightwing, but because the idea of a loving God is irrational.
The same is true with gender ideology for me. The idea that human existence exists outside the body, in a gendered spirit that inhabits a body to become human, is ridiculous. One does not need to be leftwing or rightwing to think rationally.
I love this.
First of all, fear of God is an sign of you being a true believer. You'd be a Christian if you feared God and live in the west. Likely a typo, but I'm a bit autistic.
Why I love your comment, is that you say "The idea that human existence exists outside the body..." while being an online avatar perfectly exhibiting the concrete reality of us existing well beyond our bodies. That is lovely. I see your blind spot. I like that.
Now does it make you believe in God, no. Does it make Judith correct, no. But we mostly exists beyond our bodies. Work, family, friends not our bodies. The very moment we do, we get introduced to a friend called depression.
People take her seriously because they are on her team. Its incredibly rare for anyone to seek the turth, and actually change their mind on anything.
@@tulisotilas "First of all, fear of God is an sign of you being a true believer. You'd be a Christian if you feared God and live in the west. Likely a typo, but I'm a bit autistic."
What I said is that I don't believe in a living God, like many believers do. But not believing doesn't make me phobic, just non-believer. With Gender, the same thing. I think Gender Ideology is a fantasy and I don't believe it, but no phobia involved. I don't fear Gender, as Butler claims. I just find the ideas ridiculous.
"But we mostly exists beyond our bodies."
We exist because of our bodies. Without our bodies this conversation would not happen.
Religions create an existence outside the body, in part, because of shame associated with the body. Creating a life outside the body seems to relieve the shame. Gender confused people try doing the same thing, trying to escape the shame of the body.
" Its incredibly rare for anyone to seek the truth, and actually change their mind on anything."
I would say the same thing to you. Seek the truth, which is rooted in your body
That is not a very accurate description. Do you think cultural realities are to be empirically tested or are discovered through examination of concepts and political analysis?
@@clarkbowler157 "Do you think cultural realities are to be empirically tested or are discovered through examination of concepts and political analysis?"
I'm not sure which "description" was inaccurate and I'm not sure what you are asking in your question.
All I know that the body is at the centre of our human experience and that I don't accept ideologies that try to create existence outside the body. That's what religions do.
@@viejolincanada *I was asking whether scientific methods are the right tools for cultural inquiry.
I don't see how somebody changing their identity points towards an existence outside the body.
Can you elaborate?
This is a problem that needs to be fixed.
You know, they tried to fix it; turns out they are STILL women. Joking aside. I agree. This needs to be widely spread so people will understand the level of nonsense this whole thing comes from.
Who’s afraid of heterosexual instinct?
LGB without the TQ+
I don't believe in gender ideology and am uncomfortable with too much identity politics, but I am still a leftist. I find Judith Butler's description of the left alienating. I can't find common ground with irrational extremists like her, but I am still not a moderate. She has strange fantasies about who her detractors are. She is not in reality.
That's the black and white perspective you get in extremity, in an over-reliance on the left-hemisphere perspective which cannot see things in context. What the modern "left" is sadly unaware of, is enantiodromia, that when you take a position to a far enough extreme, it becomes like its opposite, becomes like the thing it started off as an opposite to. So the "progressive left" has become authoritarian.
Stories of intellect
"A new long-term study from Germany suggests that the majority of young people diagnosed with gender identity disorders do not continue to identify as such over time. The study examined insurance data over five years, revealing that more than half of young people aged 5-24 across every age subgroup diagnosed with "gender identity disorder" no longer had the diagnosis after five years. Specifically, the desistance rate was 72.7% in 15- to 19-year-old females and 50.3% in 20- to 24-year-old males. Among the whole group of 5- to 24-year-olds, only about 36.4% of those diagnosed in 2017 still had the diagnosis five years later, indicating that more than 63% desisted.
One of the strengths of this study is its comprehensive collection of outpatient billing data for all legally insured persons in Germany, providing a large and representative sample. Additionally, the long observation period from 2013 to 2022 offers valuable insights into long-term trends and changes in diagnosis rates."
So after receiving care most identify that they do not in fact need to transition, whereas those whose symptoms persist do transition. What exactly are you identifying as wrong here? This sounds like medical care working as intended.
Not in agreement what Butler is saying, but thank you for uploading this and leaving the comments open!
From my observation, a lot of the worry centers around:
1a) Children and adolescents making life-altering decisions about hormone therapy and major surgeries-say, to sterilize themselves before they have reached sexual maturity, or without fully understanding what kind of life-long choice they're making. The book argues that regret is infrequent, but the voices of detransitioners are loud and growing (though from what I understand the trans community is loath to show them any support). Their experiences with gender-affirming care are also worth hearing and reckoning with, aren't they? (I noticed that the word "detransition" was not used in the book, which I found an odd omission.) What is the author's position on access of minors to life-altering medical intervention? (Assuming we agree that legal protection for minors (tattoos, etc.) is a good feature of our society.)
