At 14:12 she states she doesn’t see why people wouldn’t want to go in an inclusive direction. She hasn’t spent the time understanding the other viewpoints, only her own. You can’t take someone seriously who hasn’t considered other viewpoints against their own.
Gender critical isn‘t the correct term - we criticise the ideology, not necessarily the term gender. Gender is just a term that is used in many different ways and contexts. One person means sex by gender and the other one means a social role and a third means an innate feeling or perception of self, a fourth one says it‘s the chosen sex AND role you want to become. So there always are many misunderstandings and misconceptions in these discussions bc no one is defining „gender“ when using it to present or defend a certain point of view related to „trans“ in legal matters, social matters, biological matters…
For almost anyone watching this with literally any questions, whether you're curious to hear more or don't like Judith's delivery or whatever, I strongly recommend you watch the Philosophy Tube video on their work and ideas. Disects it all in a great way and is clear, reasonable, and critical where needed. Basically nailed by Abigail and made it friendly and interesting to listen to as usual
Perhaps I'm deluded, but was under the impression the original feminists knew perfectly well what a woman was so weren't interested in debating that, rather their concern was resisting oppression and getting the same rights as men.
many early second wave feminist academics debated gender including ann oakley, angela davies and judith butler themself - I'm not sure how far back you are considering 'original' here but Judith is nearly 70, and has been debating this for quite some time. The debate hasn't always been as huge in activist circles as it now is but trans issues have been in public debate to at least some degree since the 50s (perhaps earlier). Debates are always shifting and progressing too and I dont think there is anything wrong with that - the earliest feminists for instance weren't debating rape culture or gender roles because getting the vote seemed like a pretty preeminent issue at the time obviously lol, nothing wrong with shifting the goalposts of the debate and considering needs for inclusivity now people have more capacity to do so. I know from my own studies many trans activists and feminist activists in the 70s and 80s did work together so its probably not as modern as you think, just trans people are the new media bogeyman.
the original feminist movement was also super racist. white women were mad that black men got the right to vote before they did. they took it as a huge offense, so they organized and got themselves the right to vote. maybe don’t use the morals of people from a hundred years ago? the original feminist got a lot of shit wrong
There have always been women that sell other women. So, I believe a lot of privileged women relish in how they manage to put men in the same bathrooms as our daughters.
When one thinks of 'original feminists' one thinks of Simone de Beauvoir (her 'The Second Sex' is the feminist Bible) and she is most famous for saying "one is not born but becomes a woman". De Beauvoir stated that although there are biological differences among the sexes, women only become women through social constructions and circumstances (i.e., they are fundamentally defined as relative to men, as 'not men', or, earlier in history, as 'imperfect men'- Thomas Aquinas). According to De Beauvoir, biological facts are never JUST biological facts but they take on the values of social norms. In fact, she busted open the essentialisation of biological facts, and exposed this essentialisation as the prime ideological tool used to justify the oppression and suppression of women. 'What a woman is' was a question and a subject of philosophical investigation for the most 'original' among 'original feminists'.
The fact that the joe team have to edit the video title multiple times in the past 24 hours, assumedly because having big scary words like ‘transgender’ or even just ‘gender’ in the title makes the UA-cam algorithm either cut ad revenue or straight up suppress the video is so wild
I've noticed comparatively few and tame comments, too - maybe support for gender ideology has reduced as a result of greater public education and recent scandals in Scotland and the Tavistock; also, maybe a lot of trans advocates were, in fact, bots or have gotten cannier in their comments. Whatever it is, it sure is quiet around here compared to a year ago, as if the circus has moved on.
Its because there are so many little snowflakes in the world these days that will have a meltdown if you say something they feel like hurts their feelings. And unfortunately many large companies and .govs are ingratiating these clowns.
I think I’m one of those people that wants to live in a simple world and don’t think the gender identity debate deserves the amount of political attention it receives.
I completely agree but I think the identity debate isn't solely about gender/sex, it's about choice and what choices can be made and which choices can not. That's the push back, choice has become a dirty word. We are all transient, moving from one place to another, the notion of trans identity interrupts the notion that we are all on a single track, and are fixed into a singular way of being. We can live in this simple world together. 💕 to all
@@ThankYouAndHello What choice do women and girls have when men intrude on their private spaces, sports competitions, changing rooms, prisons, rape crisis centers? We are not just "uncomfortable" by a man in our changing rooms we are threatened, scared and pissed off. Men, no matter how they identify, have since time immemorial used their power to abuse women. Good men, no matter how they identify or dress, understand women's need to be safe and to feel safe.
@@opinion3742 100% agreed, but if that is so why do we at the majority give the time of day to the extreme ends of the argument. I would like to think most people could see past the headlines and blatant attempts of manipulation. Maybe wishful thinking
That’s how you know Wokes are fascists - they want to re-racialise society except this time to discriminate against the majority and they want to pretend it’s still the 1950s and society still holds the attitudes toward race and sex that brought about the civil war. Victim nostalgia…
No one can be "born in the wrong body", our brains ARE our body just as much as any other part of it. We are the sex we are, regardless of what our personal relationship is with the sexist stereotypes in society. "Trans" ideology, is regressive and sexist, as there is no "correct way" of being a boy or girl, man or woman, all those terms do is indicate sex and stage of maturity - decoupling sex and gender and trying to make gender into this ludicrous concoction of personality and sexist stereotypes is beyond regressive - it actively harms people who buy into it - the idea that there is something wrong with a kid's body that needs to be chemically altered because they believe living up to sexist stereotypes is some real measure of whether they are a boy or a girl (and man or woman for adults obviously), is insanity. I have asked hundreds of "activists" and "allies" to explain what they are measuring themselves against to determine that they have a need to transition - NOT ONE person has been able to articulate what that is - not one person is able to distance themselves sufficiently to realise that THEY are the ones with a regressively sexist idea of what it means to be a boy/girl or man/woman and that that is the issue causing all the problems - their own misunderstanding and severely limited perspective/sexist misunderstanding of what sexist stereotypes/"gender norms" actually entail - they are not rules, they are not real boundaries, they are regressive ideas and generalisations - no one needs to live up to any such utter nonsense or feel comfortable with those stereotypes to be a boy/girl/man/woman - all those terms represent, and all they should represent, is sex and stage of maturity - by creating this whole "gender identity" nonsense, THAT IS WHAT CAUSES ALL THE DISTRESS, THIS FABRICATION OF A FRAMEWORK WHICH DISTORTS REALITY. No one - NO ONE - in the movement has been able to explain or articulate what this supposed "womanly essence" or "manly essence" is that they feel/know/need to transition in order to represent etc. actually is - yet you all actively believe in it and push for it to be accepted. That is ludicrous.
@@x16881 The second somebody types that you are either close to it or you're a undercover fascist saying you're a centrist , DEAR X166881. Fascism is a permanent being, it is everywhere and in everything now.
You do know UA-cam automatically deletes comments for random ass reasons don’t you? I’ve had incredibly non hostile pro-trans comments disappear with no reason. You aren’t special
Literally my comment saying that some comments get deleted automatically by youtube got deleted. I'm getting notifications for the replies but can't even see my own anymore. Deluded mate. Sad.
People who say your biology can't define your limits are conflating two different things, your biology tells you what you are, it doesn't and isn't trying to tell you who you are, that's up to you. Saying that a woman is defined by by her biology is not saying that she is limited to being only her biology, it's kind of tedious to have to explain that point to an adult.
From her very first pronouncements - 'that the way in which feminism began, was by calling into question received notions of what a biological woman is' and, 'it's not the specific biology - alone - that defines you as a women...' Just stop right there. a) I disagree; feminism was NOT originally a battle about perceptions of identity or characteristics. It was about SURVIVAL. Women already knew what they were made of, they weren't interested in personalities, they were quite aware each woman had their own traits. The genesis of feminism was compelled by the collective experiences of women as a whole - and what all women required to survive and to protect themselves - and ultimately their offspring too. It was about rights and protections to support all women, based COMPLETELY on their biological sex - not on identities or orientations or a word game about feelings and characteristics. Really basic rights that were necessary that give autonomy and power to any female that a man also has. Many rights that were not afforded women, strictly because they were women. b) Saying biology alone does not define you as a woman is duplicitous word-play when you know that the point of the discussion is; what is the importance of biology in defining a woman? IT IS EVERYTHING. Biology defines the reality. All other feelings about identity are secondary criteria that are as abstract or ephemeral as the wind. The rights and protections women are losing are SEX BASED rights. I haven't even managed to get past the first 5 minutes of this interview without serious mistrust of Butler who is so intent on disowning women.
I would be so gutted to get Judith Butler in and totally scuff the audio like this. What she’s saying is so important, and here’s the audio editor sweating bullets to make it usable
Butler's points on gender are interesting and thoughtful, and I think they're really trying to have a more nuanced conversation than what has been happening.
But they seem to forget the other POV - the biologial POV. If I were to be put in a prison with a transgender woman who was born a man, I would feel very unsafe.
''Butler's points on gender are interesting and thoughtful, '' Morons are often easily impressed by the empty words of confident yet fraudulent quacks such as Butler. ;>
Can you not just start these videos at the beginning we are not 13 year olds the attention spans of a gnat, who do you think your audience is?, We don't need a teaser at the beginning or a snippet just play the video.
I believe its due to how youtube works; when scrolling through video suggestions it will start playing the first few seconds, so they put an interesting clip there to get people to click through.
Dude, there are literally thousands of people out there that are constantly asking what a woman is even after being repeatedly explained and demonstrated it. The people that should watch this video have the IQ of an yogurt and the attention span of a two year old.
Easier to ignore that, pretend they don't exist, or just dismiss them as not 'true left'. Which, ironically, would be anti-thesis to their claim that you are what you identify as. Tad hypocritical, don't you think? Also, it plays on ever present dominant narrative force in our corporate media space - Conservative and right = bad. By doing that, they don't need to put much effort to shun people away and portray them as undesirable.
But who are these left leaning people? Because I have seen a fair amount of criticism of people within these wide boarders. In fact there has always been plenty of criticism and disagreement within leftist circles.
There is no sex assignment. JKR is right that sex is real and not something chosen as JB wants it to be. I think JB so disliked being a female that she wanted to remake that category so she could escape it. She doesn't do justice to gender critical feminism which does not want to limit us by our birth sex. JB is incredibly frustrating. It is so annoying that she only sits down with people like this guy who defer to her and gets all cringey. Most people in the anti-gender ideology movement are not authoritarian conservatives, but she wants to pretend it is so.
I think it is difficult to get 2 knowledgeable women to meet and talk about these issues that are also good faith and not just trying to catch the other in “gotcha” moments..
@@daughter_of_earth - Ms Rowling started off in the public sphere as a smart, reasonable woman, but veered off the road at some point and landed in a ditch.
We are mammals, just like other mammals. Nothing more, nothing less. Not once did he challenge JB's assertions. Women don't have the luxury of being self-defined in the majority of the world. It's not essentialist or bigoted or right wing to say a woman - female - produces large gametes and a man - male - produces small gametes. We can forget all about gender stereotypes, we don't need to be culturally defined by our sex stereotypes but we are inevitably shaped by our biological body. The project of feminism is about the destruction of preconceived ideas about what a woman is capable of even though she produces large gametes. I don't think it was ever feminism's intention to ignore the fact that a woman produces large gametes and the real-life consequences that flow from being female and her vital role in the reproduction of the species.
"The project of feminism is about the destruction of preconceived ideas about what a woman is capable of even though she produces large gametes." Why women though? Why not everyone? I understand both feminists and some non feminists once focused on women in the sense that women were not organized after being brought back into the labor force, or maybe did not get the vote as early as most men got it. But once those are achieved, it seems feminism essentially IS just acting out of sex stereotypes, including the flawed idea that most women are oppressed relative to most men
Buy no other mammals have a neo cortex, and can't do art, mathematics, or classical music, or computer science, physics, chemistry, chess etc. Or am I just making shit up? Do.youbstand by that assertion, that we are "nothing but mammals", meaning there is no difference between, cats, dogs, chimpanzees and humans? Of course you don't, because you're not that smart .
Not all humans produce gametes. Genetic abnormalities or conditions, such as Turner Syndrome in females (where there is a missing or partially missing X chromosome) and Klinefelter Syndrome in males (where there is an extra X chromosome, XXY instead of XY), can affect gamete production.
Fascinating. I listened to this insightful conversation directly after listening to a similar discussion with Kathleen Stock. While Butler is a self-proclaimed political activist (i.e., literally politically motivated), Stock made no such claim...nor does she exhibit any signs of political intent. I find Stock much more logically coherent and sound....perhaps for obvious reasons: politics distort logic...and the desire to change thinking or a state of affairs (i.e., politics) is inherently not a logic-dependent pursuit. In fact, a core objective of political activists is to frame arguments in a manner designed to influence people, often at the cost of fact distortion and/or negation. I desire to learn, not be led in one direction or another.
I would on the contrary claim it's inherently illogical if not dishonest to make the argument that any communication can be free from political influence or subjectivity
No, that is what the whole idea of "lived experience" is about. It invokes a heirarchy of veracity and meaning. This is how the queer assert dominance and shame you or beat you into silence.
