As a trans woman, I find this refreshingly humanizing -- here Zizek is seeing the decision of transition divorced from any cultural baggage, simply as a quite radical decision a person makes to themselves. It's ironic that his closing sentence hews so close to the liberal platitude of "you're so brave!" yet it is entirely divorced from any narrativising, and is predicated on something (compared to the cynicism inherent in 'braveness') much more fulfilling, optimistic, and universal.
Just wanted to say that recently, this is one of the "arguments" which has made it easier for me to understand trans people in general. Not feeling super "masculine" myself as a man, I still never felt like I wanted to be anything else. Judith Butler's work has made it sound like gender identity is strictly performative AND also something relevant to everyone. I much prefer the "feeling compelled" argument because it first of all makes it okay for me to reject gender identity for myself, BUT also touches upon the arguments of religious individuals or the Nitzschean idea of certain affects creating impulses, some stronger than others. It is not an essentialist argument but also refrains from being fully anti-essentialist. As an autistic person, this is very heartwarming. For instance, of course I'm physiologically different in some ways, but in other ways, my autistic identity is only important because our society isn't exactly made for people like me! and that's normal, I'm not even complaining, however, I can choose to mask and "fit in" without never actually feeling like I really fit in. In that sense, my identity is anti-performative. I think the trans community and the autistic community have quite a bit in common!
@@julienbguyon8956 I think you've really hit on something, because this "not fitting in" that autistic people already feel is why autistic trans people are often more happy to come out than non-autistic trans people. A non-autistic trans person (eg. me) feels like we won't be accepted in society if we come out. But an autistic trans person may already feel like they're on the outside, so coming out as trans is different for them. If you're interested, I would like to outline something about performativity, becuass it might help to explain. Performativity is about more than just gender. It's the idea that a chair is a chair _because_ it is something designed to be sat on. As in, it's wrong to say a thing designed that way because it is called a chair. When I call something a chair, I'm saying that _because_ of its design. As an anecdote, my young sister used to say "it's got pretty wings, that's why it's a butterfly". We used to laugh at how cute this was, but actually she's 100% correct. When we engage with the world, we look at what the thing is, what it's "performance" in the world is, and then we label it. So when we speak about performances, we're not talking about people like we're movie actors. It's more of a philosophical understanding: things gain their labels based on how they act. When you see someone in the street that looks like a man, you call them a man because of their "performance". Not a deliberate performance, philosophically speaking it's just how that person appears and acts. Think of a body part you have, could be any body part. Would it have the same name if it had a completely different shape and function? If I had a sword for a hand, would it still be called a hand? (Sorry for the long reply, I'm a sociologist and philosopher so I get quite nerdy about this stuff!)
As a non binary Person I can say that this is very similar to an ontological Problem, it's very hegelian , the most high of expression about the zizek's talk is the Agender identity, and derivation of the Words conclusively will run on a different idea as said Hegel, and that is re-construccion of the original idea, Dialekte. Been agender is not the Opposition (oposition) of "have" gender is the result of a derivative process , but at the same time, required discrimination (a "fight") between this concepts: " Born girl or boy" following this sentence it will came as a contradiction.
I love his raw humanity. No matter how high and advanced we aim to be our dirty, filthy raw, small creature humanity is who we truly are. I hope to never ever forget this. He pulls me to where there is the most clarity. He does this most effectively for me.
@@VolkColopatrion I understand. I've heard his lectures before and esteem his POV. What I like is how he goes deep into the most base, fundamental elements of a topic. I find that reassuring and consider myself lucky that somebody did all that mental work and was noble enough to share it for free.
Yes, whilst he does joke to some degree, with the absurd detail. He has a way of revealing things, so that you all of a sudden see the reality. It is quite extraordinary, and I have not seen someone quite like him.
The freedom to be castrated and dependant on hormones for the rest of your life so that you don't get busted? There's no greatness in that. It is a neoliberal brainwashing scheme and it is highly misogynous. It should be attacked where ever it raises its ugly head.
So, from my limited understanding, Zizek does not buy ideas like gender fluidity because he feels that it does not demonstrate the same overwhelming need for assuming one's correct identity. I suppose you could counter by saying that genderfluid people might feel a different overwhelming need, not to transition to one identity, but to be allowed to express the identity they feel at a certain point in time. It's not an overwhelming need to make a transition to a specific social role, but to be allowed to freely express a social role based on a need that is similarly strong, but changes regularly. On the other hand, if the need to express oneself as gender fluid is not as strong as the need to transition to a binary gender, why should we disregard it? Even if it's not as strong a need, it's still there.
I think he's pointing to the contradiction at the emerging ethos of many "nu-trans" people, such as gender-fluid, non-binary etc. and what has historically been the strongest defense/line of reasoning for people who felt they needed to live as the other sex. It seems to me he's mostly demonstrating the fracture that is occurring not just among the LGBT+ "community", but among even just the more tightly defined trans group in itself. I think you summed it up best with "even if it's not as strong a need, it's still there". Because it is one of the most radically life-shifting changes you can make, for it to be sincere it would have to come from the deepest convictions you have, that would make it basically not a choice at all. Much of the "nu-trans" people build the lack of conviction right into their identity and ideology, crow-barring up the biological essential argument that trans people have relied on since forever.
@@dillonjohnlane Dillon Lane I suppose the key is to convince people that both concepts of gender identity can coexist. I'm fine with that, but I can see how the LGBTQ+ community at large can have difficulty getting people to accept that when their argument for the validity of transgender identity for years has been how powerful the need to transition is. To avoid specific identities counteracting one another in the public eye, the narrative might need to be about how much gender identity varies from person to person, and how allowing people to live as they identify benefits them. Break down barriers between cis, binary trans, non fluid non binary, and fluid non binary and help people understand the idea of a spectrum.
What he is saying is quite straightforward. Alot of the LGBTQ language indicates a fluidity that makes gender something non essential (which zizek notes has to do with Butlers influence). What he is asking is if gender really was non essential then why would people seek to transition towards a specific gender that they were _supposed to be_ but currently aren’t? That implies essential and not fluid.
I don't think he 'does not buy it', but rather he is not so fascinated by it. Decisively claiming a certain gender identity, binary or not, is for him "radically choosing your self" and thus the ultimate expression of freedom. Fluidity of gender and sexuality, on the other hand, appears to him as indecisiveness, rather than 'bullshit'. He speaks from the constructivist perspective in which gender & sexuality are not ahistorical, and he sees ideological choice as way to mediate the dichotomy between a fluid and a fixed identity . On a separate note, I disagree with the claim that fluidity means indecisiveness. I think it rather means that this 'radical choice of Self' is not pinned down to gender or sexuality as opposed to other identities. Even if it was a holistic fluid identity - broader 'queerness' - then this identity in itself may be an identity of resistance, which remains a 'radical choice of Self'.
@@metaouroboros690 A nice ocean travel; it brang me to some reflexions: At least, one Cultural (it might be larger though) evidence of the existance of an overwhelming Need of Gender Fluidity may be observed in artistic/poetic activities, hobbies or professions involving, for example, Character Play, Roleplay, Acting, the use of the Mask (the complex, cenic concept of a Mask found in Theatre Literature), etc. Actually, it would be plausible to even propose the idea that, fields such as Theatre, Cinema, Dance perhaps, would not even have became Realities if this process of shifting, of fluid genre-character energy, didn't exist beforehand (I've mixed genre-character because these are much closer concepts to each other than we'd like to consider, regarding the deep Pleasure that can emerges from this kind of Play; that is, when it doesn't just become a Prison of Suffering for an individual, for example, who cannot Play); this observation also includes the Identification phenomena, which could be said happen also on the Public appretiation of performing Characters by the Artists, meaning that Gender Fluidity wouldn't just affect the Acting subjects, but the Public as well. So that the fluid energy is not limited to a simple Intra-Subjective matter, but to an extended Relational/Cultural/Inter-Subjectivity matter; it's much more Explosive/Implosive than what Zizek would be observing, from this video fragment at least.
Joe Rogan is good enough for Americans.By far he's the dumbest talk show host I have ever watched.Guy's only source of information is Wikipedia or sponsored documentary and nothing more. The guy must have never read one single book or a page n claims to be intellectual.
I don't know that Caitlin is, or at least I really hope not. This channel uses a few clickbaity thumbnails for various topics Zizek covers, and while I'd tend to be annoyed normally, perhaps it exposes Zizek content to people who otherwise might not have clicked on it if they didn't go for the "bait." So perhaps it's good, in a way, even if it's maybe annoying to see.
In picking one of the archest neoliberal trans icons to appear in the thumbnail who ever is in charge of creating this clip is making a different argument than zizek seems to be making.
The content is very welcome, but the thumbnails and titles of the videos on this channel are very clickbait-y. Might be me just rejecting these capitalist norms (21st century marketing)... but I hate it. What you pointed out is just adding insult to injury at this point. Oh well.
I really love the way that he thinks about gender and sexuality, as making a “choice” about yourself that is in reality not at all choice but an essential part of who you are. However, and I have read very little Zizek, so what I am about to say might be refuted or mentioned somewhere else in his almost daunting body of work, I think his assertion that by claiming fluidity this person is avoiding the hard choice of self is just laying out two or three boxes (man, woman, neither) and then not contemplating whether or not there may be more boxes than what he is claiming. If someone is assigned man at birth, undergoes HRT to acquire a “female” body, and then identifies as non-binary, I don’t think that is some denial of the choice, but the choice itself. Whether or not it fits within the standard boxes that western society payed out to us is irrelevant to the fact that they have made that choice. Again, I am an idiot and also a teenager, I don’t actually know anything, so if I horribly misrepresented his position then I am sorry.
@@jonasgeist7779 ignore this guy, because you should be lauded for appreciating your own ignorance and naivety. Jonas's response is an empty pleasant platitude that distracts from giving you the credit for what you have been capable of doing that most won't - regardless of their age. As for your own ignorance, we all have plenty of it, and you're right that being quite young means a lack of life experience. This isn't your fault or some bad thing you've done. However it is still true, and recognising your own shortcomings shows great emotional maturity and will allow you to learn new perspectives and help shape the world for the better as you hopefully try to follow truth and figure out what you're wrong about. But "never apologise for supposed naivety on the grounds of [something excusable]" is going to take you further away from that, not closer to it.
The west is overdosing on its individualism. Yeah the options are there to identify as non-binary but the fact that you'll be trans, take HRT and still prefer to exist in a nebulous realm with regards to your identity sounds to me like an allergic reaction to all of that Ego you lot in the west just can't seem to get enough of.
that is so reductive. the people who say "x says trans rights" were and are part of the problem that keeps transsexuals down. hrt is gate kept. the economic and social privilege is inarguably in favor of the female assigned rather than the male... and this sjw bullshit is making it far more difficult for the very people they say to protect. ruclips.net/video/Jt_G9vRfl_4/видео.html it's such a white saviorist kind of deal and it must leave society or we will all live in suffering.
in this video he's very VERY critical of the gender fluid bullshit that is so common. and all the people that say "trans rights" ... are just people who don't know or can't see what's infront of them... or don't care
@@sphericalred He's not arguing for ''abolishing gender". He's arguing for an ethics of subjectivity. He's pointing at the fragile status of individual desire, and how contingency and necessity isn't differentiated terms. We can't abolish gender, because our desire isn't simply our own creative issue. We will always model ourselves on external coordinates, but this isn't "a bad thing", it is what ties ud together. Supporting trans rights is not about 'breaking' anything, it's about accentuating personal freedom of forced choices ~
Baaed from what I understood, the decision of switching to another gender identity is a very radical form of freedom that requires episodes of psychological crises to fully finalize. Additionally, one also needs to feel the NECESSITY of becoming trans in making that decision. In summary, being trans is one of the most important decisions one can make during their life and because of that, it needs to be taken very seriously. The only problem is that some people DO NOT take it seriously and play around too much with gender identities to the point where it unfortunately becomes a laughing stock.
Another way of looking at it: societies with fixed-at-birth binary gender ideologies make it particularly difficult to experiment with one's gender, exacerbating dysphoria in trans individuals. If someone wants to claim that they don't experience dysphoria (or, more likely, that those experiences are so mild that they don't recognize them as dysphoria), then I'm certainly not going to demand that they suffer as much as I do to be allowed to experiment as much as I would have in my teens and twenties had I not felt so psychology smothered by the weight of society's expectations. Edit: to be clear, I'm not asserting that experimentation must conclude with settling into a binary role. I'm binary trans, and my experimentation led me to the realization of my femininity. If people settle into fluidity, and remain there (which they do), then they are asserting an identity just as valid and affirming as any binary trans or nb person.
You don't need to be part of the problem. If your problem with people being "in insufficient amounts of pain" to "really" be transgender is that this makes people not take transgender people seriously, you'er hardly helping by... saying they're right to stop taking transgender people seriously. Instead, consider: What harm is being committed, and who are you to decide if someone is "in enough pain", or that this is the only metric by which you can assess whether someone is "really" transgender.
u know maybe instead of summarizing personal interpretations in the comments, it might be better if we asked specific questions and added specific pieces of knowledge about parts of this talk. just an idea
I dont fully understand zizek here, and i won't make any critisisms. All i know is i am a man who is bi, and likes to look slightly ambiguous. I like my more feminine characteristics (long hair, naturally red lips, skinny frame ect.). I dont feel strongly enough to go through a radical chance, but i enjoy being in this middle grey area, but i still consdier myself to be a man, even if a more feminine one. I always assumed this means im "gender fluid" but i have no idea. All i know is i think of myself in more masculine/feminine ways at different times. Sometimes ill feel more masculine and, for a bit, only find women attractive. Other times i feel more feminine and id love to be with a guy. If someone else is more familiar with the terms and can give a solid guess as to where i fit in the terminology, id love to hear your thoughts. I just assumed this is what gender fluidity is and i can choose to act/dress more straight or fruity depending on how i feel at the time.
I really don't understand why people need "terms". You're a bisexual, male. That's all anyone needs to know. Having a unique name for the infinite shades of sex, sexuality and gender roles is as dumb as coming up with a name for every shade of blue eyes. Just call them blue and be done with it.