1b) Connected to this is the fact of adolescents being forcibly removed from their parents by the state if the parent raises objections to the gender-affirming intervention. Does the author ratify the state's role to confiscate children from parents in such a case? (I don't think one can understand the fear that gender ideology wants to break apart the family unless one faces cases like this head-on.)
2) Rights regarding women's gyms and sports, for the biological facts of difference in size, strength, endurance, bone-density, etc., to be honored in terms of bathroom privacy, playfield safety, and fair competition. Of course there is great natural variance of physique and aptitude among bodies, but Title IX laws acknowledge the physical differences between men and women for a reason. Does the author believe that trans women should participate in women's sport? With some level of hormone therapy that modifies testosterone levels, or also without any medical transitioning? This issue is also one that will increasingly galvanize the 'common folk', as they see their daughter's opportunities taken by trans women.
I submit these questions as a cultural observer. The speaker's cause would be much helped along if they took these specific worries more seriously.
29:08
I like the point made here, the book kind of gets academic on this point and its not as concise, but this is very well said.
Fascinating, but Ivory Tower at it's finest. Try to form a manifesto, a party, and build a society on the idea of disidentification. We need a flag, a word with a distinct meaning, and a set of binary rules for that to work. But, you can try it. Good luck.
2:10-6:22
Full context for a clip floating in X.
Q: Does Butler teach or seduce people into Pdf-file stuff?
A: We teach that stuff, yes. If people want to get into it. (She uses these words, but with context this is not her an admission. The context is broader at that time.). Then she blames the chrurch (without specifying the denomination, or a religion) for blaming her and being a confessing pdf-file themselves.
So rather than denying the action bluntly, she shifts the blame to the Catholic church (assumed), without specifying her being innocent or whoch church it is. She likely does not think she is causing pdf-file victims. She likely assumes the common position of pdf/A format being a bad and immoral file format.
If we were to take words only at face value, then there would be concerns.
Items bounced
Quote from the desc: "Now, in Who’s Afraid of Gender? (2024), Butler returns to the topic that made their name, to illuminate how “anti-gender ideology movements” have become central to reactionary politics and rising authoritarianism worldwide."
In other words, gender ideology movements have become the goad in Capitalist society's vitals that provokes the reaction that tends towards authoritarian fortification. Folks, this is the desired development: causing authoritarianism to rise up, and finally the rebel response. Once Capitalism is gone, Equity (Marxism) would be ushered in.
There is no private property in Equity. None. Land, intellectual, biological, children, individual rights, NONE.
Can someone show me where to watch when the author is talking about what book is about? Oh and I use sex, I understand sex. Gender is the word people use, who are afraid to use the word sex.
How can a mother's grief at giving birth to a boy or a girl and having that boy or girl cut off their body parts to line up with some delusion of wanting to be the other gender after embibing pornography and a contagion be wrong or authoritarian?.. God will judge you and woe betide to those who hurt one of these little ones. God is a consuming fire .
To the sycophants this isn't real. These persons don't exist. Now they are "phantasms" and parents are alt-right extremists. Notice how brave this loser is, comes out of a hole to talk to people who walk in her shoes. Gee how brave.
Wow, these Chat GPT's talking to each other hallucinate most of the time still; Engineers still need to tweak the bugs out I guess.
I know Butler didn't actually read any gender critical feminism for her book, but you could. Might learn something.
While Butler and Halberson work hard to disassociate themselves from sex they look so uncomfortable as they twist around trying to do it. They really seem to be putting an anchor around unattractive women everywhere. BiG QUESTION: what is their "sexuality"? I dont care about their identity - identity is what you do. But they are drawn to what sexually? Oh, yes: women. Not feminine or necessarily masculine women JUST ANY woman that isn't a biological man. These two are so blantly "performative" in their effort to demonstrate their non-comforming, and I mean performative in the way the word is defined NOT as the deep thinker Butler spins it, these two would submit to a trans-woman if for no other reason than to prove the purity of their theory and being. This is after all just how commited to the cause of gender based feminism that they are.
This comment section is actually so cancerous
No, it's actually encouraging given the the extent to which transgenderism is undermining the sex-based rights and interests of women, gay people, children, parents, desisters and people with disabilities. Try engaging with the other side and you might learn something.
Listening to it talk about sex assignment is stomach turning. I guess biology escapes Butler. If there is confusion (because of Intersex) sort it out. Male and female is pretty straightforward. We can even figure it out before birth and someone CONFIRMS sex at birth.
Nephilim shit
comments proving that judith never fails to filter the midwits
Lol, she's peak midwit, bud.