Communication is so important, as is being just as if not more critical of your side of an argument... Society is slowly pulling itself apart and someone needs to be the grown up in the room.
@@squatch545I've got the ability to read and understand information, which clearly is something you lack. Perhaps the only thing allowing you to even interact on sites like this is predictive text and other such aids for the feeble of mind.
This was the first long interview of Butler that Iv listened to. My impression was that she is very smart but that pretty much all of her discussion of her position/idiology on gender was demonstrably just a whole lot of empty sophistry. Many people don't agree with her position because her type of logic makes no sense to them and make serious and intelligent good faith attempts to civilly argue their counter positions, rather than adressing those well intentioned, coherent and well structured arguments she just waves them away with an assertion that no position or 'reality' on these issues can be more true or rational than any other, before pulling a sneaky strawman by focusing her actual critique on the authoritarian positions and retoric of the most simple minded and extreme right wing people who disagree with her, as if doing the later is anything like or serves as any kind of meaningful rebuttal of the former. Then as an extension of that there is just a whole lot of 'facisists arnt postmodernists, so if you're not a postmodernist, it seems like you must also be a facist'. Talk about arguing from assertion and logical falacy, as if those are the only two positions people could possibly have. It can be frustrating how very smart idiologes can make clearly over simplistic nonsense sound complex and profound to people who just really want to agree with them. Just not sure if she can tell shes doing it or if she sees the inherent contradiction between arguing from a fundational position that all 'realities' are equally true and valid in order to try and persuade people that her 'reality' is more true and morally superior than theirs, but just dosnt care for for the reasons sophists never really care if what their saying makes sense so long as they expect it will persuade.
Agreed, very disturbing trend in general. But personally as a fairly old school lefty of the Chomskian sort of variety, I find it most disturbing of all when people who are claiming/trying to be champions of working class emancipation allow themsleves to fall into doing that sort of thing. We need to hold ourselves to higher standards than that if we're going to keep any hope of succeeding.
Yes. But we should not be afraid to take that logic to the end. If Chomsky only dealt academically with social affairs he would be out of a job before he ever got one. Linguistics is how he held on and stayed out of trouble. As the price that comes with their stand, activists drive taxis, or go to jail or the morgue, or sell 5000 books on a small press, while teaching at a community college somewhere. It should be suspicious that Butler is somehow a radical marxist leftist, but famous, and not persecuted. It has to do with the sloppy obscurantism and gender feminism (which is a very corporate friendly ideology) and so on. @@anthonyderosa7757
@emilianosintarias7337 Fully agree, only I'd say even more directly and generally what I think you're driving at, that it's more than just suspicious. I think the case that Chomsky made some time around the mid 60's that the rapid growth of the whole Foucoult type fux accademic fux radical incoherent obscuritanist theoretical trends that became major if not dominant in many social science departments of many academic institutions resulted from a natural informal alliance forming between people who wanted academic and heroic status while having little of the required intellect and none of the required integrity, and wealthy institutions that were desperare to redirect the growing actual radicalsim they feared away from threatening the control and power of corporate and poitical elites and towards issues that threatened little to no impact on the actual centers of power. I think that assessment is as correct now as it was then in general, although, of course, there are plenty major exceptions. I don't think it would be wise or fair for me to categorise Butler squarly in that kind of hack fux radical academic catogory on the basis of a single interview, but it was the strong impression I was getting from the endless sophistry she seemed to genuinly think counted as profound philosophy.
Dear God, I'm only halfway through this and Butler has said nothing, she's talked for 30 minutes and said absolutely nothing, it's just meaningless word salad. I feel like it's a conversation with AI.
That's common for 'postmodernism' (broadly speaking). They are modern day sophists. They use big words that sound complex and moral condemnation to force their beliefs; or at least to silence any dissent. Interesting how they talk about fascism; their worldview denies the knowablity of truth and distills all 'truth' as socially negotiated by power dynamics. Power is the closest thing to a 'feature' of reality you'll get in intersectionality. Very strange and sad world-view; misology at it's finest. Good book: The Genesis of Gender - Favale (she is an academic and feminist - good book) Noam Chomsky - Postmodernism I - ua-cam.com/video/OjQA0e0UYzI/v-deo.html (I'm not a fan of Chomsky; but, this is funny.)
points very badly made… sex is not ‘assigned’, it is observed, and feminism is not questioning what a woman ‘is’ but what she can DO ffs… and obvs a man pretending to ‘be’ a woman in order to violate women’s privacy and safety is not doing anything feminist or engaging in any kind of freedom fight to redefine unfair limitations imposed on him… the slippages here are beyond crass and stupid
Sometimes the sex that is "observed" at birth is actually not matched by the internal organs, for example females with an intersex condition where they have internal testes and no ovaries.
If biological sex has nothing to do with gender identity, why take hormones? Why irreversibly harm your body and your ability to reproduce? Also what is a woman, without using the word 'woman' in the answer? (hint: adult human female)
For a junkie taking heroin is not harming them its making them a hero. That is your logic. I weep at your reasoning capacity. But as long as you make people feel good you dont care if you talk out of your ass, do you? @@MrRailjunkie
"If biological sex has nothing to do with gender identity, why take hormones?" Yeah... Puberty causes permanent irreversable changes. That's why puberty blockers exist.
"(hint: adult human female)" And what is a female, except what society considers a predominance of characteristics that are socially accepted as feminine.
She’s confusing stereotypes with biological women. Sex is binary and immutable, as you well know, Judith. Your book is a turgid mess of lies and obfuscations.
@@RealFemale69 It's not necessary. You can advocate for women's (female's) rights without saying that males should have a right to female spaces or legal recognition as women. In fact, you can argue the opposite from the standpoint of female rights. You can even separate it from gay rights. So they are not the same thing.
when a Palestinian talking about the conflict and life in Palestine says "the Jews", they mean Jewish Israelis. It's always clear in context, but it's an unfortunate shorthand that gets taken out of context and used to claim antisemitism. For whatever it's worth, the charter of Hamas and the equivalent Fatah documents explicitly reject antisemitism
unfortunately in the u.k... having any sympathy for the 38000 innocent people(most of them women and children sheltering in hospitals or refuge camps) that have been slaughtered with absurd reckless disregard for life by the IDF, is regarded as being antisemitic
If you really think that, how do you deal with the following: 1) statements by Hamas that quote the Quran to kill Jews, which was clearly written before the modern state of Israel. "The hour of judgment shall not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them, so that the Jews hide behind trees and stones, and each tree and stone will say: 'Oh Muslim, oh servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him,' except for the Gharqad tree, for it is the tree of the Jews"? 2) That there have been many terrorist attacks and attempts against Jews outside of Israel, AMIA bombing, Toulouse shooting, Hyper Cacher supermarket attack in Paris, Copenhagen Shootings, Djerba synagogue bomed in 2002 and then also a shooting in 2023, and arrests of hezbollah agents, in NY, thailand, Brazil, Greece, Peru and many more, but those were specifically where the targets of the planned attacks were Jewish but not Israel? 3) The Houthi motto specifically mentions Jews and Israel separately, how much clearer do you want them to make it that Jews and Israelis aren't synonyms for them? "God Is Great, Death to America, Death to Israel, Curse on the Jews, Victory to Islam" 4) Why would you believe someone who claims they aren't racist just because they say they aren't? The most funny headline about this "KKK members insist they’re not “white supremacists”"
Hamas, the organisation that had as it's explicit goals the genocide of Jews in the region but recently updated for pollical expediency (hard to claim the world's sympathy went it's in black and white you are the "bad" ones). Be better than this. Be on no one's "side". When you are impartial, then you have a chance of being an agent for peace in the region. Being utterly biased, you are part of the conflict.
Never use an argument that your enemy could use without changing a single word to mean the same. The fact that this can be done is a proof that there is literally no logic behind the argument.
Butler is so incoherent. What’s not said is as telling as what is said as the number of elephants in the room that aren’t confronted outweigh any meaningful points she makes. Postmodern, watery nonsense with so many obfuscations and deliberately vague ideas all to prop up a notion that ‘gender’ is an actual thing 🥲
Strange, but I think many of us find her completely coherent. Comments like yours remind me of people saying a comedian is not funny when there is an audience laughing at that comedian's jokes. In that scenario, is it the comedian who isn't funny, or the person who isn't laughing who doesn't get the joke?
@@Bette_B123 subjective perspective. For me it’s that she gives long meandering responses that don’t cut to the nub of the criticisms laid against her theories. She seems hesitant to confront them perhaps because she knows her views are gobbledygook. I’m amazed how people fall for it.
Judith Butler is flawed in presenting"sex assignment" at birth as an arbitrary, uninformed or casual decision. Much as I like to think myself as inclusive, this is sloppy thinking. Should I watch more than the first 15 minutes?
Judith Butler doesnt claim that. Gender assignment as birth being synonymous with sex assignment is the problem and what they are questioning. One of the first things they say is that sex is real. How that manifests and how it is interpreted is what is dynamic, context dependent, and highly individual and the child should be given the grace to figure it out for themselves.
You might "like" to think of yourself as inclusive, but if that's your honest assessment of her views then you very clearly are not. At best you're ignorant, perhaps more likely, you've deliberately distorted her claims to make them seem ridiculous and undermine her credibility.
@@arnoldkotlyarevsky383 JB says sex assignment several times see at 11:30 onward. She doesn't say gender assignment. The child needs to be given observable and documented facts - such a cell biology, chirality, chromosomes, krebs cycle after which the child can investigate further. Ephemeral notions of any kind of identity should always be questioned.
@@callum9999 Please see JB statement that "they are constantly rethinking paradigms for sex assignment". This is not true - distinctions between male and female in biology are very clear. I will leave it to the audience if JBs comments are sloppy thinking. (Kindly review pronouns in your comment above)
I'm an Eastern European commie so what the hell do I know, but I can't help but notice we're still debating neoliberal trust fund kids' issues and semiotics, not actual collective problems coming for all of us.... In other words, this is liberalism at its finest, and its about time we stop associating it with the left.
@@Bette_B123 Absolutely. The problem is ALL I'm hearing is identity issues. Any sort of discussion about class politics is NON existent... which is absolutely perfect for global capital.
@@the_smart_cookies_pod I hear that. But is it the fault of trans folk and their allies? Isn't it politicians and mainstream media trying to create a diversion? And if so, wouldn't it be better to take them to task?
Im surprised she has the "balls" to poke her head out on any podcast after the #WpathFiles have been released. The incredibly sophisticated way she delivers her gobbledygook on this interview astonishingly has stirred my admiration of her communication style. I disagree with her vehemently but I can see why its convincing to people who really dont understand basic science & or already are mentally vulnerable.
@BetteB999 Not just trans people but people in general. It's easy to convince science illiterate people or at least get them to tacitly agree that sex is a spectrum & blocking children's puberty is a healthy viable medical treatment for assumed gender dysphoria,oh & to lump autogynophiles,drag,kink & gender non-conforming persons under the term transgender ie: "you don't have to have gender dysphoria to be trans" ideaology pushed by trans activist today. For example to any person understanding the scientific concept of biological pathology & the what sex scientifically is can see the "intersex" explanations used to defend the "sex is a spectrum" primise are disingenuous at worst & poor science at the least.
@RealFemale69 oh god the trans religion fanatics are here defending their neo-religion with ad-hominem attacks because they intrinsically know their science is bogus
The older and farther away from college I get, the less threatening and relevant people like Judith seem. Something weirdly soothing about hearing a smooth clueless voice babbling on about the "beauty of Marxist criticism" like it hasn't been responsible for millions of deaths around the world. It's almost pleasant to hear someone who is so detached from reality.
@@kimcarsons7036 That is a single car crash compared to the many millions killed by Marxist governments over the past hundred years. So that was an ignorant argument.
Judith says a whole lot about nothing. She is the master at combining words and phrases to make herself appear enlightened or intelligent. But when you actually take apart what she is saying, you quickly realize that she is saying a whole lot about nothing. It's all gibberish. She cannot even understand the difference between what makes a woman a woman, which IS her biology, and the social construct of a woman, which is about what a woman DOES. She needs a lesson in linguistics. IS and DOES are not the same, and her arguments always equate the two, which leads her to ridiculous conclusions.
No, actually it's just that you don't like what she's saying. And what gives you the right to define who is or isn't a woman? And why does it matter so much, could it be that you're afraid of finding someone attractive and then discovering they're not a biological woman and that threatens your own idea of your sexuality?
Disappointingly softball interview guys. I get you agree with her position, but as an interview I want to hear her views dissected and challenged. Ask her for examples of how facts about sex has changed, and how that assertion supports her argument, for example.
@@powderandpaint14 It's called biology that defines what a woman is and society contrasts view about what a woman does. Firstly I am gay. I am attracted to gay men. Not women who want to present masculine or have masculine roles. Biology is inherent with sexual orientation, and to suggest it's not is homophobic at its core. There are only 2 sexes and you cannot change sexes just like you cannot change race. To suggest you can is the definition of cognitive dissidence. Sex and race are immutable as is sexual orientation. The roles you want to play in society is fluid. Two different things and Judithg wants to fool us into thinking they are the same. Illogical.
@@johnwindisman2803 good, then atleast you have no internalised homophobia at play here. Biology is not quite as simple as people are sometimes made to believe.