As a hegellian, Zizek tends to think in binary terms, even if it's complex binary relationships. While he makes a compelling argument, his frame of thinking still doesn't capture the complexities of gender imo.
He hits the nail on the head, transgender rights are a matter of freedom, the choices will be subconscious and sometimes radical like love or other matters of identity, but that's what freedom is make choices as we want them, regardless of their subconcious or whatever origin they have.
There is this thing with free choice. It can be wrong. You maybe didnt saw the whole picture. Maybe your mind way corrupted. Society rn seems to push the idea that you cant go wrong on this gender question which is wrong and dangerous for alot of easiliy influenced mainly young people.
It seems like a misunderstanding of what "gender is a construct" means, all it means is that we as a group apply labels based on certain characteristics and some people are given a label that doesn't fit with their characteristics or their ideal characteristics of self. So yes changing certain characteristics to be closer to their ideal self which involves changing how society labels you would feel freeing.
But if we say took a bunch of stereotype labels and applied them to a certain "rais" (misspelling to get past YT) - e.g. "likes rap, wears x clothes, likes watermelon and fried chicken, talks in this particular slang, walks like this, etc." - this is very obviously offensive to put onto "blake" people. A "why it" person "identifying" with that stereotype and adopting a "Blake" identity is obviously repulsive. &. a Blake child who said "I don't want to eat watermelon or talk like this, or do x y and z - I must really be why it, so let me why it en my skin and get surgeries like Michael Jackson" - we would obviously see why that was messed up. But somehow it's different when it's regressive limiting stereotypes we're assigning to men and women? This is freeing? For who? It's dragging us backwards. "Oh the little boy plays with dolls. He must really be a girl"
@@vivianm1851 It is sexist though. Sexism = women must do the dishes (old) Feminism = women and men should do the dishes Gender Identity Theory = whoever does the dishes is the woman
@@markcangila1613 He doesn't appear to be speaking from authority there (i.e., delving into the lives and experiences of gender fluid people) so it's possible that his mind could change with new information. Seems more ignorance giving way to flippancy rather than a deeply held opinion.
Intellect? That was a non meaningful philosophy. there is nothing to appreciate in going through extreme pain to become trans, it only shows suicidal and self loathing traits, trying to deny the reality of who you are, it is cowardly, sick and inhuman, one of the worst atrocities in history of humans.
This video gave me an outlook I did not have before, even though I have debated these issues on multiple occasions. Not sure whether I agree or not with that new outlook (it is something I will have to debate and research myself) but for that seed I am very grateful to Dr Zizek (and I say that as a person who was routing for Dr Peterson :). Well constructed and thought out arguments. Thank you!
I think a big difference is that zizek has deep understandings for the ideas and positions. Whereas peterson often thinks he understands and injects his own logic and valuations in this analyzez of topics.
Now for the love of God listen to some Trans and non binary people speak on this or read some theory on it, zizek did alright but he doesn't understand gender fluidity
I just hope we find kindness and happiness together, as a trans person and philosophy enthusiast I am open to the idea of different ways of understanding trans people as long as we can have the grace and humanity to respect who they are at the same time not debate their right to exist if that makes sense 😊
@@MC-ns8gb I've listened to many trans and non-binary people trying to make a case about their own existence, ideas, motives and proclivities and one thing was made very clear to me from listening intently to them: they are ones that LEAST understand gender fluidity. Want to know why? Because they have an intrinsic conflict of interest. To wholly understand something is mandatory to analyze it from all angles; however, they are utterly unable to adopt any perspective other than theirs because to do so they must first negate their own existence. And if they'd adopt that self-negating perspective, even for the sake or argument, their original, self-reassuring logic would crumble into dislodged pieces of ad hoc arguments to support a confirmation bias. Hence, they don't even try. You see, in reality nobody understands anything apart from their own logic, but not all logics are actually logically valid. As a result, everyone is wrong and everyone is right at the same time depending on perspective, but reality doesn't concern itself with perspective. This whole identity debate is absolutely useless outside the legal arena.
He's making a weird point at the end, looking at fluid identities as being prescriptive rather than descriptive (and thus not being genuine in his opinion). To me it seems like the complete opposite - it's not people waking up in the morning and deciding to be straight/gay today, but noticing that at certain periods of time the have different tendencies. You could form a similar argument about rigid identity being prescriptive - one calls themselves "straight" because they were attracted to the opposite sex up until now, but they can't really know what the future holds, so by identifying as straight you already decide who you're gonna fall in love with. I don't think this kind of logic holds
Oded Sayar yea I mean who really does constitute in their needs and desires absolute consistency? Being a person is a consistent process of inputs and outputs which generate state changes so radical at times that some people may on some days completely struggle to identify with the person they were the previous day. Struggle to make sense of the things they wanted and did and the decisions they made.
@@user-bt1cl4ex6d Actually it isn't mental illness. It is however a mental illness to be incapable of altering and adapting yourself. Mental illness is a mental condition that generates suffering for yourself and/or other people. It is a mental condition that makes you inapt for social life and interaction. Things that alienates you from others.
Pixo Crayon if your sexual identity changes from day to day and you feel constantly alienated (which causes suffering), it’s a mental illness. That term has a negative connotation so people often don’t want to use it, but that’s what it is.
So interesting. He’s so famous for his contrarianism and it can become a bit fatiguing. But here it’s given me a big avenue to explore this subject from the perspective of a cis gender male heterosexual (as I understand he is but correct me if I’m wrong). “Choose yourself” “Radical choices” “Radical level of freedom” He’s acknowledging the bravery of these hard choices and it’s helpful to consider that no matter what side you’re on.
In this, I hear him saying that choice doesn't figure into it but a compelling truth that a person has no choice but respond in singular way. Radical freedom is in the commitment to one type of action, and there appears no other action would produce a sufficiently truthful outcome.
I assume Slavoj by saying "multiple identities" refers to gender fluidity (even if he's talking about sexual orientation afterwards). But it is not about changing the identities and switching between them occasionally but rather refusing to claim any gender identity constructed by the culture. Dualism very rarely applies to human behavior (they're good vs. they're bad, they're straight vs. they're gay and so on) so why it has to apply when it comes to gender identity? Also, the "pain of transition" probably differs from one country to another (e.g. Thailand vs. Saudi Arabia), ergo it is defined by the culture itself.
@Rosh There are generally two sexes (there's also intersex people), which are determined by your organs. Gender is a social construct which should be abolished because it sets arbitrary roles and expectations that people have to follow in order to be masculine/feminine which greatly limits the freedom to act however you want.
well you can argue that there is a biological factual dualism. (exclude the cases of intersex). this starts with basic stuff like having certain sexual "equipment". you can continue with behaviour difference. now it gets more difficult but so far science rather suggests there are inherently differences based on biology. this obviously rather goes for general speaking because individuals are always different. regarding dualism itself: there is no good or bad only. there are forms inbetween. however you can still judge somewhat precisly whats good or bad overall. so why shouldnt you be able to differentiate gender. ofc some individuals might be in the middle but biological wise you can make differences.
@@DINOzye my problem with abolishing gender is this: how do we do it? And then: what do we get instead of It? I mean, lets say we abolish gender in some Great Revolution, what do we end up with? I am no longer a man? Woman is not a thing anymore? What about trans women who explicitly say they are not men, but women? No disrespect, these are genuine questions
@@robertstan298 I would pay money for a pic of him squatting on a corner in a Mack hat, Adidas Sweats, a liter bottle of Absolut in his right hand... and a bag of sunflower seeds in his left. XD
@@thescholiast5118 Agreed. I find the whole notion of 'exploring gender' nauseatingly self indulgent. A prevailing group in society seem to be prioritising narcissistic tendencies whilst espousing social justice. The other end of end of the political spectrum is equally horrid.
@@rscoops3986 Self-discovery is narcissism? I think the notion that some think they do not need it, and so, therefore, others cannot be genuine with it, to be much more narcissistic. This seems like one of those very basic "both sides are bad, I'm good" arguments.
@@rscoops3986 Becoming open to the arbitrary gendered standards that exist, be open to the struggles that everyone has differently. Break those standards as much as you feel comfortable to do. Discover a hobby that might be frowned upon by peers of your gender, wear stuff that they would not... The list can be endless, but it can be whatever you want it to be.
My issues with trans activism [obviously, not trans people] is the widespread conflation of sex & gender on three levels: rhetorically, conceptually, and [especially] terminologically and the consequences of this conflation which is the fact that a materialist analysis of gender not possible without being erroneously accused of “essentialism” or having a phobia. The idea that being a man or a woman is based on a persons subjective self-concept a very recent development. Gender was commonly understood to refer to the constructs of “masculine” & “feminine”, which certain *things* [e.g. words, behaviors, social roles, abilities, mannerisms, clothing/fashion, names, personality traits, professions etc] are categorized based on what is deemed socially/culturally appropriate for either men or women, respectively. Man and woman are not types of gender but the specific words for male and female humans.
A big problem here is that every time a social struggle like this occurs, conservatives are the ones who keep getting to set the terms of the argument thanks to their immense media presence. And they will always do whatever they can to poison the well and make it as hard as possible for people to actually hear what activists are really trying to say. And this has been the case with every single civil rights movement going back as far as you want to go back.
For me "being" bisexual there was always an essentialist idea of my "being", an ontological claim, but also a certain freedom (that was also not freedom), I was still going to be essentially who I was no matter what. But I would also say that having flexibility has given me more of a phenomenological perspective that gay and straight people don't have. I could more easily say "this is an aspect of myself". But I saw what Zizek noticed that most LGBT people tend to essentialize and universalized even in ways which are irrational projections onto history and cross culturally. Therefore I actually met no LGBT postmodernists, or very few. Perhaps the most Postmodern LGBT activists was Peter Tatchell but he fell out of favor precisely because he saw LGBT within a context and not so naively universal.
I think this is very similar with what happened with intersectionality in college campuses. None of the people who proclaimed it as the new and standard approach to dealing with conflicts within feminism ever proclaimed themselves to be critical race theorists...they just saw it's political usefulness, and didn't really care much about the idea in and of itself. Butler's ideas can help achieve the cause of Trans liberation, the ideas don't really matter. That said, LGBT politics, especially at this stage is a perfect description of the fanatcism behind mass movements. That it's the arrogance and rudeness, the sheer incivility that makes them successful and why intellectuals often don't end up leading them to succession, because they are often to burdened by their desire to be understood...not to mention they have a bias against mindless action.
The thing I like to think about is not being transgender itself but rather transhumanist. I make this point because while not all transhumanists are transgender all transgender people are the first stages of transhumanism. The ideal, that no matter what prison you are born into, you can be free while in the same body through augmentation. Like for me, and I mean this as no joke as I myself struggle with my gender. I want to have different legs. The human foot is basically a hand. Our ancestors used our feet to grab and balance in the trees. Now while that is fine and good for our ancestors who weren't bipedal it leads to problems for their descendants, us, who walk on two legs. Our feet, should look like other animals who're are bipedal, who mostly walk on their toes. This is why feet for amputees do not look like normal human feet. The rest is not on a foot but rather a specific point for balance. Now I know some of these limbs also flex to adapt but that's also because of how we walk with feet that shouldn't be bipedal. And the hand feet we have are essentially torture devices. They are the leading result of hip, spine, and knee degeneration over time. Why should it not behoove science to work on ways to improve ourselves? The body is not what makes us human, it is our brains. If you stab a man in the heart he may live, if you remove the brain he will die. Even if you can electrically keep all other systems going, they're not human. The human animal is defined by it's decent from our ancestors and our 'intelligence'. I believe it is our responsibility as humans to struggle against the chains of nature. I hope that before I die I witness the killing of death. If I could be immortal in a cyborg body I'd do it in an instant. Immortality is the blessing every historian, scientist, and philosopher should work toward. If we could crush death then we kill a constant of the universe, which is entropy. Sentience should be the power to wield reality as ones pen scribbling whatever the ink will make. Chaos is not death, it is opportunity. Identity is as far as autonomy can be defined. It is the self determination that I am what I am. I am who I want to be. It is the philosophy of Nietzsche's Ubermensch before his sister bastardized it. All humans should live as if we are all gods. Not that we have supreme authority over others but of ourselves. If you wish to be a fat glutton be the god of decadence. If you wish to be a soldier, then be a god of war. If you are an artist you are a god of creation. If you are a poet you are a god of language. Whatever you are you must believe you are yourself superior for your abilities and intelligence and you will become superior. However, do not let such a state go to your head. After all, only a god can kill a god.