Thank you Judith Butler. Stay strong, ignore the bigots.
I am not a bigot. I am a leftie liberal and I know bs when I read it. "Who's Afraid of Gender?" Worst book I have ever read. Complete gobbledegook. This is not the writing of a genuine academic. I have manually calculated that she uses "scare quotes" 3.1 times on average for every page of text, on individual words and some phrases, and these are inconsistently applied. Why does she do that? For what purpose? Also try this: What does the following on p230 mean? "Its localist appeal to anti-imperialist sentiment is an appropriation of a Left critique, but surely not one." That is verbatim. From the preceding sentences the "Its" might be referring to opposition to gender, English or objection to multilingualism or something else. How would any reader know? Like so much of this book it is convoluted and non-sensical rubbish. And, here is another, same page: "In a multilingual epistemology, there are no foreign languages since every language sounds foreign from within another language; or maybe every language is foreign, which means there are no languages that are foreign." If I had written something as silly, as incomprehensible, as that in my PhD it would not have been passed - in fact the draft would not even have got by my supervisor. The book is a great example of the dubious linguistic contortions that underpin the distortion of reality - and that distortion permeates trans world.
Damn I just wanted to watch some Judith Butler where are all these transphobes in the comments coming from
Define "woman gender". What does it mean to "feel like a woman" for a male?
If you are interested in trans, no matter what side, YT proposes videos about trans, no matter from what side. The other way around it works also, I often leave comments to anti-trans videos.
@@miriamlana833Do people like, search up their name and watch these videos though? That's kind of crazy that a philosophy person has this much press that people do that and comment on videos with a few thousand views.
Thank you for this sharing this with the PW audience at large. There is so much to consider that arises from this candid and brave conversation between Butler and Halberstam. I read Butler's work during my years as PhD student and the ideas are increasingly relevant in our multi-dimensional era. We welcome these diverse paths of radical thought. What a gift to be able to explore these ideas with strong thinkers to lead the dialogue. Butler remains a pioneering outspoken badass, damn right! Cheers to this!
"Who's Afraid of Gender?" Worst book I have ever read. Complete gobbledegook. This is not the writing of a genuine academic. I have manually calculated that she uses "scare quotes" 3.1 times for every page of text, on individual words and some phrases, and these are inconsistently applied. Why does she do that? For what purpose? Also try this: What does the following on p230 mean? "Its localist appeal to anti-imperialist sentiment is an appropriation of a Left critique, but surely not one." That is verbatim. From the preceding sentences the "Its" might be referring to oposition to gender, English or objection to multilingualism or something else. How would any reader know? Like so much of this book it is convoluted and non-sensical rubbish. And, here is another, same page: "In a multilingual epistemology, there are no foreign languages since every language sounds foreign from within another language; or maybe every language is foreign, which means there are no languages that are foreign." If I had written something as silly, as incomprehensible, as that in my PhD it would not have been passed - in fact the draft would not even have got by my supervisor. It is no wonder that in 1999 she was given an award for "worst sentence" written that year. Google it. The book is a great example of the dubious linguistic contortions that underpin the distortion of reality - and that distortion permeates trans world.
@@281992pdr what was the worst sentence she was awarded for? Given the two you quoted there I'm excited to read the one was awarded for
They scoff and call the rest of us "Far right Christians" (I'm so far from that its not funny) when SHE insists that there is no such thing as sexual dichroism and denies basic biological evolutionary reality, and you thinks she's "candid and brave"? You've been successfully brainwashed into a cult.
@@281992pdr The second quote makes perfect sense. Essentially they are saying that in a theory of learning coming from multiple languages, there is no foreign language. To be foreign is relative because it is defined by what culture (or language) you yourself come from. For example: I speak English, so I think Chinese is a foreign language, but it is not foreign to a native Chinese speaker. That Chinese speaker would see English as foreign just the same. So because every language can be considered foreign, no languages are because the description breaks down.
Edit: I haven't read their book yet, but it's coming in the mail and, based on your quotes, I'm very excited for it :)
@@lucascampbell8521 Why are you using incorrect grammar? Butler is one person - singular. She was awarded in 1999 the worst sentence written by an academic. She truly earnt it. Look it up. Her book - there is only one of her, and her book is also singular - is gobbledegook. She also uses in her book the term "seeks" in its past present and future tenses on average one every 1.8 pages. Why, ffs? At the starts she says a few times "I hope". Genuine academics writ with prupose and clarity. She does not. She also always writes of Black people with a capital B and brown people with a lower case b. I can only presume this is some kind of virtue signalling. Or just racism.
Brave as fuk
Lovely
This is an insult to LGB people. Same-sex attraction is biologically based and is not the same as the categories in the TQIA2SCDEFHJKMNOPRUVWXYZ movement.
demons are real
they are standing still