@@powderandpaint14 Biology is simple. It's Judith who has made it complicated for some people when they buy into her double talk and nonsensical statements without taking a step back and analyzing what she is really saying. Very unfortunate. It is not helpful for those people who suffer from sexual dysmorphia, which is just a subset of body dysmorphia.
If Judith Butler doesn't understand the link between queer theory and minor attracted persons, perhaps she should read one of her own books or essays. Starting with Gender Trouble, chapter 1, and its discussion of incest.
Early feminists questioned the things that they were not allowed to "do". They were not questioning what a woman "is". Conflating these two concepts is just intellectually dishonest.
No. It's both. A woman was, in many cultures in the west, not an equal to men. In fact a woman was property. The idea of feminism is that a woman isn't property, isn't "weaker" or whatever. A woman is a leader, a lawyer, a firefighter etc etc. It's not just things they can do, it's how they are perceived, so it is both what a woman can do and what a woman is.
Yes - feminism has changed very recently from discussing who a woman can be to who can be a woman. That’s a big change and most women don’t like it. We should bear in mind that only 15-20 percent of UK women identify as feminist so feminism represents the views of a small minority of women and gender ideologues an even smaller group…
The move from a structuralist account in which capital is understood to structure social relations in relatively homologous ways to a view of hegemony in which power relations are subject to repetition, convergence, and rearticulation brought the question of temporality into the thinking of structure, and marked a shift from a form of Althusserian theory that takes structural totalities as theoretical objects to one in which the insights into the contingent possibility of structure inaugurate a renewed conception of hegemony as bound up with the contingent sites and strategies of the rearticulation of power.
The idea of any politics or really any idea that has an issue with material reality is just so absurd to me. I mean, as long as we're just making things up, you can basically justify anything you want.
@@puppptnobody's denying that penises and vaginas exist, they're denying that a woman is necessarily defined by having a vagina. We don't disagree over empirical reality, but how we categorise that reality.
@@puppptso many of you are just so confused. No one has denied anatomical material/physical facts. We do disagree on how we should draw the distinctions in classifying and distinguishing between those material facts though in terms of what the referents of the terms woman/man should be.
Absolute 10/10 delusional world view that is both false and clumsy, She makes an assertion and contradicts it in the same sentence several times just to open the interview. It's a want your cake and eat it too petulant child's motus operandi.
I truly believe and have deep inner feelings since I've been 2 and my family and friends support, affirm and believe me, that I am Napoleon. It is Napoleonphobic that the French government won't put me in charge of their military.
If by 'I'm napoleon' you mean you're the corsican general born in 1769, then you would be incorrect. If by 'I'm a woman' you mean you prefer people call you a woman, prefer to dress a certain way, than that may very well be correct, and perfectly believeable.
I'm 5 days into taking feminising hormones & this discussion is fascinating! As far as I'm concerned I'd just like to be able to exist in a way that doesn't feel intensely uncomfortable or unsafe physically, socially etc. Outside of the very real threat of the extremist right, it feels like a large sum of the discourse & anger out there comes from miscommunication of (broadly) similar ideals rather than diametrically opposed ones from what Judith is saying. Thanks for giving her a platform to speak :)
Live your life free of terror and I wish the best for you. However I hope you support keeping women's sports for women and preserving women's safe spaces. If you care about women you will want to keep them safe. I also hope you support not performing medical procedures on children. In any case, good luck.
Instead of chemical mutilation, you should seek treatment to help you accept biological reality and live in concordance with the objective state of things. You are a male born in a male body. Your best possible outcome is to accept that objective fact, and find a way to live with THAT.
A hundred years ago, G.K. Chesterton wrote, ''If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it, for in many ways, his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment.'' He is not hampered by a sense of humor, or by charity, or by the dumb certainties of experience. He is the more logical for losing certain sane affections. Indeed, the common phrase for insanity is in this respect a misleading one. The madman is not the man who has lost his reason. The madman is the man who has lost everything except his reason. An excerpt from “How to Think” by Alan Jacobs
Sex is real but what is real is defined personally? This is silly. Rowling says that biological sex is real and Butler agrees this is so but then says what is real is defined differently by people. This is just silly and none of us can survive in the material world if we don't accept certain realities. Eg the earth is round and gravity is real and biological sex is real.
How you identify does not matter one iota! What matters is how people perceive you. And that is something you build, not something you demand! Does it matter you identify as important or it matters that you ARE important? @@dcostaras
The authoritarian Right tell us all, who and what we are, how to live, who to love, and what constitutes the "right" way to live and behave is...and say its all based on undisputable....facts.. with Right Wingers making their personal assertions....facts...
@@kimberleyaxxxx934But I am left wing and dedicated to the idea that I and everyone else is entitled to be, say, dress and behave as they wish. But I will not be told that 2 and 2 makes 5. It is absolutely clear that biological sex is real and to pretend otherwise is ridiculous. People should not be told they are transphobic or hateful because they say so. I don't know what causes the increasing numbers of people feeling they are in the wrong body. We have to be patient and try to work put what's going on. Certainly as a 72 year old woman who has never taken on board classic "female" characteristics, I think much of the problem arises because the idea of a woman in the media or a man in the media is so unattainable and unattractive! I would advise anyone to avoid those stereotypes and be yourself. You don't need to change your body necessarily.
@susiegreaves7283 I would agree with almost all you have set out Susie. But its what you want to leave out, and dont give any voice to that I would worry about. As "left leaning" people are usually more inclusive. So they dont generally start with a hate based (sex is a fact - so theres no such thing as Trans) attacks on Queer/Trans people. There have ALWAYS been people who have questioned their gender. That is a fact. The greatest threat of harm to women comes from hetrosexual men. Another Fact. But the church led Authoritarian crusade to say Trans people are a murderous ideological threat to society is a crusade of hate. They insist sex is all that matters in gender. Feminist dont bow to people telling tgem what a women is. Feminists self identify themselves as their type of women. Where sex is only one attribute if that determination. And people like yourself always want to fence in the debate to only talk of sex. Not sex plus, gender, gay love, gay parenting and societal gender roles. You claim to be left leaning? But left leaning people can be very Authoritarian in some of their views and realities. Authoritarian people tell other people to live under their Facts. There has been a big rise in those questioning their gender. And I would agree the reasons for that are not fully understood. But that is not reason or good cause to launch wholesale attacks on Trans folk with bigotry based, Authoritarian / right wing led transphobia.
I can't survive in the material world if I don't accept that the earth is round and gravity is real? I think you'll find those things will take care of themselves, whether we believe them or not! But biology can be altered, and self-definition is every human's right. Nothing to do with absolute facts at all. Not the most important part of it all, anyway. Even if you say biological sex is a 'fact', it's just about the body. I live every day as MUCH MORE than my body! @susiegreaves7283
An intellectual, yes, but dishonest, devious, given to deliberate slippages, and bound by a relentless desire to re-write history to fit her endless de-contextualised conflations. Able to emotionally perform when it suits, and still trying to riff off Foucault. Curiously not given to engaging in debate with those who might disagree, but happy to attend interviews where no challenge can be expected.
I think Rob Hastings did a nice job. As for me, trans ideology seems like misogyny dressed up like a male porn fantasy. Deeply harmful to women and children, and tremendously useful to pedophiles.
@@ConceptNull That's easy enough. I don't know of any object called yellow. Since I can't rationally affirm that an object I don't recognize has particular properties, I consequently disagree with your claim that yellow smells nice.
Or you’re not as smart as you think you are and thats why you don’t understand her arguments and intellect. She’s very widely read in the academy and whether you agree with her views or not no intellectual would dismiss her philosophical intellect.
Lol she claimed herself she removed herself from the stage because of " anxiety of being confronted in unwanted ways". She's an intellectual wimp. You look up to THAT, only because its coddles your feelings. The irony of your profile name...@@RationalistMH
I am completely blown away at how much time is spent talking about this issue .. so much of the discussion just goes in circles - nothing gets resolved.. I want this issue to go away already
@@brianmeen2158 I know right? It's a tiny tiny little group of peopl,e % in society. Why do we have to hear about it so much? I could care less about them, I'm sure they could care less about me. I wish the whole subject would go away.
@@zacharybosley1935 asking simple questions with complicated answers, does not a simple thing complicate. What time is it?: look at a clock - answer given simple question with simple answer. being able to ask things like "is the clock correct?", "what even is time?" does not complicate the original simple question or the answer.
@@cyfangz9238 taken a step further, you recognize that simple things can be complicated upon further examination? Things like Money, Dreams, Gravity and Light are all more complicated than a single sentence can answer, the same seems to hold true for sex and gender.
I just want to live in a world where gender dysphoria is labelled as such, and it's not assumed hatred when you label a man a man or a woman a woman - there's a material reality of sex as mentioned, and it's fine not letting it define you but saying it's irrelevant is bonkers
I see it similarly to telling someone with anorexia to eat a sandwich. You can insist on the material reality of them being underweight, the relevance of needing to eat, that their perception of themselves doesn't match reality, but so what? They know that already. Everyone else knows that already. Telling them to eat a sandwich is not just unhelpful, but detrimental. The best thing you can do is treat them as they wish to be treated and leave the complicated shit to the professionals. The only difference with gender dysphoria is that living as the opposite gender isn't harmful in the way that not eating is, and the biggest issue they face is all the people telling them the equivalent of "eat a sandwich!"
@john.premose Cheers for the comment .Normal i like this channel and its guests. But she comes across very poorly.Have to run,got more rocks to the bash?
Dishonesty and sophistry of the highest order. Butler has long been a butcher of language in her favour. We all know what material reality is, but she then seeks to stretch the definition far beyond the common understanding. Obscurantism and concept creep
Post Menopause is not necessary to be a woman. But apart from that Butler will never tell you or declare what a woman or a man is or what will actually make you each of those. They rather want to perceive the world in a continuous sense where you give people freedom as individuals to be what they are (and "be" and "are" isn't something static , no, it's something infinitely moving and never declaring). This perception is the highest form of human respect.
@@YawnGod for you. It seems like you make a clear border of what a woman is, ironically. I'm saying that reducing somebody on their "menopause" (which is purely materialistic) or their body is part of the problem - it is called objectification. The funny thing is , yes , I perceive you as non binary just like I perceive any human as non binary because why would I want to define you over something materialistic ? Sure , in some materialistic ways like hedonism , your sex might be important. Or in reproduction , dating etc , but apart from that , what makes you actually a person? Surely it isn't SOLELY your guts or your gender / sex / menopause and what not. and also solely the absence of these things won't make you less of a person. Or a woman. If a trans woman does not have a menopause , it's about you , if you still accept them as a human being who just defines with their own will what they want to be perceived as. Trans women don't make any naturalistic claims like "I have an organic vagina" but they will rather tell you "yes everybody including myself perceives me like a woman. Perceiving me like a man feels kinda wrong"
Yeah... Yeah she does, and the more people this idiocy touches the more the counter you get... You had your time while most of the population was not aware of this idiocy spreading.@@powderandpaint14
I'm curious what you get when you Google "transgender"? My entire first page of results is from internationally and/or nationally recognised organisations all of whom define the word in roughly the same way as does Wikipedia: "A transgender person is someone whose gender identity differs from that typically associated with the sex they were assigned at birth." On the other hand, when I Google the word "Earth" I get a whole page full of round Earths, again posted by internationally recognised organisations. It seems to me that these are both mainstream views, but maybe Google's algorithm treats you very differently from me? I'd be very curious to hear the results of your search.
A lot of people use the term woman or man to refer to their sexed identity, not their gender identity. It might be useful to have four separate words for these things rather than trying to shoehorn four meanings into two words. 21:01
And who will be invited into the new term? The minority probably. Isn’t that just a form of othering that will be used for discrimination and bullying? We can do this just fine without having more words, it seems. Imho we should grow tf up and accept religion is a personal coping tool and should be used very carefully as a source of truth and morality. Especially since it’s hard to update cause god and book and hierarchy. Let people live in peace and give them the healthcare they need to live a happy life. As happy as can be in the late stage capitalism shitshow we experience.
"Man" and "woman" are the human equivalent of "stag" and "doe" in deer. They denote males and females of a species, it's not nearly as complicated as so many want to try to make it for whaatever reason
@@Anonymous-xm8ir that statement is completely and utterly stupid, nuclear waste level, American stupidity. We are mamels, didn’t you ever listen to the Blood Hound Group. Hahaha We literally are bipedal mamels, with an obstetrical dilemma - mothers carry the infants, who can’t even hold up their own head during the altricial phase of life (unlike an elephant or a horse). Oh help us Jesus, from the collective stupidity and mind virus breading ground that is the internet, where people like Judith’s Butler aren’t immediatley dethroned for fundamental paucity
She acts as if only the right criticizes her. I read her book Gender Trouble along time ago in grad school. She's gotten absolutely in the nonsense garbage theories since then. Camille Paglia offers a far more in depth analysis of gender, sex and the history of such.
It’s the only way any of these people can square their ridiculously flawed circle. They have to pretend not to hear anyone but the evil oogie boogie alt right bc they quite literally cannot argue with anyone with half a brain cell. The jig would be up and they’d have to confront what they’ve done.