What makes him think that genderfluid people don't have the same urge? The only difference is that it changes from day to day (or weeks, or months...) and, naturally, since we haven't reached a level of transhumanism that is sophisticated enough, some genderfluid people don't surgically transition every day... Gender is contingent, social, genderfluid people are democratising the definition of gender, by expanding it to their subjective experience... To live through this era is fascinating - perhaps we will realise the futility of gender in the future (or not)
Zizek uses the Hegelian concept of freedom (as "understanding of necessity") as a theoretical tool for explaining transgenderism. According to him, a transgender individual's decision of changing sexual identity is the most radical expression of individual freedom, because it expresses an inner necessity for that individual; it's not a random, or arbitrary choice, and it doesn't need to be the latter kind of choice, in order to be a free choice. Quite the contrary, its being the recognition of a personal necessity is what makes this choice a radically liberating one for those who make it. One valuable aspect of Zizek's viewpoint is his rejection of the fashionable historicist theory of "gender as social/cultural construct". It's remarkable that Zizek dares to state the rather non-controversial fact, that what transgender people say about themselves actually matches his "essentialist" (neo-Hegelian) view, and does NOT match the fashionable "social construct", "gender fluidity", ideology. For any unbiased observer, this is rather obviously so. Still, what is remarkable here is that Zizek - always the iconoclast - is not afraid to stand up (again!) to political correctness. Given the prevailing climate in Academia nowadays, this is intellectual courage. Having said that, Zizek's limitations show up here too. As on other issues, he provides a valid criticism of a fashionable ideological standpoint; the problem, however, is with what comes next, which is often just an affirmation of his own biases (e.g., the fascination with Hegel, or in other contexts, the fascination with Marx's revolutionary enthusiasm). The viewpoint that Zizek stated here is problematic on its own, it raises questions that he, far from answering, is not even raising. The same happens when he states his socialist/revolutionary views. They are extremely problematic, they raise serious questions that Zizek is not able to deal with. To deal seriously with such questions can (in my view) only lead rational persons to turn their back on Zizek's own kind of biases. About transgenderism: what sense does it make for any person to say that their psychological identity is that of the other biological gender? This is a serious, analytic philosophy, question. If one has experienced only belonging to one biological gender (e.g., male), if the other biological gender (female) is known to this person externally only (as seen from outside), what does it mean to claim the psychological identity of that gender? Is that, in any way, more than a sort of dissatisfaction with one's own identity, coupled with an envy of the other sex (without having experienced that other gender's identity "from the inside", but having only watched it externally)? An envy, a copycat syndrome? What sense does the often quoted (by Zizek too!) statement "I was born in the wrong body" make, when it is made by a person who a. has a perfectly healthy body (nothing wrong with it physically), b. never experienced living in the other sex kind of body, and yet c. wants to modify his body to match the other sex body-type? Anyone who has studied analytic philosophy will understand that these are serious questions; if you only have shallow excuses for those statements, instead of actually making sense of them, then you simply don't make sense. E.g., saying "well, that's how they feel" is not answering the above questions, and accordingly, leaves those transgender statements exposed as senseless. For those who got tired of this philosophical inquiry, consider what the famous Caitlyn Jenner had to say, AFTER completing transition: "Now I have to LEARN what it is to be a woman, it's not simply wearing make-up, jewelry and dresses". Jenner's words. What it means: the desire for transition, which evidently preceded it, does not, and cannot, involve an actual knowledge, or awareness, of what it actually means to belong to the other gender. So, what sense does it make to say "I belong to THAT gender", when the experience, and awareness, of what belonging to that other gender actually means, does NOT exist? No sense. Back to the beginning: what about that "personal necessity"? It is indeed how transgender individuals feel; an intense, compulsive feeling, but one that doesn't make sense rationally. As such, according to both Hegel and analytic philosophers, this cannot be genuine freedom. I'll make it very clear: if for some transgender people what works is gender transition, so be it, I'm happy for them. However, for many it's not so; for them, the psychological problems known under the name "gender dysphoria" persist (or, worsen) after transition. And for the fans of PC: by cuddling people who actually have a psychological problem, by telling them "you're fine, everything's fine, we're with you!", you are not doing them any favor. This fundamental intellectual dishonesty is NOT a way to help people who are in need of help.
@@SandyBlJ Hi, I enjoyed reading your post. However, there is something that I have to ask - what is the psychological identity of a gender? Of course this is not your term, it is something that transgender people use, but my question is, what does it mean? A man may have a different mentality from a woman, but is that not a result of the social circumstances? If stereotypical gender roles did not exist, would these terms like 'psychological identity' of a particular gender exist at all?
I love the story of the person who did not feel `complete` until he had one of his lower legs amputated. There are so many things we cannot chose, or control, so freedom is acceptance of the diversity that this has already brought to our collective consciousness.
Ok, like/amused by/fascinsted/humbled/reassured/astonished instead of love.. One thing I never understand is the burden of one word one meaning, to me it seems an elitist plot to undermine the commoner ... It's akin to spelling busy bodies ... Churchill said it best ... Pleople when stumbling across the truth will pick themselves up, dust themselves off and carry on as if nothing had happened. So I think my point is ... If i understand the video then hete is another ecample. Now lets all run along and play ... On this gravity well orbiting a nuclear furnace 92 million miles away, like it's normal; to paraphrase Douglas Adams
Lui Cirocco yeah, but i think that saying youre some funny type of gender is stupid. Obviously if somebody asks me to use they/them pronounce i wouldnt mind out of respect but after all i think that saying youre other gender than male or female is bullshit. Breaking gender roles and expressing yourself in a way that isnt associated with your sex isnt a big deal. Just be yourself, it’s all good. Saying youre one of 853 genders sounds like not being confident enough to be yourself as your gender, meaning naming your personality as your identity.
We agree that gender is different from the biological sex, why would a person needs to change their biological sex to fit the gender they think they are? I don't understand.
just to clarify: the radical free decision a person makes is, whether to transision or not, but not if you are transsexual in the first place. I dont't know if I got this wrong, but to me it seemed that to Zizek, transsexual people choose to be man or woman, but on a subconscious level, which is then justified by saying "nature made a mistake, I should have been born this way" in order to cope with the radical desicion. Gender is - at least from my expieriance - something that is engraved into our biological existance and not to be confused with gender roles.
Some of his claims would sound very right wing if expressed by anyone else. Here, Zizek implies that there is determinism in "radical" gender choices, but in dismissing fluidity, he is confusing transgender with queer identity. Though often traumatic, not every gender choice is necessarily "full of pain".
Yeah. For me, i see myself as a bi guy, but i think of myself in more masculine/feminine terms at different times. Sometimes i want to look more like a dude and i tie my hair back, let some stubble grow, stand up a little taller. Other times i want to look more feminine/fruity and i let my hair down, maybe put it in curls, make my lips a little redder, stay clean shaven, dont stand as tall, maybe i even go as far as spending a few hours to shave my legs. There isnt any radical choice in it for me, i just like being in my ambiguous grey area where im not completley taking up any of the traditional characteristics of "Men" or "Women" Im just a person who likes a bit of both at different times.
He's basically saying that there are transgender people with intrinsic biological conditions that cause gender dysphoria and ideologues like Judith Butler who make the wrong assertion that gender identity is socially constructed and malleable and that underestimate the real pain that comes with having gender identity disorder.
@@cmap1503 YES. You are not a “trans” anything….and neither am I….we are just cosplayers. Nothing more. Some of us are cosplayers on hormones with our dicks cut off and fake tits. Nothing more….stop lying to yourself and be honest. You 100% KNOW I’m speaking the truth.
"o que mais me fascina é certo antagonismo imanente: A ideologia "oficial", digamos assim, do (movimento) LGBT+ (e que eu digo sem nenhuma ironia, de forma benevolentemente) é algo que Judith Butler teria chamado de Historicismo: "ideologia de gênero não é biologicamente determinada, é socialmente e historicamente construída através de jogos performativos e discursivos" e assim por diante... Ok, mas o que me fascina tanto [...] é que muitos destes caras que de fato fazem operações de transição de sexo falam uma linguagem que é exatamente o oposto, que é brutal e abertamente proibido pela teoria e discurso Historicista de hoje, (é uma) linguagem essencialista: Repetidamente, pessoas que, por exemplo, passam por essa dolorosa operação de "homem" para "mulher", notei como quase sempre usam o termo "estou tão grata que agora finalmente eu vivo em um corpo no qual eu deveria ter nascido". A linguagem que eles falam é puro Essencialismo, no sentido de que é como se houvesse uma orientação sexual basilar inscrita, seja lá como vamos chamar, "alma" (?), mas que somente houve um "erro ontológico" no meu nascimento por eu ter nascido em um sexo errado. Eu não acho que isso é simplesmente ideologia, o que é crucial. Eu penso que precisamente a referência à psicanálise, ao idealismo alemão, permite-nos explicar de forma materialista como algo que é contingente (opcional) pode, ainda assim, ser experimentado como uma predestinação, como uma necessidade. Tal como aprendemos com Freud e com os grandes idealistas alemães, nossas escolhas verdadeiramente livres não são escolhas conscientes. Nossas escolhas conscientes são bastante superficiais. O que quero dizer é que - se isso soar abstrato para vocês, permitam-me usar meus velhos exemplos: não é que as ações mais livres são precisamente sempre experienciadas como necessidade? Por exemplo, vamos dizer que seu país é ocupado, e você tem que se juntar à resistência. Você iria pois você sente que você trairia a si mesmo se não o fizesse. Não é uma escolha do tipo "bolo de morango" ou "bolo de baunilha", ou sei lá, é "eu faço isso porque não posso fazer outra coisa". Outro exemplo patético, pense sobre amor: [...] Você nunca se apaixona no sentido de "estou procurando uma mulher bonita aqui, um cara bonito lá; deixe-me fazer uma escolha" - Não! De repente você percebe que você está apaixonado. A decisão nunca é feita no tempo presente. O que estou dizendo é que esse Essencialismo torna isso claro: se você quer mudar sua identidade sexual (seja com uma cirurgia de transição ou de maneira mais superficial travestindo-se), [...] (isso) continua sendo uma escolha livre e contingente, mas deve aparentar ser para você uma necessidade. Porque? Porque isso é uma decisão radical. Em decisões cotidianas tipo "eu escolho agua ou Coca-Cola ou sei lá..." você já está constituído enquanto Sujeito, e você só faz escolhas. Mas decisões radicais são, num sentido bobo (de dizer), "você escolhe a Si mesmo". É isso que estou tentando fazer: o que eu não engulo na ideologia LGBT+ padrão é essa "identidade fluída" e "feliz", como "Eu posso ter múltiplas identidades; hoje eu sou gay, amanhã eu sou heterossexual, então eu pulo daqui pra lá, e etc., e etc..." - Não! Isso subestima a dor, a dramática decisão de assumir determinada identidade sexual. E, a grandiosidade dos transgêneros é justamente nos aproximar desse nível radical de liberdade!
Great opinion. I agree. I can understand someone who feels that is not in a body that "matches" his/her identity. But it's not simply goes buy something at the store in the corner.
transgenderism is not buying something at a store. it is a long and complicated process of consulting with a psychologist, deciding to take hormones, waiting for it to be approved by the doctors, and taking new hormones is not easy for your body to get used to at the beggining. then if you choose to get surgery thats even more stress you have to go through.. nothing easy about it
@@ZSd4cT he didnt really acknowledge that sex and gender are two different things and gender is the one that is socially constructed while sex is the biological reality many trans people seek to change
@@wister8528 lol i think such an idea is so basic to him he's miles beyond going out of his way to state it. Isn't that implicit in his reference to Judith Butler? What else could he mean?
@@wister8528 If you think Zizek does not know this than you are pretty foolish. Zizek the man that deconstructs social systems for a living knows this and sees it as elementary. Does the weatherapport always have to 'the earth is spherical' every time it's on TV? No
I hope that you were spared the mutilation that befalls so many intersex children! (And female-bodied people in much of the world, and male-bodied people in even more of the world.)
Jeez...As an East European I can understand Polish and English but (in general) when listening to non-native English speaker (I don't mean especially Poles) it cause in me unusual strong frustration and pressing a subtitle button it is like a small defeat for me... but thing get worse when even automatic subtitle function can't recognize a single word(
if i wanted to express the femmnine side of myself, which feels strong. Id cross dress but i would not define myself as trans would i define myself as genderfluid? im not sure?
Hmm i agree with most of this video except at the end when he says that he doesnt buy into the free flowing of sexuality. For me at least, my sexuality is very fluid as he describes so i could go almost a week not being attracted to men and then another week being attracted to men exclusively.
Yes but you are still attracted to both. In that way your sexuality is predetermined. Fluid would mean that a gay person chooses to be straight sometimes, and then asexual, and then bi, etc. But in reality, you already know what you are. Same thing with gender.
My problem is what happens to the historical struggles of womanhood? Is it now meaningless. All seems progressive, until you realise a title like "woman of the year" from glamour magazine was won by a middle aged white guy
Don't forget that sex and gender are two different things. The magazine isn't titled "female of the year" or "cis-woman of the year". Precise words are important to describe the complexity and the subtility of reality.
Yeah. He doesn't take into account the difference between transsexual and transgender. What he says may apply to transsexuals, but the LGBT+ movement nowadays is all about transgenderism, they do not get any operations, they just declare themselves something else than what they are.
Is it possible that many of those uncomfortable in their present body have a deeper problem but are unable to identify or express it? Sometimes, we name a problem that doesn't really exist and work to solve it, in place of one that we can not comprehend. It is interesting that most of the people who display gender dysphoria come for similar backgrounds. Perhaps, it is something else and the problem needs to be more deeply explored. Many of those who do transform still remain unhappy. Would that be because they solved the wrong problem?
it is interesting to me that he says that this is counter to “mainstream gender ideology”. me, and most other trans people i know have a quite common perception on what it means to be trans, but i don’t find this contentious at all, and a lot of them wouldn’t. this seems to be perfectly consistent with the way most trans people perceive themselves. at least those who agree with a judith butler way.
Ladys & Gents , I believe we got the "right, double left, right, double left again ,right, both hands " for the first time ever recorded . From the 33sec.
thats just because those who get the surgery are not the same kind of people that do the activism stuff. most transsexuals dont go side by side with the activists ideas - we may accept some goals, but ideologically we think of ourselfs rather essentialist. which is okay, cause basically thats ONE WAY to describe the problem of "having a soul of one kind" and "having a non matching body" - its not a flawless explaination - but its understandable. problem is, people always assume that sth thats "constructed" must be "unreal" just because gender and sex are constructed (which genitals belong to which gender/sex) doesnt means its without real meaning - it doesnt even invalidate my own idea and outright conviction i do have for 100% certain, that i am a women, that doesnt have a matching body of the corresponding sex. it doesnt determine the validity of my conviction, just its expression. (to say: if we'd live in a world, where no gender/sex constructs existed, id STILL MISS A VAGINA and would still know it deeply - my conviction would NOT CHANGE, id just be expressing this "dysphoria" differently: by probably just saying i want a vagina cause i want some - so im actually glad social constructs of sex and gender exist, so i can express my mneeds!) cause my dysphoria isnt linked to society norms, but my own norms/wants and needs i formed with my inner consciousness.