I'm no intellectual but I think wombs are important because humans are not made in factories and don't grow on trees. I choose to acknowledge that, although not definative, actual gestation or the potential or perceived ability to gestate has a profound influence on many aspects of individuals' lives.
@@nathanaelsmith3553 how does making room for people whose biology is different deny the importance of wombs? I don't understand why allowing people to transition and accommodating them take anything away from women. This is some territorial nonsense.
When you have to put that much effort into trying to label something that is obvious and natural then obviously you’re trying to sell a lie. Biology matters.
There is no point is asking her to define "gender" at the start then letting her use the word in a variety of different ways without acknowledgement of it's sliding meaning or pause for a redefinition.
If people could mobilise against the corruption, self-interest, classism, bigotry and cronyism in politics the way anti-trans folk mobilise against any kind of vaguely trans-supportive media, the country would be so much better for it. Plus people would likely care less about this “issue”, because they wouldn’t be full of rage caused by the fact that nothing in this country works and everything costs twice as much.
Hi my name’s Tarquin - great to be here at this Socialist Workers Party! First time here! I’ve always felt a certain class dysphoria even when the silver spoon was firmly wedged in my mouth. But now I’ve come to accept and be proud of my working class roots - and am so happy that this is fully acknowledged and respected by all of you here in this stupendous community. Can’t wait to run for a leadership role and shake things up - sorry Bob, i know you’ve been gunning for that for a while. Next time old chap. So glad there’s no discrimination against trans-class people any more. That was such a bore. Don’t worry everyone - I’ll blend in - I’ll wear my Eat the Rich T and beanie at the next meet. Now where’s the juke box? There’s got to be one here. I want to hear that Pulp song…
You could swap "anti-trans" and "trans-supportive" in your sentence and it would be just as valid. Welcome to the culture wars, where the best response is always "I don't care."
@@paulstanway6076 well you should care. Biological men in young girls locker rooms used to be called perverts and pefiles. Police would come and lock them away, folks in town would organize and protest. Now folks want all that being normalized by adding new words and stuff, by staying silent you become a part of that.
The reason people have mobilised against the trans fascists is because they are a threat to science, freedom of speech, common sense and women's rights. They basically want to control everything and everyone, and will not allow any other viewpoint to be tolerated. Nobody cares if you want to dress like a woman. Everyone cares when men, self identifying as women, refuse to take any females views into consideration, indeed they think that only they have the right to now speak on behalf of all females, and anyone who disagrees should be forced to shut up. Therefore the fact that people have risen up against this poison is a good sign. Once we have finished with the trans fascists, we can then go on to mobilise against .corruption, self interest[which is the trans mob], classism, bigotry and cronyism in politics. It says it all that you are not brave enough to put your name to your rant.
Social construction as a theoretical school is fine, if used in appropriate situations. How does advertising affect our sense of self? Social construction is the correct stance. What is a woman? Biology is the correct stance. If I used economic theory to decide whether or not to apply medical treatments, you would call me a monster. If I used humanitarian theory to decide how to run my bathroom appliance business, I would go bust. Knowing which social theory to apply, and when to apply it (and its limitations therein) is essential to a complete application of social science and philosophy. What modern theorists (of almost all schools) fail to understand is "just because you studied this one thing and got a doctorate in it, and wrote some books in it, doesn't mean there are no other valid social theories to Problem X"... Please understand this people. Nuance will prevail, but only if you understand the roots of your ontological (and resulting epistemological) position. I disagree whole heartedly with Judith.
Yes, nuance will prevail. Like understanding that one generally needs to learn and synthesize information from multiple disciplines in order to attain something like knowledge or wisdom on a subject. Do you understand what ontology or epistemology means? Because no where in this video does Butler make a metaphysical argument or any argument for the way in which we acquire knowledge. If you understood theories of social construction, you'd understand that they do not make ontological arguments, because there is nothing metaphysical about suggesting that concepts are socially constructed. Believing that social construction negates existence just means that you don't understand what social construction is. Theories which discuss social construction simply describe relationships between people, how we conceptualize them and how that affects social, cultural and political relationships and power. As Butler mentioned (literally in this video) the discipline of biology is hugely influenced by who is doing the biology and for what purposes. Just consider the way the Atlantic slave trade was in part 'justified' by the then emerging discipline of biology and 'race science'. As Butler points out (again, in the video) the problem with a positivist argument is that what is considered settled facts changes. Most of society once believed the earth was flat, based on the both the tools and the dominant political order of the time. When our instruments got better, the 'fact' that the earth is spherical didn't immediately become settled fact. There was a great deal of political and religious backlash to the idea for a long time. Also, again very basic philosophy, but knowing what is (i.e. settled fact) doesn't automatically therefore follow what to do about that. It's the Is/Aught gap. That's why theories of social construction - and synthesizing information from many disciplines - is so important. Scientists can make all kids of discoveries, but it is what we do with them that actually makes the largest difference to our society.
@@isaacmarsh6025 Do you have any recent examples - say within the last 50 years - of biology changing owing to the identity of the biologists? The example you cite from the 19th century is hardly useful in advancing your argument. At that time, evolution, DNA, germ theory, the periodic table, and pretty much all of modern biology had not been discovered. Can you point to a recent example of biology changing based on who was doing the biology? Many people still believe the earth is flat and are immune to contrary evidence-does that mean the question is still open or truth of earth-flatness depends on who asks the question?
@isaacmarsh6025 If you don't think post modern social constructivism has any has any underlying assumptions about and implications on epistemology you must have simply never encountered any serious epistemological critique of the idiology. You should go check out the old debate between Noam Chomsky and Foucault, might learn something about why so many non authoritarian egalitarians have no time for the incoherent circularity of postmodern ideological stances, despite fully understanding that much of how we think and value things contains elements of social construction
More idiocy: she says science cannot say "who someone is", as if science can't say "based on your physical attributes, you are human, so this is who you are (not a cow or a flower), and thus it is best that you engage in life according to what humans are". To be clear, I'm not saying sexuality (the behavior) is limited to following the binary arrangement that nature has long ago established for humankind. Certainly we don't only engage in sex for procreation; we've found other benefits to having intercourse, even though biology set up our sexual organs for the vital function of procreation. But if one is born with a male body, for example, don't dismiss that biology in favor of pretending to be an AUTHENTIC female just because one would prefer to be female. I'd prefer to be God, but I can live with being what science informs me I am. If I want to play God, I can write a novel to Generate, Operate, and Destroy life in that realm.
@@DavidGraeberWasRight I doubt genetics & biology agrees they're women. Those fields wouldn't even have a proper measurement within their domain to measure anyone's or anything's psyche to ascertain gender identity.
@@Celestina0 I’ve listened to her word salads on more than one occasion where she disregards boring old science in favour of a world where 1+1=3 and XY=XX.
@@antonydavis2764 I wish I had the selfconfidence of someone who completely misunderstands a philosopher and thinks that the philosopher is the one who's completely mistaken, and not them lol
@@Celestina0 curious that you keep trying to bring this round to philosophy instead of science. Is this because you recognise JB’s ‘science’ is shaky and doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. By the way I’m an admirer of philosophy too but not when it seeks to undermine basic scientific principles with gobbledygook. I’m sure you can find some philosopher telling us all that the earth is flat.
@@antonydavis2764 the question of whether the earth is flat is an empirical question the question of how we categorise people into 'man' and 'woman' is not. This is the foundation of your misunderstanding of Butler.
When you go on a tangent about reality being just an idea you forget how much sexism affects people & how sexual perversions linked to control & power diminish all our safety especially children & mentally limited.
The only person here not having a firm grasp on reality is you, where in the video do they say reality is 'just an idea'? Yes, the feminist philosopher who writes extensively on gender and political power and violence doesn't understand sexism. And what do you mean by 'sexual perversion'? Because it never seems to mean the actual agents of sexual violence does it.
I probably disagree with all of you, but as an ex-feminist and still leftist, I don't see how most feminist intellectuals or feminist activists can understand violence or sexism. Feminists literally cause quite a lot of both, in criminal justice for example@@isaacmarsh6025
@@isaacmarsh6025 ''Yes, the feminist philosopher who writes extensively on gender and political power and violence doesn't understand sexism.'' No to this all, the feminist philosopher who writes extensively on gender and political power and violence doesn't understand or devalues the importance of biological, undisputable sex on human behaviour. Fixed that for you, you're welcome.
@@john.premose A few simple examples -Her absolute strawmanning of ppl who disagree with her -Her analysis of Latin America, Italy and Eastern Europe and equating them with the UK. She clearly doesn't speak languages from these areas. Including English. -Her claim that trans women are feminists -Her claims on past ideas of facts and the ramifications of what that means. Essentially that gender identity exists on a non-factual basis whereas sex exists factually. He should at least bring up when sex is far more important than gender. As in for basically everything. He should challenge her on single-sex female spaces and the indisputable history of crime. Also that gender is inherently regressive and why most ppl in the West were steadily moving away from treating ppl based on gender. Frankly he could just occasionally say, I'll stop you there cos you've made no points and what you have said is objectively false and shows a historical ignorance that you should be ashamed of.
@@robertmarshall2502 well, I found nothing objectionable in anything she said, and I find it surprising that anyone really would to the extent you seem to. And I'm by no means particularly "pro train" (I won't spell it right so I don't get taken down). I mean, I am 100% for acceptance and political rights of trains, but I don't necessarily buy into all their ideas. I do agree with you on one point. That is that I agree that society was on track to stop fixating on these distinctions, and I do find a lot of the current debates being brought up to be regressive in that sense. But I have a different perspective. I believe the commodification of identities is a techniques of current consumerist capitalism, which attempts to sell people identities, and thus control them. So I see the train ideology in the popular media and academia to be basically bourgeois and reactionary. That's why the media promotes it so much. If it truly were revolutionary or radical, the establishment media would be trying to suppress it, not sensationalise and popularise it.
@@robertmarshall2502 so yeah, if there was one thing I would have had him ask her, it would have been "do you think the current explosion of identities is a commodification of our very personalities and identities, a very extreme form of alienation?" That is the aspect of it that interests me.
@@robertmarshall2502 but also I will say, you seem guilty of straw manning yourself. I never heard her say "train women are feminists". What she said is that feminists have always played with and tried to expand what it meant to be a woman, and challenged the traditional notions, and that's also top some degree what the train movement does. Remember this isn't just about women. I find it interesting that, according to the way most people talk, it would seem that the only train that exist are the female ones. There are also men and all sorts of other non-conforming varieties. But to hear you lot, it's always only about the women. That's revealing.
Biological characteristics certainly makes you a woman. The general structure of the female pelvis is thinner and less dense, in comparison to the thick and heavy male pelvis, which is designed to support a heavier body build. The true pelvis is wide and shallow in the female, and the pelvic inlet, also known as the superior pelvic aperture is wide, oval and rounded. While in the male it is heart shaped, and narrow. A male pelvis has a v-shaped pubic arch that is approximately 80°. In a thousand years time when an archeologist digs your bones up. No knowledge of your pronouns will exist or how you identify. You will be identified by your skeleton structure.
And yet if tomorrow you see a trans person walking down the street you will, in many cases, refer to them by their desired pronouns. Why? Because, without an in-depth medical examination, many trans people are indistinguishable from cisgender people. For the purpose of everyday life, how do you think the way someone’s body will be viewed in an archeological dig thousands of years in the future is relevant?
In general usage, a "phobia" is an actual diagnosis done by a mental health professional and it bothers me that is it bandied about to label anyone who disagrees with someone. There is no official diagnosis from the mental health community that there is such a thing as transphobia or homophobia. Technically speaking, a phobia is a fear so great it stops you in your tracks and you cannot go forward without being knocked unconscious by drugs. For instance, a person with severe social phobia (which is real), cannot leave their home. How do they go shopping? How do they go to appointments? etc. Another example would be arachnophobia where a person is absolutely frozen in place when they see a spider. Or fear of heights, which I happen to suffer from, I literally cannot move my body if I am 3 rungs up a ladder. it's quite silly really, but I literally cannot make my body move. This "phobia" of other peoples' life-style is simply a disparaging remark against someone you actually don't have to say anything to.
Outside of technical, scientific terms the meanings of words are user- and context-dependent. There is a technical, medical use of the term 'phobia' and then there is its normal use in the English language, which most people understand and agree on. Most people understand what is meant by transphobia as used in this interview and would use it to mean much the same thing. It's clearly not intended as a medical diagnosis in this context. (Similarly, if somebody asks me my weight, I don't normally give my answer in newtons.)
@@brianpatterson7332Accurate to certain point. The problem in this context though is the use of the phobia add on is to shut down and cancel any other person's point of view, be it correct or not. So it is not a simple case of oh well people know what is meant by transphobia... the label is designed to prevent anyone asking a really difficult question such as the one mentioned herein by the presenter and guest: what is a woman? A really demanding question is it not? And this weaponising of language has resulted in some of the landmines that have been stepped on by various parts of the "medical" community in the UK for example. So to dismiss it casually as you have i think does not give enough weight to why this sort of problem needs to be better handled than it has been.