Transgenderism isn't a "new" social phenomenon...gender non-conformity and fluidity have been around for a longgg time. Shows how much people actually know about it
@@Yet.Another.Rapper.KiG.V2 Makes you wonder why...maybe because they always been treated like a joke? History's always written by the people with the power to write it.
the co opting we see today is new. the words are new everything is trying to have white privileged liberals take credit for the first X or Y. this is why we see performative representation and the cancer that is social justice warriors. it's so parasitic. there's no better way. it is all to make sure trans people are kept down than to say "gender is fluid" so the white, upper crust cisfeminsts just stay in power by doubling down on the hetero-patriarchy they CLAIM to fight... as they rake in the cash from that very oppression.
@gerard dearie i use the terms gender non-conformity and fluidity because it's what those things were to an extent. non-conformity of gender roles and a perception of gender performance as something that was fluid and flexible, not inherent. and yes i am aware that gender non-conformity existed all over the place but again, in places where it was shunned there's almost no record of it. but the fact is that yes, christian ideology did often affect the original state of affairs in these societies, in fact COMPLETELY. but focusing on gender non-conforming people, two-spirit people for example became stigmatized and frowned upon when before they had been uplifted, because the spanish believed they were disgusting and "unnatural". even the idea of a sex change is not a new phenomenon, for example the Roman emperor Elegabalus apparently dedicated a lot of time to try and find someone who could somehow give him or her a sexual reassignment. You could argue that he is the epitome of the ruling class which goes hand in hand with the argument now that transition is a bourgie concept, but we also simply don't know if there weren't other gender non-conforming people in those times who had body dysphoria because historians hardly ever wrote from their perspectives. i was arguing this in the first place because the caption for the video calls transgenderism and fluidity a "recent social phenomenon" when clearly it's not. clearly most people don't know much about trans history or care to try and learn. and you're a real hypocrite trying to insult me for not having any "original ideas" as if any of your ideas are original either lol. At this point hardly any ideas are really original.
I don't get why are compulsory decisions are the "truly free" ones? So Zizek says: 1) German Idealism and Freud allow us to explain in a materialistic way how something contingent can be experienced as a predestination/a necessity. 2) Couple examples of compulsory acts are given, with assertion that they are "highest free acts" - examples are resisting enemy occupants and falling in love. Does it show even a little bit why something done out of compulsion becomes a truly free act? Maybe I am misunderstanding something?
Reason is the slave of emotions. The emotions are free, not reason. Thus the choices that are really ours are made deep in our emotions and not part of the objective self. We are no the object of our self consciousness. That is a mere projection of our true selves
@@idiomaxiom I disagree with the excessive naturalists that we're nothing, but cattle. I also disagree with the Utopian Leftists that we're nothing, but chattel.
@@ZSd4cT so, to put it in simple terms, the freedom, to which Zizek refers, consists in not restraining the inner compulsion? It is hard for me to believe that it is truly freedom, though. An opiates addict probably sees getting his dose as a necessity, but few people would agree that him taking drugs would be an act of true freedom.
1 of the few men on Earth that I can trust. He speaks truth. I feel & agree with everything he says that's how I know he's a man of sense, hard to come by. Take care Zizek, I'd like to meet you someday.
If gender is socially constructed, then why do transgenders choose to switch genders at all? Therefore, why would anyone biologically feel like a man or a woman if it's socially constructed? Ironically, case in point, transgenderism itself is socially constructed. Just trying to have a thoughtful positive discussion.
Think I can attempt to answer this, but I’m not part of this community so please correct me if I speak wrongly From what I understand, those who speculate that gender is socially constructed aren’t necessarily against gender labels in general. It’s just more so a wish to recognise that they are just that, labels, and that often these are just individuals who don’t innately feel like the characteristics of one label, the one they have been assigned by birth, particularly applies to them. In most cases I imagine these are quite abstract feelings and generally I think a loosening of the labels is a positive thing for gender conforming people even; would certainly do a lot for mental health/feelings of inadequacy. Some activists and thinkers go a step further and ask to remove labels entirely. I’m personally not sure that’s so useful as the ability to articulate identity is important, but I do generally agree that a strict labelling of gender isn’t entirely necessary nor widely applicable. Then there’s the question of if it’s socially constructed at all. Some would say you had to prove that, but I think the burden of proof is more so on those who maintain that it isn’t. To do so, you’d have to prove that absolutely none of your masculinity or femininity is socially influenced and I think that is a very hard thing to do
This is why I sometimes get frustrated by philosophers. He said something that was so interesting and unqiue for so many in what might have been the worst way imaginable
do not confuse philosophers with rhetoricians the one seeks and wants to be friends with wisdom the other has just a gift in speech and can make everything sound good
Only the softer sociological, humanities, and psychiatric disciplines started using 'gender' in the ‘70s in increasing numbers. The harder, natural sciences were far less likely to use the term at all, and were not likely to attach any meaning to it that would indicate a difference between 'gender' and 'sex.' When an lgbtqxyz person says that gender and sex are 'different,' what they're saying is that they WANT them to be different. If gender was in fact a social construct and completely different than sex, no one would feel the need to chemically and/or surgically alter themselves to be the opposite 'gender.' And anyway, if you read queer theory, you'll discover that the whole 'gender is a social construct' routine is a ruse and that the real goal is to do away with the concept of biological sex altogether.
Transgender people get surgery and take hormones purely to align their physical sex (voice, body, emotions, temperament, sex drive, etc) with their perceived gender identity. Gender isn’t JUST a social construct. It’s an outcome of the slow degrading of our creature instincts. In a world where, at least in the west, men and women can work most of the same jobs full-time, and have most of their needs accounted for, there is no longer a need for gender roles as a uniting, population growing tool. Of course, corporations and old fashioned, uneducated individuals will continue to push a gender binary, in the name of profit or hate (which normally stems from insecurity and uncomfortableness in their own femininity). By profit, i mean its much easier to sell boy toys and girl toys, clothes for men and clothes for women. There is also a natural antagonism, which zizek highlights, between the sexes. Corporations, especially social media giants, constantly play on this antagonism in the name of profit.
this is what i've been trying to say but when i do i get attacked! these people who call us the bio-essentialists for saying that certain personality traits or style preferences or preferences for looking a certain way doesn't negate the fact you are a man or a woman. a woman who likes short hair, sports bras that compress her breasts, blue jeans, and mechanics is still a woman! in fact its bio-essentialist to say that she is less than a woman for not conforming to the temporally contingent social contructs set by whichever society she was born into! for example, men used to wear wigs and heels and poofy shirts in some countries. women used to be admired for being fat with facial hair in some countries. these social constructs of what makes something masculine or feminine or what is expected of you change with time and with each society! people always try to say well "gender is a spectrum" no. personality is a spectrum. or rather, a grab bag. sex is binary, as it is in every other mammal species on earth.
Same here…it’s so funny to because it’s always the people who police other people’s language & the general discourse around sex/gender who fundamentally have no idea what they are even talking about. Usually these are the same individuals making erroneous accusations of essentialism. Acknowledging that humans have sexed bodies on which gender is imposed is the opposite of essentialism. Claiming that humans possess an innate/natural sense of gender which determines whether we are men or women takes essentialism to a new extreme.
You are not a “trans” anything….and neither am I….we are just cosplayers. Nothing more. Some of us are cosplayers on hormones with our dicks cut off and fake tits. Nothing more….stop lying to yourself and be honest. You 100% KNOW I’m speaking the truth.
I agree that liking short hair, mechanics or any other stereotypically masculine thing does not have anything to do with wether someone is a woman or not. I believe that gender is a separate thing from gender roles, but that it is also a separate thing from sex. Both sex and gender is mostly binary, though intersex people exist so not 100% when it comes to sex, and I'd say non-binary people exist so likewise with gender.
After all that talk, he ultimately circles back to the traditional idea of gender being binary and static. I.e. "you have to really know yourself to make your final decision about what you truly are, none of this 'happy free-floating' stuff and so on and so forth". But assuming he knows as much about gender science as I do (very little) he can't know that 'happy free-floating' isn't a valid, fully realized expression of true identity.
Yeah as someone who is non-binary-and has read only a little Zizek-I cannot tell if what he means is restrictive to a gender binary, or if he is wary of a mis use of “transgender struggle”. If the former were the case then maybe by now he has recognized the struggle non-binary people also face as a consequence to gender nonconformity, because it doesn’t seem incongruent with the argument already put forward?
it’s almost as if trans people aren’t to blame for the existence of discourses of essentialism. they are already extant, historically reified. the weight of biologically determined gender binaries weighs on all of us, but luckily for some people their (biologically determined) gender identity aligns with their sex. trans people have to contend with being constituted in a social system that assigns them an identity to which they don’t identify - this is surely where the “radical choice” is, and not in the moment of surgery. zizek needs to stop blaming the last ones through the door to social acceptance for their subsumption into capitalism or their supposed fetishism of free choice; even if those latter points are true, it is only the case because the social system trans people are accepted into is already one that hierarchises and defined agency in capitalist terms. once again, the issue is with the legacies of patriarchy and the exploitative practices of capitalism, not trans people.
![Baby Kia - GLOVES & DRACS (BLACK AF1s) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ajm8LeB0qQk/mqdefault.jpg)
If you want to get Zizek's 'I WOULD PREFER NOT TO' t-shirt you can do so here:
i-would-prefer-not-to.com
Żiżek had been born into the wrong nose and now his hands subcosciously reject it and so on and so on
Tbh it looks almost like tics. Who knows.
watch him talk on his mother language, he doesnt do that
"what i wanted to say is"...this was a brilliant comment
@@wrxzboost don't say "who knows . Better say who nose .•°
lmfaooooo
As a trans woman, I find this refreshingly humanizing -- here Zizek is seeing the decision of transition divorced from any cultural baggage, simply as a quite radical decision a person makes to themselves. It's ironic that his closing sentence hews so close to the liberal platitude of "you're so brave!" yet it is entirely divorced from any narrativising, and is predicated on something (compared to the cynicism inherent in 'braveness') much more fulfilling, optimistic, and universal.
Just wanted to say that recently, this is one of the "arguments" which has made it easier for me to understand trans people in general. Not feeling super "masculine" myself as a man, I still never felt like I wanted to be anything else. Judith Butler's work has made it sound like gender identity is strictly performative AND also something relevant to everyone. I much prefer the "feeling compelled" argument because it first of all makes it okay for me to reject gender identity for myself, BUT also touches upon the arguments of religious individuals or the Nitzschean idea of certain affects creating impulses, some stronger than others. It is not an essentialist argument but also refrains from being fully anti-essentialist. As an autistic person, this is very heartwarming. For instance, of course I'm physiologically different in some ways, but in other ways, my autistic identity is only important because our society isn't exactly made for people like me! and that's normal, I'm not even complaining, however, I can choose to mask and "fit in" without never actually feeling like I really fit in. In that sense, my identity is anti-performative. I think the trans community and the autistic community have quite a bit in common!
You are a man
@@julienbguyon8956 I think you've really hit on something, because this "not fitting in" that autistic people already feel is why autistic trans people are often more happy to come out than non-autistic trans people. A non-autistic trans person (eg. me) feels like we won't be accepted in society if we come out. But an autistic trans person may already feel like they're on the outside, so coming out as trans is different for them.
If you're interested, I would like to outline something about performativity, becuass it might help to explain. Performativity is about more than just gender. It's the idea that a chair is a chair _because_ it is something designed to be sat on. As in, it's wrong to say a thing designed that way because it is called a chair. When I call something a chair, I'm saying that _because_ of its design. As an anecdote, my young sister used to say "it's got pretty wings, that's why it's a butterfly". We used to laugh at how cute this was, but actually she's 100% correct. When we engage with the world, we look at what the thing is, what it's "performance" in the world is, and then we label it. So when we speak about performances, we're not talking about people like we're movie actors. It's more of a philosophical understanding: things gain their labels based on how they act. When you see someone in the street that looks like a man, you call them a man because of their "performance". Not a deliberate performance, philosophically speaking it's just how that person appears and acts.
Think of a body part you have, could be any body part. Would it have the same name if it had a completely different shape and function? If I had a sword for a hand, would it still be called a hand? (Sorry for the long reply, I'm a sociologist and philosopher so I get quite nerdy about this stuff!)
As a non binary Person I can say that this is very similar to an ontological Problem, it's very hegelian , the most high of expression about the zizek's talk is the Agender identity, and derivation of the Words conclusively will run on a different idea as said Hegel, and that is re-construccion of the original idea, Dialekte. Been agender is not the Opposition (oposition) of "have" gender is the result of a derivative process , but at the same time, required discrimination (a "fight") between this concepts: " Born girl or boy" following this sentence it will came as a contradiction.
You cut your balls off you’re not a hero
I love his raw humanity. No matter how high and advanced we aim to be our dirty, filthy raw, small creature humanity is who we truly are. I hope to never ever forget this. He pulls me to where there is the most clarity. He does this most effectively for me.
i don't know how you got that from him but ok. and honestly.
@@VolkColopatrion I understand. I've heard his lectures before and esteem his POV. What I like is how he goes deep into the most base, fundamental elements of a topic. I find that reassuring and consider myself lucky that somebody did all that mental work and was noble enough to share it for free.
Yes, whilst he does joke to some degree, with the absurd detail. He has a way of revealing things, so that you all of a sudden see the reality. It is quite extraordinary, and I have not seen someone quite like him.
@@VolkColopatrion Well, you're just a lurking troll, so what would you know.
Woah there. He isn't that ugly.
“The greatness of transgender is for me precisely that it brings us very close to this radical level of freedom.”
- Slavoj Zizec
Where is this in the video?
@@thurbacusslink1543 the very last sentence
ruclips.net/video/ScZCL0KYj3M/видео.html
The freedom to be castrated and dependant on hormones for the rest of your life so that you don't get busted? There's no greatness in that. It is a neoliberal brainwashing scheme and it is highly misogynous. It should be attacked where ever it raises its ugly head.