@theoutsider6191 No, the label is designed to - quite rightly, in my opinion - call out bigotry for what it is. From a biological perspective, what defines a woman is actually extremely complex; so much dmso that several biologists have written entire books on the subject. In terms of gender, it's different again and not something a politician should be expected to articulate off the top of his head in Parliament. Such a question coming from Sunak - a man who has never shown the slightest concern for women's rights in any other context - is clearly motivated by anti-trans bigotry (ie transphobia) and it's naive to the point of idiocy to think otherwise.
So a social phobia requires not being able to leave the house? Who made you an expert? Phobia has to match the specifics of your case? Check ANY dictionary... You dont get to redefine words with yourself as the reference point for everything 😂
I would love to listen to it later (i dont have time now), and Im one who would do so in a goodwill spirit. But I can't because you dont allow to include your video in a list. I dont understand why you do that. Very disapointing.
It will be in your watch history. Or you can just write down the title of the video and search again. UA-cam normally remembers how far through the video you got even if it isn't in a playlist.
and get this, she gets tons of taxpayer money for her unqualified, ideological nonsense that she doesn't even have to prove ... while many of her victims don't know how to make ends meet
Come on PolJoe - I love that you interviewed Judith Butler, but isn’t it a bit sloppy to use she/her pronouns in your video description and make no mention of Judith being non-binary and preferring they/them pronouns, especially given the context of your conversation and their work?! From their Wikipedia: “Personal life Butler is a lesbian,[129] legally non-binary,[130][131] and, as of 2020, said they use both singular they/them and she/her pronouns but prefer to use singular they/them pronouns.[6] Butler indicated that they were "never at home" with being assigned female at birth.[5] They live in Berkeley with their partner Wendy Brown and son.[132]” There’s a sea of people in the comments using she/her pronouns to refer to Judith; many of whom I’m sure would make an effort to be respectful and use the right pronouns if they were clearly presented with that information, but if this is the first introduction someone has to Judith and their work as a viewer, you can’t blame anyone for picking the wrong pronouns if they’re just going by what you’ve used! I was initially going to comment just to say, hey, it would be cool if you could make a point of putting everyone’s name and pronouns on screen at the start (including you as hosts!), no matter what their gender identity; just as a matter of course, and as a token of respect and inclusivity… but I think as step 0 you also need to take the time to check which pronouns to use for someone, and then use the correct ones!
Judith Butler is a woman and she is one person. Therefore I will refer to her as she and her not they and them. You can ask me to respect how someone looks, dresses and behaves but you cannot dictate to me a change in the English language for no reason at all. As Kathlern Stock says, if you change the meaning of the word 'woman' as we know it, we would have to invent a new word to describe biologically female humans. Why should we? That is dictatorship.
Links with authotarian right. Over 100, 000 people marched and protested against the far right in London against the Iraq war. The BNP campaigned against the Iraq war, so does that mean the 100, 000 people are far right?
Just because Butlet is saying that the right is responsible for much of the suppression of so-called “gender ideology” does not mean that everyone who opposes that ideology is on the right. That is not logic. All women are people, that does not mean all people are women.
I came to this interview seeking some clear and concise points. It is hard to be persuasive when points are overly-complex and rely on jargon. Maybe the next book should focus on varying ways of defining a human separately from other living creatures (10:27). Finding common ground seems impossible and even undesirable in these academic debates.
If I had to invent something that would frustrate class consciousness and the working class organising to advocate for themselves it would be something like this rubbish.
i would say feminism at large fulfills that role. Imagine if the abortion question was about reproductive rights or bodily autonomy in general, for everyone, rather than a conspiracy theory that men want to control women's bodies. Women don't have anywhere near enough reproductive rights or bodily autonomy, but they certainly have more than men - in the west anyway.
Like this if you're watching this following the Ed directive.
There's literally tens of us!
@@CH-pr2ubwonderful turnout! Incel here🙋🏻♂️
At 14:12 she states she doesn’t see why people wouldn’t want to go in an inclusive direction. She hasn’t spent the time understanding the other viewpoints, only her own. You can’t take someone seriously who hasn’t considered other viewpoints against their own.
Imagine argueing that being tolerant of others is actually intolerance towards the intolerant.
@@MCArt25 imagine replying with basic white chic replies and never thinking for oneself.
Gender critical isn‘t the correct term - we criticise the ideology, not necessarily the term gender. Gender is just a term that is used in many different ways and contexts. One person means sex by gender and the other one means a social role and a third means an innate feeling or perception of self, a fourth one says it‘s the chosen sex AND role you want to become. So there always are many misunderstandings and misconceptions in these discussions bc no one is defining „gender“ when using it to present or defend a certain point of view related to „trans“ in legal matters, social matters, biological matters…
@@OverOnTheWildSideimagine being a sexist? Oh, no you don't have to imagine do you.
@@powderandpaint14 my manliness offends you.
For almost anyone watching this with literally any questions, whether you're curious to hear more or don't like Judith's delivery or whatever, I strongly recommend you watch the Philosophy Tube video on their work and ideas. Disects it all in a great way and is clear, reasonable, and critical where needed. Basically nailed by Abigail and made it friendly and interesting to listen to as usual
Thanks for this, it's the delivery for me. You mean the video: "I Read The Most Misunderstood Philosopher in the World"?
@@Kris-ym2zr Yes, that one! Good stuff, I watched it as I was reading Gender Trouble and it helped break down the ideas for me.
Perhaps I'm deluded, but was under the impression the original feminists knew perfectly well what a woman was so weren't interested in debating that, rather their concern was resisting oppression and getting the same rights as men.
That, and rights won were sex based rights. The minute you make then gender rights,we'll as we can see it's incredibly problematic.
many early second wave feminist academics debated gender including ann oakley, angela davies and judith butler themself - I'm not sure how far back you are considering 'original' here but Judith is nearly 70, and has been debating this for quite some time. The debate hasn't always been as huge in activist circles as it now is but trans issues have been in public debate to at least some degree since the 50s (perhaps earlier). Debates are always shifting and progressing too and I dont think there is anything wrong with that - the earliest feminists for instance weren't debating rape culture or gender roles because getting the vote seemed like a pretty preeminent issue at the time obviously lol, nothing wrong with shifting the goalposts of the debate and considering needs for inclusivity now people have more capacity to do so. I know from my own studies many trans activists and feminist activists in the 70s and 80s did work together so its probably not as modern as you think, just trans people are the new media bogeyman.
the original feminist movement was also super racist. white women were mad that black men got the right to vote before they did. they took it as a huge offense, so they organized and got themselves the right to vote.
maybe don’t use the morals of people from a hundred years ago? the original feminist got a lot of shit wrong
There have always been women that sell other women.
So, I believe a lot of privileged women relish in how they manage to put men in the same bathrooms as our daughters.
When one thinks of 'original feminists' one thinks of Simone de Beauvoir (her 'The Second Sex' is the feminist Bible) and she is most famous for saying "one is not born but becomes a woman". De Beauvoir stated that although there are biological differences among the sexes, women only become women through social constructions and circumstances (i.e., they are fundamentally defined as relative to men, as 'not men', or, earlier in history, as 'imperfect men'- Thomas Aquinas). According to De Beauvoir, biological facts are never JUST biological facts but they take on the values of social norms. In fact, she busted open the essentialisation of biological facts, and exposed this essentialisation as the prime ideological tool used to justify the oppression and suppression of women. 'What a woman is' was a question and a subject of philosophical investigation for the most 'original' among 'original feminists'.
The fact that the joe team have to edit the video title multiple times in the past 24 hours, assumedly because having big scary words like ‘transgender’ or even just ‘gender’ in the title makes the UA-cam algorithm either cut ad revenue or straight up suppress the video is so wild
Exactly, and yet it is the left who is always accused of "cancel culture"
I’ve noticed. It’s so unfortunate. 😒
I've noticed comparatively few and tame comments, too - maybe support for gender ideology has reduced as a result of greater public education and recent scandals in Scotland and the Tavistock; also, maybe a lot of trans advocates were, in fact, bots or have gotten cannier in their comments. Whatever it is, it sure is quiet around here compared to a year ago, as if the circus has moved on.
Sad because we'll never move forward without open dialogue. We'll have public speak and that which we use privately.
Its because there are so many little snowflakes in the world these days that will have a meltdown if you say something they feel like hurts their feelings. And unfortunately many large companies and .govs are ingratiating these clowns.
Love this channel & I loved the interview but could Politics Joe please work on their audio quality?
I think I’m one of those people that wants to live in a simple world and don’t think the gender identity debate deserves the amount of political attention it receives.
That is wanting to live in a simple world. It matters because the culture wars are a bad faith attempt to divide people for political ends.
I completely agree but I think the identity debate isn't solely about gender/sex, it's about choice and what choices can be made and which choices can not. That's the push back, choice has become a dirty word. We are all transient, moving from one place to another, the notion of trans identity interrupts the notion that we are all on a single track, and are fixed into a singular way of being. We can live in this simple world together. 💕 to all
@@ThankYouAndHello What choice do women and girls have when men intrude on their private spaces, sports competitions, changing rooms, prisons, rape crisis centers?
We are not just "uncomfortable" by a man in our changing rooms we are threatened, scared and pissed off. Men, no matter how they identify, have since time immemorial used their power to abuse women.
Good men, no matter how they identify or dress, understand women's need to be safe and to feel safe.
@@opinion3742 100% agreed, but if that is so why do we at the majority give the time of day to the extreme ends of the argument. I would like to think most people could see past the headlines and blatant attempts of manipulation. Maybe wishful thinking
@@tomwood8153 I think that most people do. Especially the young, and it is their world after all.
I am here from the podcast and have now revoked my subscription to Hustlers University.
The call for a "return" to an imagined past is one of the core pillars of fascism.
That’s how you know Wokes are fascists - they want to re-racialise society except this time to discriminate against the majority and they want to pretend it’s still the 1950s and society still holds the attitudes toward race and sex that brought about the civil war. Victim nostalgia…
No one can be "born in the wrong body", our brains ARE our body just as much as any other part of it. We are the sex we are, regardless of what our personal relationship is with the sexist stereotypes in society. "Trans" ideology, is regressive and sexist, as there is no "correct way" of being a boy or girl, man or woman, all those terms do is indicate sex and stage of maturity - decoupling sex and gender and trying to make gender into this ludicrous concoction of personality and sexist stereotypes is beyond regressive - it actively harms people who buy into it - the idea that there is something wrong with a kid's body that needs to be chemically altered because they believe living up to sexist stereotypes is some real measure of whether they are a boy or a girl (and man or woman for adults obviously), is insanity.
I have asked hundreds of "activists" and "allies" to explain what they are measuring themselves against to determine that they have a need to transition - NOT ONE person has been able to articulate what that is - not one person is able to distance themselves sufficiently to realise that THEY are the ones with a regressively sexist idea of what it means to be a boy/girl or man/woman and that that is the issue causing all the problems - their own misunderstanding and severely limited perspective/sexist misunderstanding of what sexist stereotypes/"gender norms" actually entail - they are not rules, they are not real boundaries, they are regressive ideas and generalisations - no one needs to live up to any such utter nonsense or feel comfortable with those stereotypes to be a boy/girl/man/woman - all those terms represent, and all they should represent, is sex and stage of maturity - by creating this whole "gender identity" nonsense, THAT IS WHAT CAUSES ALL THE DISTRESS, THIS FABRICATION OF A FRAMEWORK WHICH DISTORTS REALITY.
No one - NO ONE - in the movement has been able to explain or articulate what this supposed "womanly essence" or "manly essence" is that they feel/know/need to transition in order to represent etc. actually is - yet you all actively believe in it and push for it to be accepted. That is ludicrous.
You have no clue what fascism is
@@x16881 I'm literally referencing Umberto Eco, dude
@@x16881 The second somebody types that you are either close to it or you're a undercover fascist saying you're a centrist , DEAR X166881. Fascism is a permanent being, it is everywhere and in everything now.
So, you remove comments mentioning Kathleen Stock's sensible criticism of Butler. Who's afraid of contrary opinions? Sad.
You do know UA-cam automatically deletes comments for random ass reasons don’t you? I’ve had incredibly non hostile pro-trans comments disappear with no reason. You aren’t special
Who's removing them? That's not this channel doing that. It's happening all over this site.
And ending with "sad"? Who are you, Donald Trump? Lol
Literally my comment saying that some comments get deleted automatically by youtube got deleted. I'm getting notifications for the replies but can't even see my own anymore. Deluded mate. Sad.
@@MrMyers758 any time I even say the name of this website I get hidden
People who say your biology can't define your limits are conflating two different things, your biology tells you what you are, it doesn't and isn't trying to tell you who you are, that's up to you. Saying that a woman is defined by by her biology is not saying that she is limited to being only her biology, it's kind of tedious to have to explain that point to an adult.
Yet, I saw your other comment which pretty much contradict what you've said here where you very much have conflated sex and gender
Hear, hear. These morons don`t even know that biology is DESCRIPTIVE not prescriptive.
@@calumlambertwhat comment?
From her very first pronouncements - 'that the way in which feminism began, was by calling into question received notions of what a biological woman is' and, 'it's not the specific biology - alone - that defines you as a women...' Just stop right there.
a) I disagree; feminism was NOT originally a battle about perceptions of identity or characteristics. It was about SURVIVAL. Women already knew what they were made of, they weren't interested in personalities, they were quite aware each woman had their own traits. The genesis of feminism was compelled by the collective experiences of women as a whole - and what all women required to survive and to protect themselves - and ultimately their offspring too. It was about rights and protections to support all women, based COMPLETELY on their biological sex - not on identities or orientations or a word game about feelings and characteristics. Really basic rights that were necessary that give autonomy and power to any female that a man also has.
Many rights that were not afforded women, strictly because they were women.
b) Saying biology alone does not define you as a woman is duplicitous word-play when you know that the point of the discussion is; what is the importance of biology in defining a woman? IT IS EVERYTHING. Biology defines the reality. All other feelings about identity are secondary criteria that are as abstract or ephemeral as the wind. The rights and protections women are losing are SEX BASED rights.
I haven't even managed to get past the first 5 minutes of this interview without serious mistrust of Butler who is so intent on disowning women.
This shows you've not read anything written by feminists
It wouldn't be a poljoe video without scuffed audio.
Unironic leftist audio 😅
right? it’s like…you had one job…
Audio guy probably campaigns for a 0 day working week
I would be so gutted to get Judith Butler in and totally scuff the audio like this. What she’s saying is so important, and here’s the audio editor sweating bullets to make it usable
Butler's points on gender are interesting and thoughtful, and I think they're really trying to have a more nuanced conversation than what has been happening.
But they seem to forget the other POV - the biologial POV. If I were to be put in a prison with a transgender woman who was born a man, I would feel very unsafe.
''Butler's points on gender are interesting and thoughtful, ''
Morons are often easily impressed by the empty words of confident yet fraudulent quacks such as Butler. ;>
Can you not just start these videos at the beginning we are not 13 year olds the attention spans of a gnat, who do you think your audience is?, We don't need a teaser at the beginning or a snippet just play the video.
Just skip that bit then 😂
I believe its due to how youtube works; when scrolling through video suggestions it will start playing the first few seconds, so they put an interesting clip there to get people to click through.
you need a hobby
unfortunately almost everything on the internet assumes a woeful level of intelligence & tiny attention span.
Dude, there are literally thousands of people out there that are constantly asking what a woman is even after being repeatedly explained and demonstrated it.
The people that should watch this video have the IQ of an yogurt and the attention span of a two year old.
Why constant references to the right, many left leaning people question modern gender theory.
Easier to ignore that, pretend they don't exist, or just dismiss them as not 'true left'. Which, ironically, would be anti-thesis to their claim that you are what you identify as. Tad hypocritical, don't you think?
Also, it plays on ever present dominant narrative force in our corporate media space - Conservative and right = bad. By doing that, they don't need to put much effort to shun people away and portray them as undesirable.
@@mi__ran There is plenty of in fighting in leftist politics and culture.
But who are these left leaning people? Because I have seen a fair amount of criticism of people within these wide boarders. In fact there has always been plenty of criticism and disagreement within leftist circles.
@@opinion3742 give me a few concrete examples.
@@mi__ran Lol. Joking right?
There is no sex assignment. JKR is right that sex is real and not something chosen as JB wants it to be. I think JB so disliked being a female that she wanted to remake that category so she could escape it. She doesn't do justice to gender critical feminism which does not want to limit us by our birth sex. JB is incredibly frustrating. It is so annoying that she only sits down with people like this guy who defer to her and gets all cringey. Most people in the anti-gender ideology movement are not authoritarian conservatives, but she wants to pretend it is so.
I think it is difficult to get 2 knowledgeable women to meet and talk about these issues that are also good faith and not just trying to catch the other in “gotcha” moments..
K j keen is the woman for that,!!! ❤
@marydaniel3252 I admire KJK, but I think an academic would match Judith Butler better. One professor to another.
@@daughter_of_earth - Ms Rowling started off in the public sphere as a smart, reasonable woman, but veered off the road at some point and landed in a ditch.
Tell that to the millions of intersex babies operated on and forcefully “assigned” a gender at birth
We are mammals, just like other mammals. Nothing more, nothing less. Not once did he challenge JB's assertions. Women don't have the luxury of being self-defined in the majority of the world. It's not essentialist or bigoted or right wing to say a woman - female - produces large gametes and a man - male - produces small gametes. We can forget all about gender stereotypes, we don't need to be culturally defined by our sex stereotypes but we are inevitably shaped by our biological body. The project of feminism is about the destruction of preconceived ideas about what a woman is capable of even though she produces large gametes. I don't think it was ever feminism's intention to ignore the fact that a woman produces large gametes and the real-life consequences that flow from being female and her vital role in the reproduction of the species.
@alisonteal2317 This ^^^
"The project of feminism is about the destruction of preconceived ideas about what a woman is capable of even though she produces large gametes." Why women though? Why not everyone? I understand both feminists and some non feminists once focused on women in the sense that women were not organized after being brought back into the labor force, or maybe did not get the vote as early as most men got it. But once those are achieved, it seems feminism essentially IS just acting out of sex stereotypes, including the flawed idea that most women are oppressed relative to most men
Buy no other mammals have a neo cortex, and can't do art, mathematics, or classical music, or computer science, physics, chemistry, chess etc. Or am I just making shit up? Do.youbstand by that assertion, that we are "nothing but mammals", meaning there is no difference between, cats, dogs, chimpanzees and humans? Of course you don't, because you're not that smart
.
Not all humans produce gametes. Genetic abnormalities or conditions, such as Turner Syndrome in females (where there is a missing or partially missing X chromosome) and Klinefelter Syndrome in males (where there is an extra X chromosome, XXY instead of XY), can affect gamete production.
@@leonepearsall5067exceptions do not annul a biological fact.
Fascinating. I listened to this insightful conversation directly after listening to a similar discussion with Kathleen Stock. While Butler is a self-proclaimed political activist (i.e., literally politically motivated), Stock made no such claim...nor does she exhibit any signs of political intent. I find Stock much more logically coherent and sound....perhaps for obvious reasons: politics distort logic...and the desire to change thinking or a state of affairs (i.e., politics) is inherently not a logic-dependent pursuit. In fact, a core objective of political activists is to frame arguments in a manner designed to influence people, often at the cost of fact distortion and/or negation. I desire to learn, not be led in one direction or another.
I would on the contrary claim it's inherently illogical if not dishonest to make the argument that any communication can be free from political influence or subjectivity
Bible has no dinosaurs
When you paint it as Left / Right, you immediately degrade the strength of the argument. So if your claim is subjective, am I not free to reject it?
Clearly not.... hence The Tavistock et al....
No, that is what the whole idea of "lived experience" is about. It invokes a heirarchy of veracity and meaning. This is how the queer assert dominance and shame you or beat you into silence.
@@ivermec-tin666love your moniker.
@@ivermec-tin666: The very same can be said of those who identify as heterosexual.
Communication is so important, as is being just as if not more critical of your side of an argument... Society is slowly pulling itself apart and someone needs to be the grown up in the room.
@@theoutsider6191 Where is the evidence that puberty blockers cause untold damage?
@@theoutsider6191 Nice straw man. Try actually saying something factual.
@@squatch545Pathetic answer, but i guess that was what you are going for.
@@theoutsider6191 So you've got nothing then? Thought so.
@@squatch545I've got the ability to read and understand information, which clearly is something you lack. Perhaps the only thing allowing you to even interact on sites like this is predictive text and other such aids for the feeble of mind.
This was the first long interview of Butler that Iv listened to. My impression was that she is very smart but that pretty much all of her discussion of her position/idiology on gender was demonstrably just a whole lot of empty sophistry. Many people don't agree with her position because her type of logic makes no sense to them and make serious and intelligent good faith attempts to civilly argue their counter positions, rather than adressing those well intentioned, coherent and well structured arguments she just waves them away with an assertion that no position or 'reality' on these issues can be more true or rational than any other, before pulling a sneaky strawman by focusing her actual critique on the authoritarian positions and retoric of the most simple minded and extreme right wing people who disagree with her, as if doing the later is anything like or serves as any kind of meaningful rebuttal of the former. Then as an extension of that there is just a whole lot of 'facisists arnt postmodernists, so if you're not a postmodernist, it seems like you must also be a facist'. Talk about arguing from assertion and logical falacy, as if those are the only two positions people could possibly have. It can be frustrating how very smart idiologes can make clearly over simplistic nonsense sound complex and profound to people who just really want to agree with them. Just not sure if she can tell shes doing it or if she sees the inherent contradiction between arguing from a fundational position that all 'realities' are equally true and valid in order to try and persuade people that her 'reality' is more true and morally superior than theirs, but just dosnt care for for the reasons sophists never really care if what their saying makes sense so long as they expect it will persuade.
while i largely agree with your take, i think this is a pretty common disease on the right, center, and left in the social sciences.
Agreed, very disturbing trend in general. But personally as a fairly old school lefty of the Chomskian sort of variety, I find it most disturbing of all when people who are claiming/trying to be champions of working class emancipation allow themsleves to fall into doing that sort of thing. We need to hold ourselves to higher standards than that if we're going to keep any hope of succeeding.
Yes. But we should not be afraid to take that logic to the end. If Chomsky only dealt academically with social affairs he would be out of a job before he ever got one. Linguistics is how he held on and stayed out of trouble. As the price that comes with their stand, activists drive taxis, or go to jail or the morgue, or sell 5000 books on a small press, while teaching at a community college somewhere. It should be suspicious that Butler is somehow a radical marxist leftist, but famous, and not persecuted. It has to do with the sloppy obscurantism and gender feminism (which is a very corporate friendly ideology) and so on. @@anthonyderosa7757
@emilianosintarias7337 Fully agree, only I'd say even more directly and generally what I think you're driving at, that it's more than just suspicious. I think the case that Chomsky made some time around the mid 60's that the rapid growth of the whole Foucoult type fux accademic fux radical incoherent obscuritanist theoretical trends that became major if not dominant in many social science departments of many academic institutions resulted from a natural informal alliance forming between people who wanted academic and heroic status while having little of the required intellect and none of the required integrity, and wealthy institutions that were desperare to redirect the growing actual radicalsim they feared away from threatening the control and power of corporate and poitical elites and towards issues that threatened little to no impact on the actual centers of power. I think that assessment is as correct now as it was then in general, although, of course, there are plenty major exceptions. I don't think it would be wise or fair for me to categorise Butler squarly in that kind of hack fux radical academic catogory on the basis of a single interview, but it was the strong impression I was getting from the endless sophistry she seemed to genuinly think counted as profound philosophy.
except all of mainstream science agrees with trans people, gender and sex are not binary. No need to play with words when the science is on her side
Dear God, I'm only halfway through this and Butler has said nothing, she's talked for 30 minutes and said absolutely nothing, it's just meaningless word salad. I feel like it's a conversation with AI.
I wish.
That's female "thinkers" for you... You can count on three hands throughout whole human history women who dont do the same...
That's common for 'postmodernism' (broadly speaking). They are modern day sophists. They use big words that sound complex and moral condemnation to force their beliefs; or at least to silence any dissent. Interesting how they talk about fascism; their worldview denies the knowablity of truth and distills all 'truth' as socially negotiated by power dynamics. Power is the closest thing to a 'feature' of reality you'll get in intersectionality. Very strange and sad world-view; misology at it's finest.
Good book:
The Genesis of Gender - Favale (she is an academic and feminist - good book)
Noam Chomsky - Postmodernism I - ua-cam.com/video/OjQA0e0UYzI/v-deo.html (I'm not a fan of Chomsky; but, this is funny.)
Was so worried my headphones were mucking up. But it’s just JoePol. Love it.
This interviewer seemed a little nervous, treading carefully with his questions
Judith Butler talks so much rubbish.
@pablodelnorte9746 - Not if you listen carefully.
Aaah sifting the properly pronounced words and correct grammar in the mountain of rubbish. Definitely have to listen so carefully.@@MossyMozart
talking for an hour without saying anything.... categorisation is not definition
@auriga2461 Yes, it is - when it comes with a whole heap of 'shoulds'.
Don't you mean talking for an hour without saying what you wanted to hear?
points very badly made… sex is not ‘assigned’, it is observed, and feminism is not questioning what a woman ‘is’ but what she can DO ffs… and obvs a man pretending to ‘be’ a woman in order to violate women’s privacy and safety is not doing anything feminist or engaging in any kind of freedom fight to redefine unfair limitations imposed on him… the slippages here are beyond crass and stupid
Sometimes the sex that is "observed" at birth is actually not matched by the internal organs, for example females with an intersex condition where they have internal testes and no ovaries.
still either male or female.
If biological sex has nothing to do with gender identity, why take hormones? Why irreversibly harm your body and your ability to reproduce? Also what is a woman, without using the word 'woman' in the answer? (hint: adult human female)
For people with Gender Dysphoria gender affirming care is not harming them quite the opposite including most people who go on to fully transition.
For a junkie taking heroin is not harming them its making them a hero. That is your logic. I weep at your reasoning capacity. But as long as you make people feel good you dont care if you talk out of your ass, do you? @@MrRailjunkie
"If biological sex has nothing to do with gender identity, why take hormones?"
Yeah... Puberty causes permanent irreversable changes. That's why puberty blockers exist.
"(hint: adult human female)"
And what is a female, except what society considers a predominance of characteristics that are socially accepted as feminine.
@@arturferrao7353
Even a dog knows what a female is.