但是这也只停留在它能带来的自由的烈度上了，他还是不敢进一步对这种本质主义的批判
So, from my limited understanding, Zizek does not buy ideas like gender fluidity because he feels that it does not demonstrate the same overwhelming need for assuming one's correct identity. I suppose you could counter by saying that genderfluid people might feel a different overwhelming need, not to transition to one identity, but to be allowed to express the identity they feel at a certain point in time. It's not an overwhelming need to make a transition to a specific social role, but to be allowed to freely express a social role based on a need that is similarly strong, but changes regularly. On the other hand, if the need to express oneself as gender fluid is not as strong as the need to transition to a binary gender, why should we disregard it? Even if it's not as strong a need, it's still there.
I think he's pointing to the contradiction at the emerging ethos of many "nu-trans" people, such as gender-fluid, non-binary etc. and what has historically been the strongest defense/line of reasoning for people who felt they needed to live as the other sex. It seems to me he's mostly demonstrating the fracture that is occurring not just among the LGBT+ "community", but among even just the more tightly defined trans group in itself.
I think you summed it up best with "even if it's not as strong a need, it's still there". Because it is one of the most radically life-shifting changes you can make, for it to be sincere it would have to come from the deepest convictions you have, that would make it basically not a choice at all. Much of the "nu-trans" people build the lack of conviction right into their identity and ideology, crow-barring up the biological essential argument that trans people have relied on since forever.
@@dillonjohnlane Dillon Lane I suppose the key is to convince people that both concepts of gender identity can coexist. I'm fine with that, but I can see how the LGBTQ+ community at large can have difficulty getting people to accept that when their argument for the validity of transgender identity for years has been how powerful the need to transition is. To avoid specific identities counteracting one another in the public eye, the narrative might need to be about how much gender identity varies from person to person, and how allowing people to live as they identify benefits them. Break down barriers between cis, binary trans, non fluid non binary, and fluid non binary and help people understand the idea of a spectrum.
What he is saying is quite straightforward. Alot of the LGBTQ language indicates a fluidity that makes gender something non essential (which zizek notes has to do with Butlers influence). What he is asking is if gender really was non essential then why would people seek to transition towards a specific gender that they were _supposed to be_ but currently aren’t? That implies essential and not fluid.
I don't think he 'does not buy it', but rather he is not so fascinated by it. Decisively claiming a certain gender identity, binary or not, is for him "radically choosing your self" and thus the ultimate expression of freedom. Fluidity of gender and sexuality, on the other hand, appears to him as indecisiveness, rather than 'bullshit'. He speaks from the constructivist perspective in which gender & sexuality are not ahistorical, and he sees ideological choice as way to mediate the dichotomy between a fluid and a fixed identity .
On a separate note, I disagree with the claim that fluidity means indecisiveness. I think it rather means that this 'radical choice of Self' is not pinned down to gender or sexuality as opposed to other identities. Even if it was a holistic fluid identity - broader 'queerness' - then this identity in itself may be an identity of resistance, which remains a 'radical choice of Self'.
@@metaouroboros690 A nice ocean travel; it brang me to some reflexions:
At least, one Cultural (it might be larger though) evidence of the existance of an overwhelming Need of Gender Fluidity may be observed in artistic/poetic activities, hobbies or professions involving, for example, Character Play, Roleplay, Acting, the use of the Mask (the complex, cenic concept of a Mask found in Theatre Literature), etc. Actually, it would be plausible to even propose the idea that, fields such as Theatre, Cinema, Dance perhaps, would not even have became Realities if this process of shifting, of fluid genre-character energy, didn't exist beforehand (I've mixed genre-character because these are much closer concepts to each other than we'd like to consider, regarding the deep Pleasure that can emerges from this kind of Play; that is, when it doesn't just become a Prison of Suffering for an individual, for example, who cannot Play); this observation also includes the Identification phenomena, which could be said happen also on the Public appretiation of performing Characters by the Artists, meaning that Gender Fluidity wouldn't just affect the Acting subjects, but the Public as well. So that the fluid energy is not limited to a simple Intra-Subjective matter, but to an extended Relational/Cultural/Inter-Subjectivity matter; it's much more Explosive/Implosive than what Zizek would be observing, from this video fragment at least.
Slavoj Zizek on Joe Rogan, I want.
"Hold that microphone... a little further away from your face please."
"Wow, Ideology is crazy, man. Have you tried DMT?"
Joe literally would not be able to keep up with what he's talking about
Joe is such a centrist idiot, I would love to see his confusion
Joe Rogan is good enough for Americans.By far he's the dumbest talk show host I have ever watched.Guy's only source of information is Wikipedia or sponsored documentary and nothing more. The guy must have never read one single book or a page n claims to be intellectual.
Zizek would make a great baseball coach
"Get a few base hits and so on and so on."
*first inning*
"The game is coming to an end"
Opposing team could never steal his signals! 😂
Would be wasted
i wish Caitlin Jenner wasn't the defacto icon for transgender :c
I don't know that Caitlin is, or at least I really hope not. This channel uses a few clickbaity thumbnails for various topics Zizek covers, and while I'd tend to be annoyed normally, perhaps it exposes Zizek content to people who otherwise might not have clicked on it if they didn't go for the "bait." So perhaps it's good, in a way, even if it's maybe annoying to see.
I know right, she’s like the worst example. She’s still valid obviously but from a pure optics perspective she’s like a TERF caricature of us.
I wish Caitlyn Jenner also wished that
I can't speak for all trans people, but it seems to be a popular opinion.
i dont know who this Jenner person is, maybe they are important in the USA. isnt Natalie Wynn the icon for transgenders internationally?
The reason I love this guy is by loving him I accept myself way better in the relationship to other people.
I think it is really interesting how he talks about it being a nessecity, not having a choice
I find squirrels interesting.
@@JaneChristensen. well said
@@JaneChristensen.
Sure, but does that mean trans women are literally adult human females?
Well, free will as most people conceive it is a naive fantasy. It's like trying to propel a sail boat by placing a fan behind the sail.
Scooby McDoobers You’re beginning to touch on the problems but don’t quite realize the problem with the question you asked....
The comparison to being a resistance fighter in an occupied country is actually genius, I’m gonna steal that
In picking one of the archest neoliberal trans icons to appear in the thumbnail who ever is in charge of creating this clip is making a different argument than zizek seems to be making.
I too am deeply aware of the the bent of the curator of his words
@@israelcrane6424 Being?
Could it not just be clickbait?
Your comment is embarrassment by association, there is nothing dialectically incorrect about associating Jenner with a discussion of transgenderism
The content is very welcome, but the thumbnails and titles of the videos on this channel are very clickbait-y. Might be me just rejecting these capitalist norms (21st century marketing)... but I hate it. What you pointed out is just adding insult to injury at this point. Oh well.
I really love the way that he thinks about gender and sexuality, as making a “choice” about yourself that is in reality not at all choice but an essential part of who you are. However, and I have read very little Zizek, so what I am about to say might be refuted or mentioned somewhere else in his almost daunting body of work, I think his assertion that by claiming fluidity this person is avoiding the hard choice of self is just laying out two or three boxes (man, woman, neither) and then not contemplating whether or not there may be more boxes than what he is claiming. If someone is assigned man at birth, undergoes HRT to acquire a “female” body, and then identifies as non-binary, I don’t think that is some denial of the choice, but the choice itself. Whether or not it fits within the standard boxes that western society payed out to us is irrelevant to the fact that they have made that choice.
Again, I am an idiot and also a teenager, I don’t actually know anything, so if I horribly misrepresented his position then I am sorry.
Never apologise for supposed naivety on the grounds of being a teenager. You have a viewpoint on a topic 95% of the adult population do not.
@@jonasgeist7779 ignore this guy, because you should be lauded for appreciating your own ignorance and naivety. Jonas's response is an empty pleasant platitude that distracts from giving you the credit for what you have been capable of doing that most won't - regardless of their age. As for your own ignorance, we all have plenty of it, and you're right that being quite young means a lack of life experience. This isn't your fault or some bad thing you've done. However it is still true, and recognising your own shortcomings shows great emotional maturity and will allow you to learn new perspectives and help shape the world for the better as you hopefully try to follow truth and figure out what you're wrong about. But "never apologise for supposed naivety on the grounds of [something excusable]" is going to take you further away from that, not closer to it.
The west is overdosing on its individualism.
Yeah the options are there to identify as non-binary but the fact that you'll be trans, take HRT and still prefer to exist in a nebulous realm with regards to your identity sounds to me like an allergic reaction to all of that Ego you lot in the west just can't seem to get enough of.
@@auscaliber1 Absolutely based
Those are not "Western standards". Almost every culture has male and female.
Reality is not easily ignored. It's a job that requires lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of words.
Zizek says trans rights
that is so reductive. the people who say "x says trans rights" were and are part of the problem that keeps transsexuals down.
hrt is gate kept. the economic and social privilege is inarguably in favor of the female assigned rather than the male... and this sjw bullshit is making it far more difficult for the very people they say to protect.
ruclips.net/video/Jt_G9vRfl_4/видео.html it's such a white saviorist kind of deal and it must leave society or we will all live in suffering.
in this video he's very VERY critical of the gender fluid bullshit that is so common. and all the people that say "trans rights" ... are just people who don't know or can't see what's infront of them... or don't care
Incredibly cringe.
@@sphericalred He's not arguing for ''abolishing gender". He's arguing for an ethics of subjectivity. He's pointing at the fragile status of individual desire, and how contingency and necessity isn't differentiated terms. We can't abolish gender, because our desire isn't simply our own creative issue. We will always model ourselves on external coordinates, but this isn't "a bad thing", it is what ties ud together. Supporting trans rights is not about 'breaking' anything, it's about accentuating personal freedom of forced choices ~
@@VolkColopatrion goddamn someone makes a joke and fuckers like you are all over it lol
Baaed from what I understood, the decision of switching to another gender identity is a very radical form of freedom that requires episodes of psychological crises to fully finalize. Additionally, one also needs to feel the NECESSITY of becoming trans in making that decision. In summary, being trans is one of the most important decisions one can make during their life and because of that, it needs to be taken very seriously. The only problem is that some people DO NOT take it seriously and play around too much with gender identities to the point where it unfortunately becomes a laughing stock.
Another way of looking at it: societies with fixed-at-birth binary gender ideologies make it particularly difficult to experiment with one's gender, exacerbating dysphoria in trans individuals.
If someone wants to claim that they don't experience dysphoria (or, more likely, that those experiences are so mild that they don't recognize them as dysphoria), then I'm certainly not going to demand that they suffer as much as I do to be allowed to experiment as much as I would have in my teens and twenties had I not felt so psychology smothered by the weight of society's expectations.
Edit: to be clear, I'm not asserting that experimentation must conclude with settling into a binary role. I'm binary trans, and my experimentation led me to the realization of my femininity. If people settle into fluidity, and remain there (which they do), then they are asserting an identity just as valid and affirming as any binary trans or nb person.
You don't need to be part of the problem.
If your problem with people being "in insufficient amounts of pain" to "really" be transgender is that this makes people not take transgender people seriously, you'er hardly helping by... saying they're right to stop taking transgender people seriously.
Instead, consider: What harm is being committed, and who are you to decide if someone is "in enough pain", or that this is the only metric by which you can assess whether someone is "really" transgender.
I feel like it would be more radically free to entirely reject & redefine gender than to accept society’s boxes.
@@folkloreuh Gender abolitionism, you see that too in trans communities.
@@folkloreuh gender accelerationism is a good read
'And so on.'
- Zizek, Slavoj
u know maybe instead of summarizing personal interpretations in the comments, it might be better if we asked specific questions and added specific pieces of knowledge about parts of this talk. just an idea
"be the change you want to see in others"
I dont fully understand zizek here, and i won't make any critisisms. All i know is i am a man who is bi, and likes to look slightly ambiguous. I like my more feminine characteristics (long hair, naturally red lips, skinny frame ect.). I dont feel strongly enough to go through a radical chance, but i enjoy being in this middle grey area, but i still consdier myself to be a man, even if a more feminine one. I always assumed this means im "gender fluid" but i have no idea. All i know is i think of myself in more masculine/feminine ways at different times. Sometimes ill feel more masculine and, for a bit, only find women attractive. Other times i feel more feminine and id love to be with a guy.
If someone else is more familiar with the terms and can give a solid guess as to where i fit in the terminology, id love to hear your thoughts. I just assumed this is what gender fluidity is and i can choose to act/dress more straight or fruity depending on how i feel at the time.
I really don't understand why people need "terms". You're a bisexual, male. That's all anyone needs to know. Having a unique name for the infinite shades of sex, sexuality and gender roles is as dumb as coming up with a name for every shade of blue eyes. Just call them blue and be done with it.
As a hegellian, Zizek tends to think in binary terms, even if it's complex binary relationships.
While he makes a compelling argument, his frame of thinking still doesn't capture the complexities of gender imo.
Wow! This is such a compassionate and wise statement about gender.
0:34 - 0:40
Goldmine
He should be a poster man for covid 19. What NOT to do. 😅😅😅🤣🤣😂😂
Heh true. But if you're in physical social isolation, there's no danger in touching your face and such, let's not be silly.
Paradoxically; that's so wrong, yet totally right.
Hahaha good one
Covid 19 not exist
He has tourette's that's why the touching and the tongue clicks
He hits the nail on the head, transgender rights are a matter of freedom, the choices will be subconscious and sometimes radical like love or other matters of identity, but that's what freedom is make choices as we want them, regardless of their subconcious or whatever origin they have.
There is this thing with free choice. It can be wrong. You maybe didnt saw the whole picture. Maybe your mind way corrupted.
Society rn seems to push the idea that you cant go wrong on this gender question which is wrong and dangerous for alot of easiliy influenced mainly young people.
I wonder how many times he gets pink eye.
I like his last line though. About radical freedom and how it's connected to the act of transitioning.
It seems like a misunderstanding of what "gender is a construct" means, all it means is that we as a group apply labels based on certain characteristics and some people are given a label that doesn't fit with their characteristics or their ideal characteristics of self. So yes changing certain characteristics to be closer to their ideal self which involves changing how society labels you would feel freeing.