Love this video and the fact you let her talk without interrupting. Just bought the book.
>talk without interrupting.
Aka, a clueless grifter and a coward.
She’s confusing stereotypes with biological women. Sex is binary and immutable, as you well know, Judith. Your book is a turgid mess of lies and obfuscations.
Biologically speaking no it isn't actually.
In case of humans in efing fact it is! @@powderandpaint14
Seminal feminist theorist to Sadiq Cans in a week. Our boy has range.
Queer icon, not feminist icon
Not even an icon. Just a dummy.
They're the same thing
@@RealFemale69 Nope
@@ComplexConfiguration they've been intertwined for like 50 - 60 years
@@RealFemale69 It's not necessary. You can advocate for women's (female's) rights without saying that males should have a right to female spaces or legal recognition as women. In fact, you can argue the opposite from the standpoint of female rights. You can even separate it from gay rights. So they are not the same thing.
when a Palestinian talking about the conflict and life in Palestine says "the Jews", they mean Jewish Israelis. It's always clear in context, but it's an unfortunate shorthand that gets taken out of context and used to claim antisemitism.
For whatever it's worth, the charter of Hamas and the equivalent Fatah documents explicitly reject antisemitism
unfortunately in the u.k... having any sympathy for the 38000 innocent people(most of them women and children sheltering in hospitals or refuge camps) that have been slaughtered with absurd reckless disregard for life by the IDF, is regarded as being antisemitic
If you really think that, how do you deal with the following:
1) statements by Hamas that quote the Quran to kill Jews, which was clearly written before the modern state of Israel. "The hour of judgment shall not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them, so that the Jews hide behind trees and stones, and each tree and stone will say: 'Oh Muslim, oh servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him,' except for the Gharqad tree, for it is the tree of the Jews"?
2) That there have been many terrorist attacks and attempts against Jews outside of Israel, AMIA bombing, Toulouse shooting, Hyper Cacher supermarket attack in Paris, Copenhagen Shootings, Djerba synagogue bomed in 2002 and then also a shooting in 2023, and arrests of hezbollah agents, in NY, thailand, Brazil, Greece, Peru and many more, but those were specifically where the targets of the planned attacks were Jewish but not Israel?
3) The Houthi motto specifically mentions Jews and Israel separately, how much clearer do you want them to make it that Jews and Israelis aren't synonyms for them? "God Is Great, Death to America, Death to Israel, Curse on the Jews, Victory to Islam"
4) Why would you believe someone who claims they aren't racist just because they say they aren't? The most funny headline about this "KKK members insist they’re not “white supremacists”"
I don't think Hamas is sincere in their updated charter, to be frank.
Hamas, the organisation that had as it's explicit goals the genocide of Jews in the region but recently updated for pollical expediency (hard to claim the world's sympathy went it's in black and white you are the "bad" ones).
Be better than this. Be on no one's "side". When you are impartial, then you have a chance of being an agent for peace in the region. Being utterly biased, you are part of the conflict.
@@swibwido you have any prove of this? As Israel is not targeting hospitals, and Hamas is using civilians as human shields?
This woman is a joke
Seriously
Why are obvious psychopaths allowed to define ANYTHING in society?
Yes it's pretty ridiculous that people like this are given a platform to spread blatant lies and disinformation.
they want to control ppl, and when you define something you excerpt control
That's very well said. @@IcoOst
Luxury beleifs 🙄
Never use an argument that your enemy could use without changing a single word to mean the same. The fact that this can be done is a proof that there is literally no logic behind the argument.
Trying to make yourself relevant by re-inventing the playbook is shameful. Philosopher and scholar? Grifter.
Butler is so incoherent. What’s not said is as telling as what is said as the number of elephants in the room that aren’t confronted outweigh any meaningful points she makes. Postmodern, watery nonsense with so many obfuscations and deliberately vague ideas all to prop up a notion that ‘gender’ is an actual thing 🥲
Strange, but I think many of us find her completely coherent. Comments like yours remind me of people saying a comedian is not funny when there is an audience laughing at that comedian's jokes. In that scenario, is it the comedian who isn't funny, or the person who isn't laughing who doesn't get the joke?
@@Bette_B123 subjective perspective. For me it’s that she gives long meandering responses that don’t cut to the nub of the criticisms laid against her theories. She seems hesitant to confront them perhaps because she knows her views are gobbledygook. I’m amazed how people fall for it.
@@talkwithstrangers Do you think maybe you're annoyed because she doesn't have the same concerns as you?
@@talkwithstrangersme too
Judith Butler is flawed in presenting"sex assignment" at birth as an arbitrary, uninformed or casual decision. Much as I like to think myself as inclusive, this is sloppy thinking. Should I watch more than the first 15 minutes?
Judith Butler doesnt claim that. Gender assignment as birth being synonymous with sex assignment is the problem and what they are questioning. One of the first things they say is that sex is real. How that manifests and how it is interpreted is what is dynamic, context dependent, and highly individual and the child should be given the grace to figure it out for themselves.
You might "like" to think of yourself as inclusive, but if that's your honest assessment of her views then you very clearly are not. At best you're ignorant, perhaps more likely, you've deliberately distorted her claims to make them seem ridiculous and undermine her credibility.
@@arnoldkotlyarevsky383 JB says sex assignment several times see at 11:30 onward. She doesn't say gender assignment. The child needs to be given observable and documented facts - such a cell biology, chirality, chromosomes, krebs cycle after which the child can investigate further. Ephemeral notions of any kind of identity should always be questioned.
@@callum9999 Please see JB statement that "they are constantly rethinking paradigms for sex assignment". This is not true - distinctions between male and female in biology are very clear. I will leave it to the audience if JBs comments are sloppy thinking. (Kindly review pronouns in your comment above)
@@wingtipzzz you don't think her thinking is sloppy,you think she is wrong. Just be honest rather than couching your ideas in criticism
I'm an Eastern European commie so what the hell do I know, but I can't help but notice we're still debating neoliberal trust fund kids' issues and semiotics, not actual collective problems coming for all of us....
In other words, this is liberalism at its finest, and its about time we stop associating it with the left.
Are you saying that you don't think there are poor kids who experience gender dysphoria?
@@Bette_B123 I'm sure there are. The bigger problem is we have poor kids.
@@the_smart_cookies_pod Can't we address both problems? Hunger can kill you, but so can gender dysphoria.
@@Bette_B123 Absolutely. The problem is ALL I'm hearing is identity issues. Any sort of discussion about class politics is NON existent... which is absolutely perfect for global capital.
@@the_smart_cookies_pod I hear that. But is it the fault of trans folk and their allies? Isn't it politicians and mainstream media trying to create a diversion? And if so, wouldn't it be better to take them to task?
Love your work so much, but please please get some help with your audio quality 🥴
It's terrible isn't it. Making it hard to listen to which is a massive shame
Im surprised she has the "balls" to poke her head out on any podcast after the #WpathFiles have been released. The incredibly sophisticated way she delivers her gobbledygook on this interview astonishingly has stirred my admiration of her communication style. I disagree with her vehemently but I can see why its convincing to people who really dont understand basic science & or already are mentally vulnerable.
Basic Sciences?
Oh god, the 4chan trolls are here
I’m curious what “basic science” you think people (presumably trans people?) don’t understand?
Also have you read the WPATH files?
@BetteB999 Not just trans people but people in general. It's easy to convince science illiterate people or at least get them to tacitly agree that sex is a spectrum & blocking children's puberty is a healthy viable medical treatment for assumed gender dysphoria,oh & to lump autogynophiles,drag,kink & gender non-conforming persons under the term transgender ie: "you don't have to have gender dysphoria to be trans" ideaology pushed by trans activist today.
For example to any person understanding the scientific concept of biological pathology & the what sex scientifically is can see the "intersex" explanations used to defend the "sex is a spectrum" primise are disingenuous at worst & poor science at the least.
@RealFemale69 oh god the trans religion fanatics are here defending their neo-religion with ad-hominem attacks because they intrinsically know their science is bogus
The older and farther away from college I get, the less threatening and relevant people like Judith seem. Something weirdly soothing about hearing a smooth clueless voice babbling on about the "beauty of Marxist criticism" like it hasn't been responsible for millions of deaths around the world. It's almost pleasant to hear someone who is so detached from reality.
It's just ridiculous
Ever heard of Hiroshima?
@@kimcarsons7036 That is a single car crash compared to the many millions killed by Marxist governments over the past hundred years. So that was an ignorant argument.
Marxists do not support her views.
Every one who doesn't agree with you Judith isn't on the right.
Huh?
Everyone who agrees with Judith butler is wrong.
When did Judith gain the monopoly on the truth?
@@nigelfrench8894 when did anyone else?
@@nigelfrench8894What?
Hilarious that Butler doesn't understand de Beauvoir - 'one becomes a woman' statement. What a terrible philosopher Butler is.
One becomes a woman. In other words a girl becomes a woman through puberty.
Beauvoir was talking about primary & secondary socialisation
Judith says a whole lot about nothing. She is the master at combining words and phrases to make herself appear enlightened or intelligent. But when you actually take apart what she is saying, you quickly realize that she is saying a whole lot about nothing. It's all gibberish. She cannot even understand the difference between what makes a woman a woman, which IS her biology, and the social construct of a woman, which is about what a woman DOES. She needs a lesson in linguistics. IS and DOES are not the same, and her arguments always equate the two, which leads her to ridiculous conclusions.
No, actually it's just that you don't like what she's saying. And what gives you the right to define who is or isn't a woman? And why does it matter so much, could it be that you're afraid of finding someone attractive and then discovering they're not a biological woman and that threatens your own idea of your sexuality?
Disappointingly softball interview guys. I get you agree with her position, but as an interview I want to hear her views dissected and challenged. Ask her for examples of how facts about sex has changed, and how that assertion supports her argument, for example.
@@powderandpaint14 It's called biology that defines what a woman is and society contrasts view about what a woman does. Firstly I am gay. I am attracted to gay men. Not women who want to present masculine or have masculine roles. Biology is inherent with sexual orientation, and to suggest it's not is homophobic at its core. There are only 2 sexes and you cannot change sexes just like you cannot change race. To suggest you can is the definition of cognitive dissidence. Sex and race are immutable as is sexual orientation. The roles you want to play in society is fluid. Two different things and Judithg wants to fool us into thinking they are the same. Illogical.
@@johnwindisman2803 good, then atleast you have no internalised homophobia at play here. Biology is not quite as simple as people are sometimes made to believe.
@@powderandpaint14 Biology is simple. It's Judith who has made it complicated for some people when they buy into her double talk and nonsensical statements without taking a step back and analyzing what she is really saying. Very unfortunate. It is not helpful for those people who suffer from sexual dysmorphia, which is just a subset of body dysmorphia.
Excellent again. I'm impressed with your content lately
If Judith Butler doesn't understand the link between queer theory and minor attracted persons, perhaps she should read one of her own books or essays. Starting with Gender Trouble, chapter 1, and its discussion of incest.
Call them as they are: PDF files that are supposed to be in recycle bin.
Early feminists questioned the things that they were not allowed to "do". They were not questioning what a woman "is". Conflating these two concepts is just intellectually dishonest.
that’s a lie. feminist have always had discussions about what being a woman really is.
edit: changed “meant” to “is”
@@aaabbc379 that's not the same as questioning what a woman "is".
No. It's both. A woman was, in many cultures in the west, not an equal to men. In fact a woman was property. The idea of feminism is that a woman isn't property, isn't "weaker" or whatever. A woman is a leader, a lawyer, a firefighter etc etc.
It's not just things they can do, it's how they are perceived, so it is both what a woman can do and what a woman is.
@@pieinsky3142 hold on i edited my comment so you could keep up with the conversation.
Yes - feminism has changed very recently from discussing who a woman can be to who can be a woman.
That’s a big change and most women don’t like it.
We should bear in mind that only 15-20 percent of UK women identify as feminist so feminism represents the views of a small minority of women and gender ideologues an even smaller group…
The move from a structuralist account in which capital is understood to structure social relations in relatively homologous ways to a view of hegemony in which power relations are subject to repetition, convergence, and rearticulation brought the question of temporality into the thinking of structure, and marked a shift from a form of Althusserian theory that takes structural totalities as theoretical objects to one in which the insights into the contingent possibility of structure inaugurate a renewed conception of hegemony as bound up with the contingent sites and strategies of the rearticulation of power.
Careful now, someone might not get the joke and think you're being serious (great parody btw).
@@Pedro17841 I think it's the actual quote for which Butler won the 'Bad Prose Award'...
@@daramccluskey
If not, it most definitely should be.
I think that’s from Kafka right
The idea of any politics or really any idea that has an issue with material reality is just so absurd to me. I mean, as long as we're just making things up, you can basically justify anything you want.
How is what Butler says contradicting material reality?
Nothing they said denies material reality. Many of you are just crude materialists and naive realists.
Talking about the "sex assignment" of infants as if it were just as arbitrary and made up as an infant's name is denying material reality.
@@puppptnobody's denying that penises and vaginas exist, they're denying that a woman is necessarily defined by having a vagina. We don't disagree over empirical reality, but how we categorise that reality.
@@puppptso many of you are just so confused. No one has denied anatomical material/physical facts. We do disagree on how we should draw the distinctions in classifying and distinguishing between those material facts though in terms of what the referents of the terms woman/man should be.