But if we say took a bunch of stereotype labels and applied them to a certain "rais" (misspelling to get past YT) - e.g. "likes rap, wears x clothes, likes watermelon and fried chicken, talks in this particular slang, walks like this, etc." - this is very obviously offensive to put onto "blake" people. A "why it" person "identifying" with that stereotype and adopting a "Blake" identity is obviously repulsive. &. a Blake child who said "I don't want to eat watermelon or talk like this, or do x y and z - I must really be why it, so let me why it en my skin and get surgeries like Michael Jackson" - we would obviously see why that was messed up.
But somehow it's different when it's regressive limiting stereotypes we're assigning to men and women? This is freeing? For who? It's dragging us backwards. "Oh the little boy plays with dolls. He must really be a girl"
@@L_Martin ... That is comparing apples to a racist stereotype of an orange....
@@vivianm1851 It is sexist though.
Sexism = women must do the dishes
(old) Feminism = women and men should do the dishes
Gender Identity Theory = whoever does the dishes is the woman
@@L_Martin and that is a strawman.
@@vivianm1851 Ok, what is a "female gender identity" then? Can you describe it?
Zizek said trans rights!
Ehhh not genderfluid though
@@markcangila1613 He doesn't appear to be speaking from authority there (i.e., delving into the lives and experiences of gender fluid people) so it's possible that his mind could change with new information. Seems more ignorance giving way to flippancy rather than a deeply held opinion.
he didn't said they should have any less rights, that's just your assumption
I love him
I appreciate his intellect but he just makes me laugh for so many reasons xD I love him and so on and so forth
Intellect? That was a non meaningful philosophy. there is nothing to appreciate in going through extreme pain to become trans, it only shows suicidal and self loathing traits, trying to deny the reality of who you are, it is cowardly, sick and inhuman, one of the worst atrocities in history of humans.
"Sniff"
This video gave me an outlook I did not have before, even though I have debated these issues on multiple occasions. Not sure whether I agree or not with that new outlook (it is something I will have to debate and research myself) but for that seed I am very grateful to Dr Zizek (and I say that as a person who was routing for Dr Peterson :). Well constructed and thought out arguments. Thank you!
I think a big difference is that zizek has deep understandings for the ideas and positions. Whereas peterson often thinks he understands and injects his own logic and valuations in this analyzez of topics.
Now for the love of God listen to some Trans and non binary people speak on this or read some theory on it, zizek did alright but he doesn't understand gender fluidity
I just hope we find kindness and happiness together, as a trans person and philosophy enthusiast I am open to the idea of different ways of understanding trans people as long as we can have the grace and humanity to respect who they are at the same time not debate their right to exist if that makes sense 😊
@@MC-ns8gb I've listened to many trans and non-binary people trying to make a case about their own existence, ideas, motives and proclivities and one thing was made very clear to me from listening intently to them: they are ones that LEAST understand gender fluidity. Want to know why? Because they have an intrinsic conflict of interest. To wholly understand something is mandatory to analyze it from all angles; however, they are utterly unable to adopt any perspective other than theirs because to do so they must first negate their own existence. And if they'd adopt that self-negating perspective, even for the sake or argument, their original, self-reassuring logic would crumble into dislodged pieces of ad hoc arguments to support a confirmation bias. Hence, they don't even try.
You see, in reality nobody understands anything apart from their own logic, but not all logics are actually logically valid. As a result, everyone is wrong and everyone is right at the same time depending on perspective, but reality doesn't concern itself with perspective. This whole identity debate is absolutely useless outside the legal arena.
@beaterbikechannelmfga2538 like what?
He's making a weird point at the end, looking at fluid identities as being prescriptive rather than descriptive (and thus not being genuine in his opinion). To me it seems like the complete opposite - it's not people waking up in the morning and deciding to be straight/gay today, but noticing that at certain periods of time the have different tendencies.
You could form a similar argument about rigid identity being prescriptive - one calls themselves "straight" because they were attracted to the opposite sex up until now, but they can't really know what the future holds, so by identifying as straight you already decide who you're gonna fall in love with.
I don't think this kind of logic holds
Oded Sayar yea I mean who really does constitute in their needs and desires absolute consistency? Being a person is a consistent process of inputs and outputs which generate state changes so radical at times that some people may on some days completely struggle to identify with the person they were the previous day. Struggle to make sense of the things they wanted and did and the decisions they made.
@@allisondoak9425 Yes there's a term for that : mental illness.
@@user-bt1cl4ex6d Actually it isn't mental illness. It is however a mental illness to be incapable of altering and adapting yourself.
Mental illness is a mental condition that generates suffering for yourself and/or other people. It is a mental condition that makes you inapt for social life and interaction. Things that alienates you from others.
Pixo Crayon if your sexual identity changes from day to day and you feel constantly alienated (which causes suffering), it’s a mental illness. That term has a negative connotation so people often don’t want to use it, but that’s what it is.
@@user-bt1cl4ex6d this is a similar debate to ableism. The solution is to accomadate people, not to try to "fix" them
So interesting. He’s so famous for his contrarianism and it can become a bit fatiguing. But here it’s given me a big avenue to explore this subject from the perspective of a cis gender male heterosexual (as I understand he is but correct me if I’m wrong).
“Choose yourself”
“Radical choices”
“Radical level of freedom”
He’s acknowledging the bravery of these hard choices and it’s helpful to consider that no matter what side you’re on.
In this, I hear him saying that choice doesn't figure into it but a compelling truth that a person has no choice but respond in singular way. Radical freedom is in the commitment to one type of action, and there appears no other action would produce a sufficiently truthful outcome.
I assume Slavoj by saying "multiple identities" refers to gender fluidity (even if he's talking about sexual orientation afterwards). But it is not about changing the identities and switching between them occasionally but rather refusing to claim any gender identity constructed by the culture. Dualism very rarely applies to human behavior (they're good vs. they're bad, they're straight vs. they're gay and so on) so why it has to apply when it comes to gender identity? Also, the "pain of transition" probably differs from one country to another (e.g. Thailand vs. Saudi Arabia), ergo it is defined by the culture itself.
Rosh lol
@Rosh There are generally two sexes (there's also intersex people), which are determined by your organs. Gender is a social construct which should be abolished because it sets arbitrary roles and expectations that people have to follow in order to be masculine/feminine which greatly limits the freedom to act however you want.
@Rosh there's no gender but what we make for ourselves
well you can argue that there is a biological factual dualism. (exclude the cases of intersex). this starts with basic stuff like having certain sexual "equipment". you can continue with behaviour difference. now it gets more difficult but so far science rather suggests there are inherently differences based on biology. this obviously rather goes for general speaking because individuals are always different. regarding dualism itself: there is no good or bad only. there are forms inbetween. however you can still judge somewhat precisly whats good or bad overall. so why shouldnt you be able to differentiate gender. ofc some individuals might be in the middle but biological wise you can make differences.
@@DINOzye my problem with abolishing gender is this: how do we do it?
And then: what do we get instead of It? I mean, lets say we abolish gender in some Great Revolution, what do we end up with? I am no longer a man? Woman is not a thing anymore? What about trans women who explicitly say they are not men, but women? No disrespect, these are genuine questions
Doctor Zoidberg?
I KNEW HE SOUNDED FAMILIAR!
This is literally the best take I have heard on transgenderism ever.
That thumbnail is hilarious.
Thirsty Slavoj
@@robertstan298 I would pay money for a pic of him squatting on a corner in a Mack hat, Adidas Sweats, a liter bottle of Absolut in his right hand... and a bag of sunflower seeds in his left. XD
they interrupted him at the fucking best part,
I am so fucking angry XD
me encanta la cursed energy de ir encocao y en chándal a la conferencia HSHSJSJDVDNSVDNFF en fin
Hshaa se le hace agua la ñata al ñor
Tics nerviosos
Cool! I'm happy hearing what he had to say. I am also on a long journey with my gender and I agree with him on these points.
Don't be on any journey with your gender/race/class and how you differ from others. Be on a journey with your deeds and what unites you with others.
@@thescholiast5118 Agreed. I find the whole notion of 'exploring gender' nauseatingly self indulgent. A prevailing group in society seem to be prioritising narcissistic tendencies whilst espousing social justice. The other end of end of the political spectrum is equally horrid.
@@rscoops3986 Self-discovery is narcissism? I think the notion that some think they do not need it, and so, therefore, others cannot be genuine with it, to be much more narcissistic. This seems like one of those very basic "both sides are bad, I'm good" arguments.
@@4NiOtnsgtr How does one explore gender?
@@rscoops3986 Becoming open to the arbitrary gendered standards that exist, be open to the struggles that everyone has differently. Break those standards as much as you feel comfortable to do. Discover a hobby that might be frowned upon by peers of your gender, wear stuff that they would not... The list can be endless, but it can be whatever you want it to be.
My issues with trans activism [obviously, not trans people] is the widespread conflation of sex & gender on three levels: rhetorically, conceptually, and [especially] terminologically and the consequences of this conflation which is the fact that a materialist analysis of gender not possible without being erroneously accused of “essentialism” or having a phobia.
The idea that being a man or a woman is based on a persons subjective self-concept a very recent development. Gender was commonly understood to refer to the constructs of “masculine” & “feminine”, which certain *things* [e.g. words, behaviors, social roles, abilities, mannerisms, clothing/fashion, names, personality traits, professions etc] are categorized based on what is deemed socially/culturally appropriate for either men or women, respectively. Man and woman are not types of gender but the specific words for male and female humans.
Pretty sure the terms men and women already existed before we even knew how to biologically categorize humans.
@@ramina6568 any evidence for that?
A big problem here is that every time a social struggle like this occurs, conservatives are the ones who keep getting to set the terms of the argument thanks to their immense media presence. And they will always do whatever they can to poison the well and make it as hard as possible for people to actually hear what activists are really trying to say.
And this has been the case with every single civil rights movement going back as far as you want to go back.
@@finprol943 no.
For me "being" bisexual there was always an essentialist idea of my "being", an ontological claim, but also a certain freedom (that was also not freedom), I was still going to be essentially who I was no matter what.
But I would also say that having flexibility has given me more of a phenomenological perspective that gay and straight people don't have. I could more easily say "this is an aspect of myself".
But I saw what Zizek noticed that most LGBT people tend to essentialize and universalized even in ways which are irrational projections onto history and cross culturally. Therefore I actually met no LGBT postmodernists, or very few. Perhaps the most Postmodern LGBT activists was Peter Tatchell but he fell out of favor precisely because he saw LGBT within a context and not so naively universal.
I think this is very similar with what happened with intersectionality in college campuses. None of the people who proclaimed it as the new and standard approach to dealing with conflicts within feminism ever proclaimed themselves to be critical race theorists...they just saw it's political usefulness, and didn't really care much about the idea in and of itself. Butler's ideas can help achieve the cause of Trans liberation, the ideas don't really matter.
That said, LGBT politics, especially at this stage is a perfect description of the fanatcism behind mass movements. That it's the arrogance and rudeness, the sheer incivility that makes them successful and why intellectuals often don't end up leading them to succession, because they are often to burdened by their desire to be understood...not to mention they have a bias against mindless action.
😂😂😂😂
The thing I like to think about is not being transgender itself but rather transhumanist. I make this point because while not all transhumanists are transgender all transgender people are the first stages of transhumanism. The ideal, that no matter what prison you are born into, you can be free while in the same body through augmentation. Like for me, and I mean this as no joke as I myself struggle with my gender. I want to have different legs. The human foot is basically a hand. Our ancestors used our feet to grab and balance in the trees. Now while that is fine and good for our ancestors who weren't bipedal it leads to problems for their descendants, us, who walk on two legs. Our feet, should look like other animals who're are bipedal, who mostly walk on their toes. This is why feet for amputees do not look like normal human feet. The rest is not on a foot but rather a specific point for balance. Now I know some of these limbs also flex to adapt but that's also because of how we walk with feet that shouldn't be bipedal. And the hand feet we have are essentially torture devices. They are the leading result of hip, spine, and knee degeneration over time. Why should it not behoove science to work on ways to improve ourselves? The body is not what makes us human, it is our brains. If you stab a man in the heart he may live, if you remove the brain he will die. Even if you can electrically keep all other systems going, they're not human. The human animal is defined by it's decent from our ancestors and our 'intelligence'. I believe it is our responsibility as humans to struggle against the chains of nature. I hope that before I die I witness the killing of death. If I could be immortal in a cyborg body I'd do it in an instant. Immortality is the blessing every historian, scientist, and philosopher should work toward. If we could crush death then we kill a constant of the universe, which is entropy. Sentience should be the power to wield reality as ones pen scribbling whatever the ink will make. Chaos is not death, it is opportunity. Identity is as far as autonomy can be defined. It is the self determination that I am what I am. I am who I want to be. It is the philosophy of Nietzsche's Ubermensch before his sister bastardized it.
All humans should live as if we are all gods. Not that we have supreme authority over others but of ourselves. If you wish to be a fat glutton be the god of decadence. If you wish to be a soldier, then be a god of war. If you are an artist you are a god of creation. If you are a poet you are a god of language. Whatever you are you must believe you are yourself superior for your abilities and intelligence and you will become superior. However, do not let such a state go to your head. After all, only a god can kill a god.
Vade retro Satana
You should go and meditate for real.
What makes him think that genderfluid people don't have the same urge? The only difference is that it changes from day to day (or weeks, or months...) and, naturally, since we haven't reached a level of transhumanism that is sophisticated enough, some genderfluid people don't surgically transition every day... Gender is contingent, social, genderfluid people are democratising the definition of gender, by expanding it to their subjective experience... To live through this era is fascinating - perhaps we will realise the futility of gender in the future (or not)
Can anyone explain me the kruschev and Crimea joke ?
I think he's refering to the fact that Krushchev was on vacation when Brezhnev plotted his removal from office. But he wasn't in Crimea, but Abkhazia.
@@JobMoeller thank you. Now I get it.
Zizek uses the Hegelian concept of freedom (as "understanding of necessity") as a theoretical tool for explaining transgenderism. According to him, a transgender individual's decision of changing sexual identity is the most radical expression of individual freedom, because it expresses an inner necessity for that individual; it's not a random, or arbitrary choice, and it doesn't need to be the latter kind of choice, in order to be a free choice. Quite the contrary, its being the recognition of a personal necessity is what makes this choice a radically liberating one for those who make it.
One valuable aspect of Zizek's viewpoint is his rejection of the fashionable historicist theory of "gender as social/cultural construct". It's remarkable that Zizek dares to state the rather non-controversial fact, that what transgender people say about themselves actually matches his "essentialist" (neo-Hegelian) view, and does NOT match the fashionable "social construct", "gender fluidity", ideology. For any unbiased observer, this is rather obviously so. Still, what is remarkable here is that Zizek - always the iconoclast - is not afraid to stand up (again!) to political correctness. Given the prevailing climate in Academia nowadays, this is intellectual courage.
Having said that, Zizek's limitations show up here too. As on other issues, he provides a valid criticism of a fashionable ideological standpoint; the problem, however, is with what comes next, which is often just an affirmation of his own biases (e.g., the fascination with Hegel, or in other contexts, the fascination with Marx's revolutionary enthusiasm).
The viewpoint that Zizek stated here is problematic on its own, it raises questions that he, far from answering, is not even raising. The same happens when he states his socialist/revolutionary views. They are extremely problematic, they raise serious questions that Zizek is not able to deal with. To deal seriously with such questions can (in my view) only lead rational persons to turn their back on Zizek's own kind of biases.
About transgenderism: what sense does it make for any person to say that their psychological identity is that of the other biological gender? This is a serious, analytic philosophy, question. If one has experienced only belonging to one biological gender (e.g., male), if the other biological gender (female) is known to this person externally only (as seen from outside), what does it mean to claim the psychological identity of that gender? Is that, in any way, more than a sort of dissatisfaction with one's own identity, coupled with an envy of the other sex (without having experienced that other gender's identity "from the inside", but having only watched it externally)? An envy, a copycat syndrome? What sense does the often quoted (by Zizek too!) statement "I was born in the wrong body" make, when it is made by a person who a. has a perfectly healthy body (nothing wrong with it physically), b. never experienced living in the other sex kind of body, and yet c. wants to modify his body to match the other sex body-type? Anyone who has studied analytic philosophy will understand that these are serious questions; if you only have shallow excuses for those statements, instead of actually making sense of them, then you simply don't make sense. E.g., saying "well, that's how they feel" is not answering the above questions, and accordingly, leaves those transgender statements exposed as senseless.
For those who got tired of this philosophical inquiry, consider what the famous Caitlyn Jenner had to say, AFTER completing transition: "Now I have to LEARN what it is to be a woman, it's not simply wearing make-up, jewelry and dresses". Jenner's words. What it means: the desire for transition, which evidently preceded it, does not, and cannot, involve an actual knowledge, or awareness, of what it actually means to belong to the other gender. So, what sense does it make to say "I belong to THAT gender", when the experience, and awareness, of what belonging to that other gender actually means, does NOT exist? No sense.
Back to the beginning: what about that "personal necessity"? It is indeed how transgender individuals feel; an intense, compulsive feeling, but one that doesn't make sense rationally. As such, according to both Hegel and analytic philosophers, this cannot be genuine freedom.
I'll make it very clear: if for some transgender people what works is gender transition, so be it, I'm happy for them. However, for many it's not so; for them, the psychological problems known under the name "gender dysphoria" persist (or, worsen) after transition.
And for the fans of PC: by cuddling people who actually have a psychological problem, by telling them "you're fine, everything's fine, we're with you!", you are not doing them any favor. This fundamental intellectual dishonesty is NOT a way to help people who are in need of help.
Thank you for this thoughtful post. I really enjoyed reading it. Your mind is highly organized.
@@danielpinci6825 Thank you for the appreciation.
You might wanna provide a citation for the worsening dysphoria assertion.
@@evcarr3008 There are detransitioners; you may hear them speaking about persisting disphoria even after transitioning.
@@SandyBlJ Hi, I enjoyed reading your post. However, there is something that I have to ask - what is the psychological identity of a gender? Of course this is not your term, it is something that transgender people use, but my question is, what does it mean? A man may have a different mentality from a woman, but is that not a result of the social circumstances? If stereotypical gender roles did not exist, would these terms like 'psychological identity' of a particular gender exist at all?
I love the story of the person who did not feel `complete` until he had one of his lower legs amputated. There are so many things we cannot chose, or control, so freedom is acceptance of the diversity that this has already brought to our collective consciousness.
Why do you "love" that? It's a self-destructive delusion, one of the ugliest phenomena that exists
wat
@@AnacreonSchoolbagsJr Yeah seems strange to be happy about that. I'd advice a mental health professional.
Ok, like/amused by/fascinsted/humbled/reassured/astonished instead of love.. One thing I never understand is the burden of one word one meaning, to me it seems an elitist plot to undermine the commoner ... It's akin to spelling busy bodies ...
Churchill said it best ... Pleople when stumbling across the truth will pick themselves up, dust themselves off and carry on as if nothing had happened.
So I think my point is ... If i understand the video then hete is another ecample.
Now lets all run along and play ... On this gravity well orbiting a nuclear furnace 92 million miles away, like it's normal; to paraphrase Douglas Adams
Lui Cirocco yeah, but i think that saying youre some funny type of gender is stupid. Obviously if somebody asks me to use they/them pronounce i wouldnt mind out of respect but after all i think that saying youre other gender than male or female is bullshit. Breaking gender roles and expressing yourself in a way that isnt associated with your sex isnt a big deal. Just be yourself, it’s all good. Saying youre one of 853 genders sounds like not being confident enough to be yourself as your gender, meaning naming your personality as your identity.
Imagine this man as a third base coach.
I wonder if he even knows what baseball is about.
Or do you mean the other third base?
Funniest comment on here lmfao
We agree that gender is different from the biological sex, why would a person needs to change their biological sex to fit the gender they think they are? I don't understand.
"Do I choose this type of coke?"
He-he. Type of coke.
just to clarify: the radical free decision a person makes is, whether to transision or not, but not if you are transsexual in the first place. I dont't know if I got this wrong, but to me it seemed that to Zizek, transsexual people choose to be man or woman, but on a subconscious level, which is then justified by saying "nature made a mistake, I should have been born this way" in order to cope with the radical desicion. Gender is - at least from my expieriance - something that is engraved into our biological existance and not to be confused with gender roles.
Some of his claims would sound very right wing if expressed by anyone else. Here, Zizek implies that there is determinism in "radical" gender choices, but in dismissing fluidity, he is confusing transgender with queer identity. Though often traumatic, not every gender choice is necessarily "full of pain".
Yeah. For me, i see myself as a bi guy, but i think of myself in more masculine/feminine terms at different times. Sometimes i want to look more like a dude and i tie my hair back, let some stubble grow, stand up a little taller. Other times i want to look more feminine/fruity and i let my hair down, maybe put it in curls, make my lips a little redder, stay clean shaven, dont stand as tall, maybe i even go as far as spending a few hours to shave my legs.
There isnt any radical choice in it for me, i just like being in my ambiguous grey area where im not completley taking up any of the traditional characteristics of "Men" or "Women" Im just a person who likes a bit of both at different times.
Zizek should not touch his face so much during a Pandemic
Video is from last year.
As if it matters anyway
Someone needs to tell Slavoj that we've heard all of this and are looking forward to the next evolution of his considerations
What's with his compulsion to touch his face?
Absolutely i want more
Even if I disagree with him, I can't help but love him
Care sharing what you disagree with? I am interested. I haven't made my mind up yet
Wtf ist that thumbnail xD
Guess I came for the thumbnail and stayed for what he had to say
Zizek has great ideas but bad thumbnails.
@@rickardkaufman3988 Dunno why but I thought your comment was really funny. Haha
I don't have any idea of what he's trying to say.
can we talk about the thumbnail
Zizek will have to wear boxing gloves in order to not constantly touch his face during this pandemic.
And his own bag for his dirty handkerchiefs. 😃
I wish I had the thinking power of Zizek.
What is called “identity” is the self-illusion of the actor.
He's basically saying that there are transgender people with intrinsic biological conditions that cause gender dysphoria and ideologues like Judith Butler who make the wrong assertion that gender identity is socially constructed and malleable and that underestimate the real pain that comes with having gender identity disorder.
No
@@cmap1503 YES. You are not a “trans” anything….and neither am I….we are just cosplayers. Nothing more.
Some of us are cosplayers on hormones with our dicks cut off and fake tits.
Nothing more….stop lying to yourself and be honest. You 100% KNOW I’m speaking the truth.
If “COVID-19” was a person.
Better: if the Wuhan wet market was a person
I love listening to him talk, for me his ideas are a thing to follow, second only to Lavey, but that's me, others here would put him first of course.
"o que mais me fascina é certo antagonismo imanente: A ideologia "oficial", digamos assim, do (movimento) LGBT+ (e que eu digo sem nenhuma ironia, de forma benevolentemente) é algo que Judith Butler teria chamado de Historicismo: "ideologia de gênero não é biologicamente determinada, é socialmente e historicamente construída através de jogos performativos e discursivos" e assim por diante...
Ok, mas o que me fascina tanto [...] é que muitos destes caras que de fato fazem operações de transição de sexo falam uma linguagem que é exatamente o oposto, que é brutal e abertamente proibido pela teoria e discurso Historicista de hoje, (é uma) linguagem essencialista: Repetidamente, pessoas que, por exemplo, passam por essa dolorosa operação de "homem" para "mulher", notei como quase sempre usam o termo "estou tão grata que agora finalmente eu vivo em um corpo no qual eu deveria ter nascido".
A linguagem que eles falam é puro Essencialismo, no sentido de que é como se houvesse uma orientação sexual basilar inscrita, seja lá como vamos chamar, "alma" (?), mas que somente houve um "erro ontológico" no meu nascimento por eu ter nascido em um sexo errado. Eu não acho que isso é simplesmente ideologia, o que é crucial. Eu penso que precisamente a referência à psicanálise, ao idealismo alemão, permite-nos explicar de forma materialista como algo que é contingente (opcional) pode, ainda assim, ser experimentado como uma predestinação, como uma necessidade. Tal como aprendemos com Freud e com os grandes idealistas alemães, nossas escolhas verdadeiramente livres não são escolhas conscientes. Nossas escolhas conscientes são bastante superficiais.
O que quero dizer é que - se isso soar abstrato para vocês, permitam-me usar meus velhos exemplos: não é que as ações mais livres são precisamente sempre experienciadas como necessidade? Por exemplo, vamos dizer que seu país é ocupado, e você tem que se juntar à resistência. Você iria pois você sente que você trairia a si mesmo se não o fizesse. Não é uma escolha do tipo "bolo de morango" ou "bolo de baunilha", ou sei lá, é "eu faço isso porque não posso fazer outra coisa". Outro exemplo patético, pense sobre amor: [...] Você nunca se apaixona no sentido de "estou procurando uma mulher bonita aqui, um cara bonito lá; deixe-me fazer uma escolha" - Não! De repente você percebe que você está apaixonado. A decisão nunca é feita no tempo presente.
O que estou dizendo é que esse Essencialismo torna isso claro: se você quer mudar sua identidade sexual (seja com uma cirurgia de transição ou de maneira mais superficial travestindo-se), [...] (isso) continua sendo uma escolha livre e contingente, mas deve aparentar ser para você uma necessidade. Porque? Porque isso é uma decisão radical. Em decisões cotidianas tipo "eu escolho agua ou Coca-Cola ou sei lá..." você já está constituído enquanto Sujeito, e você só faz escolhas. Mas decisões radicais são, num sentido bobo (de dizer), "você escolhe a Si mesmo". É isso que estou tentando fazer: o que eu não engulo na ideologia LGBT+ padrão é essa "identidade fluída" e "feliz", como "Eu posso ter múltiplas identidades; hoje eu sou gay, amanhã eu sou heterossexual, então eu pulo daqui pra lá, e etc., e etc..." - Não! Isso subestima a dor, a dramática decisão de assumir determinada identidade sexual.
E, a grandiosidade dos transgêneros é justamente nos aproximar desse nível radical de liberdade!
yeah that was my favorite part too
Does anyone know from which conference this fragment is taken?
Great opinion. I agree. I can understand someone who feels that is not in a body that "matches" his/her identity. But it's not simply goes buy something at the store in the corner.
transgenderism is not buying something at a store. it is a long and complicated process of consulting with a psychologist, deciding to take hormones, waiting for it to be approved by the doctors, and taking new hormones is not easy for your body to get used to at the beggining. then if you choose to get surgery thats even more stress you have to go through.. nothing easy about it
@@phlasaban so true, ive been going to clinics for a year now and i still havent been able to get hormones cus of how things are in britian
Change the word trans for blind, or deaf or paraplegic. Choice is not brave, it's a luxury. Brave is accepting who you are and making the most of it.
he's trying, bless his heart. more than most do
@@ZSd4cT He's in the wrong side for starters.
@@ZSd4cT he didnt really acknowledge that sex and gender are two different things and gender is the one that is socially constructed while sex is the biological reality many trans people seek to change
@@wister8528 lol i think such an idea is so basic to him he's miles beyond going out of his way to state it. Isn't that implicit in his reference to Judith Butler? What else could he mean?
@@wister8528 If you think Zizek does not know this than you are pretty foolish. Zizek the man that deconstructs social systems for a living knows this and sees it as elementary. Does the weatherapport always have to 'the earth is spherical' every time it's on TV? No
Bad example of "essentialism". People fall in and out of love all the time. Love along with anger are very fluid emotions.
There was a point but you missed it.
@@Kylirr I got it, I just disagree.
You def missed everything he was talking about lol
@@HybridHalfie No I didn't. I just don't agree....
So true, I was born intersex and trans.always was! Much love, Mia. 😇
I hope that you were spared the mutilation that befalls so many intersex children! (And female-bodied people in much of the world, and male-bodied people in even more of the world.)
Oh, cool! (sorry, lack of a better word) I'd like to meet and talk with a intersex person one day,
Anyway, take care!
@@robertstan298 Check out the documentary Intersexion.
@@andrewkohler3707 Transition =/ mutilation.
@mischa sage Ah....
Jeez...As an East European I can understand Polish and English but (in general) when listening to non-native English speaker (I don't mean especially Poles) it cause in me unusual strong frustration and pressing a subtitle button it is like a small defeat for me... but thing get worse when even automatic subtitle function can't recognize a single word(
Hes telling the runner to steal home.
if i wanted to express the femmnine side of myself, which feels strong.
Id cross dress
but i would not define myself as trans
would i define myself as genderfluid? im not sure?
Hmm i agree with most of this video except at the end when he says that he doesnt buy into the free flowing of sexuality. For me at least, my sexuality is very fluid as he describes so i could go almost a week not being attracted to men and then another week being attracted to men exclusively.
Yes but you are still attracted to both. In that way your sexuality is predetermined. Fluid would mean that a gay person chooses to be straight sometimes, and then asexual, and then bi, etc. But in reality, you already know what you are. Same thing with gender.
My problem is what happens to the historical struggles of womanhood? Is it now meaningless.
All seems progressive, until you realise a title like "woman of the year" from glamour magazine was won by a middle aged white guy
Becouse it is a political game and virtue signaling. It is being showed down peoples throats and being pushed to children. That and other noncery.
Don't forget that sex and gender are two different things. The magazine isn't titled "female of the year" or "cis-woman of the year". Precise words are important to describe the complexity and the subtility of reality.
Interesting to hear someone really take “trans is not a choice” seriously in a critical analysis.
Yeah. He doesn't take into account the difference between transsexual and transgender. What he says may apply to transsexuals, but the LGBT+ movement nowadays is all about transgenderism, they do not get any operations, they just declare themselves something else than what they are.
Is it possible that many of those uncomfortable in their present body have a deeper problem but are unable to identify or express it? Sometimes, we name a problem that doesn't really exist and work to solve it, in place of one that we can not comprehend. It is interesting that most of the people who display gender dysphoria come for similar backgrounds. Perhaps, it is something else and the problem needs to be more deeply explored. Many of those who do transform still remain unhappy. Would that be because they solved the wrong problem?
it is interesting to me that he says that this is counter to “mainstream gender ideology”. me, and most other trans people i know have a quite common perception on what it means to be trans, but i don’t find this contentious at all, and a lot of them wouldn’t.
this seems to be perfectly consistent with the way most trans people perceive themselves. at least those who agree with a judith butler way.
We dont choose our sexuality or sex
@Aley Ka voluntarist delusion
Can someone clarify Zizek's claim that starts at 1:45?
Predestination is the key word.
He's got a religiously based stance here .•°
Ladys & Gents ,
I believe we got the "right, double left, right, double left again ,right, both hands " for the first time ever recorded . From the 33sec.
thats just because those who get the surgery are not the same kind of people that do the activism stuff. most transsexuals dont go side by side with the activists ideas - we may accept some goals, but ideologically we think of ourselfs rather essentialist. which is okay, cause basically thats ONE WAY to describe the problem of "having a soul of one kind" and "having a non matching body" - its not a flawless explaination - but its understandable.
problem is, people always assume that sth thats "constructed" must be "unreal" just because gender and sex are constructed (which genitals belong to which gender/sex) doesnt means its without real meaning - it doesnt even invalidate my own idea and outright conviction i do have for 100% certain, that i am a women, that doesnt have a matching body of the corresponding sex. it doesnt determine the validity of my conviction, just its expression.
(to say: if we'd live in a world, where no gender/sex constructs existed, id STILL MISS A VAGINA and would still know it deeply - my conviction would NOT CHANGE, id just be expressing this "dysphoria" differently: by probably just saying i want a vagina cause i want some - so im actually glad social constructs of sex and gender exist, so i can express my mneeds!)
cause my dysphoria isnt linked to society norms, but my own norms/wants and needs i formed with my inner consciousness.
Transgenderism isn't a "new" social phenomenon...gender non-conformity and fluidity have been around for a longgg time. Shows how much people actually know about it
True, but it definitely isn't something that's been talked about (outside of the rare joke) in modern humanity's memory until now.
@@Yet.Another.Rapper.KiG.V2 Makes you wonder why...maybe because they always been treated like a joke? History's always written by the people with the power to write it.
the co opting we see today is new. the words are new everything is trying to have white privileged liberals take credit for the first X or Y. this is why we see performative representation and the cancer that is social justice warriors.
it's so parasitic. there's no better way. it is all to make sure trans people are kept down than to say "gender is fluid" so the white, upper crust cisfeminsts just stay in power by doubling down on the hetero-patriarchy they CLAIM to fight... as they rake in the cash from that very oppression.
@gerard dearie i use the terms gender non-conformity and fluidity because it's what those things were to an extent. non-conformity of gender roles and a perception of gender performance as something that was fluid and flexible, not inherent. and yes i am aware that gender non-conformity existed all over the place but again, in places where it was shunned there's almost no record of it. but the fact is that yes, christian ideology did often affect the original state of affairs in these societies, in fact COMPLETELY. but focusing on gender non-conforming people, two-spirit people for example became stigmatized and frowned upon when before they had been uplifted, because the spanish believed they were disgusting and "unnatural". even the idea of a sex change is not a new phenomenon, for example the Roman emperor Elegabalus apparently dedicated a lot of time to try and find someone who could somehow give him or her a sexual reassignment. You could argue that he is the epitome of the ruling class which goes hand in hand with the argument now that transition is a bourgie concept, but we also simply don't know if there weren't other gender non-conforming people in those times who had body dysphoria because historians hardly ever wrote from their perspectives. i was arguing this in the first place because the caption for the video calls transgenderism and fluidity a "recent social phenomenon" when clearly it's not. clearly most people don't know much about trans history or care to try and learn. and you're a real hypocrite trying to insult me for not having any "original ideas" as if any of your ideas are original either lol. At this point hardly any ideas are really original.
@gerard dearie goddd you sound like such a snob
I don't get why are compulsory decisions are the "truly free" ones?
So Zizek says:
1) German Idealism and Freud allow us to explain in a materialistic way how something contingent can be experienced as a predestination/a necessity.
2) Couple examples of compulsory acts are given, with assertion that they are "highest free acts" - examples are resisting enemy occupants and falling in love.
Does it show even a little bit why something done out of compulsion becomes a truly free act? Maybe I am misunderstanding something?
Reason is the slave of emotions. The emotions are free, not reason. Thus the choices that are really ours are made deep in our emotions and not part of the objective self. We are no the object of our self consciousness. That is a mere projection of our true selves
@@idiomaxiom Reason is what separates us from the animals. You can reason yourself to horrible ideas like cutting off your balls.
@@tonyromero13 We aren't separate from the animals.
@@idiomaxiom I disagree with the excessive naturalists that we're nothing, but cattle. I also disagree with the Utopian Leftists that we're nothing, but chattel.
@@ZSd4cT so, to put it in simple terms, the freedom, to which Zizek refers, consists in not restraining the inner compulsion?
It is hard for me to believe that it is truly freedom, though. An opiates addict probably sees getting his dose as a necessity, but few people would agree that him taking drugs would be an act of true freedom.
Why is he licking his lips in the thumbnail lmao
All he said was undergoing that operation is a big decision, not a small one. Wow.
1 of the few men on Earth that I can trust. He speaks truth. I feel & agree with everything he says that's how I know he's a man of sense, hard to come by. Take care Zizek, I'd like to meet you someday.
Can someone please summarise what he said?
If gender is socially constructed, then why do transgenders choose to switch genders at all? Therefore, why would anyone biologically feel like a man or a woman if it's socially constructed? Ironically, case in point, transgenderism itself is socially constructed. Just trying to have a thoughtful positive discussion.
Think I can attempt to answer this, but I’m not part of this community so please correct me if I speak wrongly
From what I understand, those who speculate that gender is socially constructed aren’t necessarily against gender labels in general. It’s just more so a wish to recognise that they are just that, labels, and that often these are just individuals who don’t innately feel like the characteristics of one label, the one they have been assigned by birth, particularly applies to them. In most cases I imagine these are quite abstract feelings and generally I think a loosening of the labels is a positive thing for gender conforming people even; would certainly do a lot for mental health/feelings of inadequacy.
Some activists and thinkers go a step further and ask to remove labels entirely. I’m personally not sure that’s so useful as the ability to articulate identity is important, but I do generally agree that a strict labelling of gender isn’t entirely necessary nor widely applicable.
Then there’s the question of if it’s socially constructed at all. Some would say you had to prove that, but I think the burden of proof is more so on those who maintain that it isn’t. To do so, you’d have to prove that absolutely none of your masculinity or femininity is socially influenced and I think that is a very hard thing to do
This is why I sometimes get frustrated by philosophers. He said something that was so interesting and unqiue for so many in what might have been the worst way imaginable
do not confuse philosophers with rhetoricians
the one seeks and wants to be friends with wisdom
the other has just a gift in speech and can make everything sound good
Only the softer sociological, humanities, and psychiatric disciplines started using 'gender' in the ‘70s in increasing numbers. The harder, natural sciences were far less likely to use the term at all, and were not likely to attach any meaning to it that would indicate a difference between 'gender' and 'sex.'
When an lgbtqxyz person says that gender and sex are 'different,' what they're saying is that they WANT them to be different. If gender was in fact a social construct and completely different than sex, no one would feel the need to chemically and/or surgically alter themselves to be the opposite 'gender.'
And anyway, if you read queer theory, you'll discover that the whole 'gender is a social construct' routine is a ruse and that the real goal is to do away with the concept of biological sex altogether.
What 😂
Transgender people get surgery and take hormones purely to align their physical sex (voice, body, emotions, temperament, sex drive, etc) with their perceived gender identity.
Gender isn’t JUST a social construct. It’s an outcome of the slow degrading of our creature instincts. In a world where, at least in the west, men and women can work most of the same jobs full-time, and have most of their needs accounted for, there is no longer a need for gender roles as a uniting, population growing tool.
Of course, corporations and old fashioned, uneducated individuals will continue to push a gender binary, in the name of profit or hate (which normally stems from insecurity and uncomfortableness in their own femininity). By profit, i mean its much easier to sell boy toys and girl toys, clothes for men and clothes for women. There is also a natural antagonism, which zizek highlights, between the sexes. Corporations, especially social media giants, constantly play on this antagonism in the name of profit.
The way he talks makes my eyes water.
Matter is good, it's not a prison for the spirit.
You are witnessing a man that is sooooo close to realizing that trans gender and trans sexual are not the same thing.... so close
Why do I even have to ask myself what/who I am, or define myself? Waste of time.
I mean i don't understand
this is what i've been trying to say but when i do i get attacked! these people who call us the bio-essentialists for saying that certain personality traits or style preferences or preferences for looking a certain way doesn't negate the fact you are a man or a woman. a woman who likes short hair, sports bras that compress her breasts, blue jeans, and mechanics is still a woman! in fact its bio-essentialist to say that she is less than a woman for not conforming to the temporally contingent social contructs set by whichever society she was born into! for example, men used to wear wigs and heels and poofy shirts in some countries. women used to be admired for being fat with facial hair in some countries. these social constructs of what makes something masculine or feminine or what is expected of you change with time and with each society! people always try to say well "gender is a spectrum" no. personality is a spectrum. or rather, a grab bag. sex is binary, as it is in every other mammal species on earth.
Same here…it’s so funny to because it’s always the people who police other people’s language & the general discourse around sex/gender who fundamentally have no idea what they are even talking about. Usually these are the same individuals making erroneous accusations of essentialism. Acknowledging that humans have sexed bodies on which gender is imposed is the opposite of essentialism. Claiming that humans possess an innate/natural sense of gender which determines whether we are men or women takes essentialism to a new extreme.
No, no, nope, and no, cis people stop trying to act like you know Trans people better then they know themselves!
You are not a “trans” anything….and neither am I….we are just cosplayers. Nothing more.
Some of us are cosplayers on hormones with our dicks cut off and fake tits.
Nothing more….stop lying to yourself and be honest. You 100% KNOW I’m speaking the truth.
I agree that liking short hair, mechanics or any other stereotypically masculine thing does not have anything to do with wether someone is a woman or not. I believe that gender is a separate thing from gender roles, but that it is also a separate thing from sex. Both sex and gender is mostly binary, though intersex people exist so not 100% when it comes to sex, and I'd say non-binary people exist so likewise with gender.
Sex is a spectrum. Our systems of classification are binary.
After all that talk, he ultimately circles back to the traditional idea of gender being binary and static. I.e. "you have to really know yourself to make your final decision about what you truly are, none of this 'happy free-floating' stuff and so on and so forth". But assuming he knows as much about gender science as I do (very little) he can't know that 'happy free-floating' isn't a valid, fully realized expression of true identity.
Yeah as someone who is non-binary-and has read only a little Zizek-I cannot tell if what he means is restrictive to a gender binary, or if he is wary of a mis use of “transgender struggle”. If the former were the case then maybe by now he has recognized the struggle non-binary people
also face as a consequence to gender nonconformity, because it doesn’t seem incongruent with the argument already put forward?
He wipes his nose because it’s a nervous tick, people in the comments are insanely judgmental
Are you trying to manipulate Zizek's thoughts on the subject to suit your own opinion? Be careful, Hitler did the same thing with Marx
Are you talking about interpretation ?
IF so - that's all that there is .•°
it’s almost as if trans people aren’t to blame for the existence of discourses of essentialism. they are already extant, historically reified. the weight of biologically determined gender binaries weighs on all of us, but luckily for some people their (biologically determined) gender identity aligns with their sex. trans people have to contend with being constituted in a social system that assigns them an identity to which they don’t identify - this is surely where the “radical choice” is, and not in the moment of surgery. zizek needs to stop blaming the last ones through the door to social acceptance for their subsumption into capitalism or their supposed fetishism of free choice; even if those latter points are true, it is only the case because the social system trans people are accepted into is already one that hierarchises and defined agency in capitalist terms. once again, the issue is with the legacies of patriarchy and the exploitative practices of capitalism, not trans people.