Absolute 10/10 delusional world view that is both false and clumsy, She makes an assertion and contradicts it in the same sentence several times just to open the interview. It's a want your cake and eat it too petulant child's motus operandi.
I can not even begin to write what I think of this woman 🤡
Is the intervewer a woman?
I truly believe and have deep inner feelings since I've been 2 and my family and friends support, affirm and believe me, that I am Napoleon.
It is Napoleonphobic that the French government won't put me in charge of their military.
If by 'I'm napoleon' you mean you're the corsican general born in 1769, then you would be incorrect.
If by 'I'm a woman' you mean you prefer people call you a woman, prefer to dress a certain way, than that may very well be correct, and perfectly believeable.
Lol.
@@Celestina0 Both are delusional ideas.
@@catwoman7462how can preferences be delusional? Can I be deluded about the fact I prefer chocolate to vanilla icecream?
But you can't argue with your chromosomes and your lady or man parts. Muscles, lung capacity, height. @@Celestina0
I'm 5 days into taking feminising hormones & this discussion is fascinating! As far as I'm concerned I'd just like to be able to exist in a way that doesn't feel intensely uncomfortable or unsafe physically, socially etc. Outside of the very real threat of the extremist right, it feels like a large sum of the discourse & anger out there comes from miscommunication of (broadly) similar ideals rather than diametrically opposed ones from what Judith is saying. Thanks for giving her a platform to speak :)
good on you! You have more allies than youtube comments would have you think!
Do whatever the fuck you like with your body. Literally nobody cares. Just stay the fuck out of women's spaces and sports.
Yep...stay out of women's spaces....
Live your life free of terror and I wish the best for you. However I hope you support keeping women's sports for women and preserving women's safe spaces. If you care about women you will want to keep them safe. I also hope you support not performing medical procedures on children. In any case, good luck.
Instead of chemical mutilation, you should seek treatment to help you accept biological reality and live in concordance with the objective state of things. You are a male born in a male body. Your best possible outcome is to accept that objective fact, and find a way to live with THAT.
A hundred years ago, G.K. Chesterton wrote, ''If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it, for in many ways, his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment.'' He is not hampered by a sense of humor, or by charity, or by the dumb certainties of experience. He is the more logical for losing certain sane affections. Indeed, the common phrase for insanity is in this respect a misleading one. The madman is not the man who has lost his reason. The madman is the man who has lost everything except his reason.
An excerpt from “How to Think” by Alan Jacobs
Sex is real but what is real is defined personally? This is silly. Rowling says that biological sex is real and Butler agrees this is so but then says what is real is defined differently by people. This is just silly and none of us can survive in the material world if we don't accept certain realities. Eg the earth is round and gravity is real and biological sex is real.
How you identify does not matter one iota! What matters is how people perceive you. And that is something you build, not something you demand!
Does it matter you identify as important or it matters that you ARE important?
@@dcostaras
The authoritarian Right tell us all, who and what we are, how to live, who to love, and what constitutes the "right" way to live and behave is...and say its all based on undisputable....facts.. with Right Wingers making their personal assertions....facts...
@@kimberleyaxxxx934But I am left wing and dedicated to the idea that I and everyone else is entitled to be, say, dress and behave as they wish. But I will not be told that 2 and 2 makes 5. It is absolutely clear that biological sex is real and to pretend otherwise is ridiculous. People should not be told they are transphobic or hateful because they say so. I don't know what causes the increasing numbers of people feeling they are in the wrong body. We have to be patient and try to work put what's going on. Certainly as a 72 year old woman who has never taken on board classic "female" characteristics, I think much of the problem arises because the idea of a woman in the media or a man in the media is so unattainable and unattractive! I would advise anyone to avoid those stereotypes and be yourself. You don't need to change your body necessarily.
@susiegreaves7283 I would agree with almost all you have set out Susie. But its what you want to leave out, and dont give any voice to that I would worry about. As "left leaning" people are usually more inclusive. So they dont generally start with a hate based (sex is a fact - so theres no such thing as Trans) attacks on Queer/Trans people. There have ALWAYS been people who have questioned their gender. That is a fact. The greatest threat of harm to women comes from hetrosexual men. Another Fact. But the church led Authoritarian crusade to say Trans people are a murderous ideological threat to society is a crusade of hate. They insist sex is all that matters in gender. Feminist dont bow to people telling tgem what a women is. Feminists self identify themselves as their type of women. Where sex is only one attribute if that determination. And people like yourself always want to fence in the debate to only talk of sex. Not sex plus, gender, gay love, gay parenting and societal gender roles. You claim to be left leaning? But left leaning people can be very Authoritarian in some of their views and realities. Authoritarian people tell other people to live under their Facts. There has been a big rise in those questioning their gender. And I would agree the reasons for that are not fully understood. But that is not reason or good cause to launch wholesale attacks on Trans folk with bigotry based, Authoritarian / right wing led transphobia.
I can't survive in the material world if I don't accept that the earth is round and gravity is real? I think you'll find those things will take care of themselves, whether we believe them or not! But biology can be altered, and self-definition is every human's right. Nothing to do with absolute facts at all. Not the most important part of it all, anyway. Even if you say biological sex is a 'fact', it's just about the body. I live every day as MUCH MORE than my body! @susiegreaves7283
An intellectual, yes, but dishonest, devious, given to deliberate slippages, and bound by a relentless desire to re-write history to fit her endless de-contextualised conflations. Able to emotionally perform when it suits, and still trying to riff off Foucault. Curiously not given to engaging in debate with those who might disagree, but happy to attend interviews where no challenge can be expected.
Your description of Butler is spot on.
I do appreciate your ability to see through her self-aggrandizement.
@@stephanieroth16 You're both _very_ impressive. I wonder if either of you can present a reason to disagree with her about anything.
I think Rob Hastings did a nice job.
As for me, trans ideology seems like misogyny dressed up like a male porn fantasy.
Deeply harmful to women and children,
and tremendously useful to pedophiles.
Yellow smells nice. Please present a reason to disagree with me about that. @@Disentropic1
@@ConceptNull That's easy enough. I don't know of any object called yellow. Since I can't rationally affirm that an object I don't recognize has particular properties, I consequently disagree with your claim that yellow smells nice.
Judith butler did a lot of waffling , she is not as smart as i thought
Or you’re not as smart as you think you are and thats why you don’t understand her arguments and intellect. She’s very widely read in the academy and whether you agree with her views or not no intellectual would dismiss her philosophical intellect.
She’s shooting from the vocabulary hip
Quite often she avoids the question, or sidesteps it, at length. She got better as she relaxed into the interview.
Lol she claimed herself she removed herself from the stage because of " anxiety of being confronted in unwanted ways". She's an intellectual wimp. You look up to THAT, only because its coddles your feelings.
The irony of your profile name...@@RationalistMH
Biology has a fairly strong position on what makes a woman. This statement should not be controversial.
its not the whole picture though is it
Oh yeah? Do enlighten us...with some peer reviewed articles!
@@vincentvangogh8092 correct, it definitely isn't. The right wing like black and white simpleton consensus despite the fact there is nuance ✌️
Does it? What do you say that biology says about what makes a woman?
@@paulhammond6978 Sex is about the biology of reproduction. Chromosomes, big and small gamets, intersex is a disorder of sex development. etc, etc...
Fantastic interview! But seriously guys, can we figure out the audio situation?
After the new Scottish Hate Crime law we need a "How the far-left wants to control your mouth"
I can’t believe this much time and energy is spent on this topic. It’s right up there with the Flat Earth Theory
Such a manipulative woman! It is not just in the UK that women are feeling angered by this movement.
Flat water not earth.
I am completely blown away at how much time is spent talking about this issue .. so much of the discussion just goes in circles - nothing gets resolved.. I want this issue to go away already
@@brianmeen2158 I know right? It's a tiny tiny little group of peopl,e % in society. Why do we have to hear about it so much? I could care less about them, I'm sure they could care less about me. I wish the whole subject would go away.
It's a grift, and it pays well.......Simples!😉
16:26 Eventually that "another one" was Julie Bindel.
Wow. I hope that's true.
@@pupppt I think that because she is one of the half way sensible ones in the TERF pack, and she was not a TERF from the beginning.
@@miriamlana833
JAA TERFS, DAS SIND DIE TERFS, LINKS ZWO DRIE VIER, JUDOLPH BITLER HAS DECLARED, VEE MUST FOLLOW!
It's amazing how humans can take the most simplest thing and complicate it with the most absolute dribble. It's almost a genius comedy sketch.
*drivel
/pet peeve
How does gravity work?
Why is the sky blue?
What is the simplest question that a human can ask?
@@zacharybosley1935 asking simple questions with complicated answers, does not a simple thing complicate.
What time is it?: look at a clock - answer given
simple question with simple answer.
being able to ask things like "is the clock correct?", "what even is time?" does not complicate the original simple question or the answer.
@@cyfangz9238 so you recognize that simple questions can have complicated answers?
@@cyfangz9238 taken a step further, you recognize that simple things can be complicated upon further examination? Things like Money, Dreams, Gravity and Light are all more complicated than a single sentence can answer, the same seems to hold true for sex and gender.
Utterly insufferable
It’s interesting to have different types of guests though
@@brianmeen2158People like this shouldn't be given a platform to spread harmful false information.
I just want to live in a world where gender dysphoria is labelled as such, and it's not assumed hatred when you label a man a man or a woman a woman - there's a material reality of sex as mentioned, and it's fine not letting it define you but saying it's irrelevant is bonkers
I see it similarly to telling someone with anorexia to eat a sandwich. You can insist on the material reality of them being underweight, the relevance of needing to eat, that their perception of themselves doesn't match reality, but so what? They know that already. Everyone else knows that already. Telling them to eat a sandwich is not just unhelpful, but detrimental. The best thing you can do is treat them as they wish to be treated and leave the complicated shit to the professionals.
The only difference with gender dysphoria is that living as the opposite gender isn't harmful in the way that not eating is, and the biggest issue they face is all the people telling them the equivalent of "eat a sandwich!"
@@xVancha Ngl, there's a lot less societal implications with anorexia
Who is saying material sex is irrelevant?
@@Bette_B123 Did you watch the video?
@@Business101HQYes I did, and I'm pretty familiar with Judith Butler. I'm still curious where she said that sex is irrelevant though?
What a lot of rubbish
So good of you to take time away from pounding rocks to give such a highly articulate comment.
@john.premose Cheers for the comment .Normal i like this channel and its guests. But she comes across very poorly.Have to run,got more rocks to the bash?
@@nickybee3731 I'm sure you have
@@nickybee3731maybe hold off and do some self reflection as to why this very metered discourse is so terribly uncomfortable for you
@@john.premose The discussion and the claims are deserving of rock-pounding.
Dishonesty and sophistry of the highest order. Butler has long been a butcher of language in her favour. We all know what material reality is, but she then seeks to stretch the definition far beyond the common understanding. Obscurantism and concept creep
Even the interviewer doesn’t believe this tripe.
A transwoman will never eventually become post-menopausal.
It's a fun planet.
This woman is post-menopausal.
Post Menopause is not necessary to be a woman. But apart from that Butler will never tell you or declare what a woman or a man is or what will actually make you each of those. They rather want to perceive the world in a continuous sense where you give people freedom as individuals to be what they are (and "be" and "are" isn't something static , no, it's something infinitely moving and never declaring). This perception is the highest form of human respect.
@@u.us.2406 Did you write this comment for me or for yourself?
@@YawnGod for you. It seems like you make a clear border of what a woman is, ironically. I'm saying that reducing somebody on their "menopause" (which is purely materialistic) or their body is part of the problem - it is called objectification.
The funny thing is , yes , I perceive you as non binary just like I perceive any human as non binary because why would I want to define you over something materialistic ? Sure , in some materialistic ways like hedonism , your sex might be important. Or in reproduction , dating etc , but apart from that , what makes you actually a person? Surely it isn't SOLELY your guts or your gender / sex / menopause and what not. and also solely the absence of these things won't make you less of a person. Or a woman. If a trans woman does not have a menopause , it's about you , if you still accept them as a human being who just defines with their own will what they want to be perceived as. Trans women don't make any naturalistic claims like "I have an organic vagina" but they will rather tell you "yes everybody including myself perceives me like a woman. Perceiving me like a man feels kinda wrong"
Judith represents a very fringe view. She's out there with flat earthers.
No, she doesn't.
Yeah... Yeah she does, and the more people this idiocy touches the more the counter you get... You had your time while most of the population was not aware of this idiocy spreading.@@powderandpaint14
I'm curious what you get when you Google "transgender"? My entire first page of results is from internationally and/or nationally recognised organisations all of whom define the word in roughly the same way as does Wikipedia: "A transgender person is someone whose gender identity differs from that typically associated with the sex they were assigned at birth." On the other hand, when I Google the word "Earth" I get a whole page full of round Earths, again posted by internationally recognised organisations. It seems to me that these are both mainstream views, but maybe Google's algorithm treats you very differently from me? I'd be very curious to hear the results of your search.
The culture war gave you brain damage.
A lot of people use the term woman or man to refer to their sexed identity, not their gender identity. It might be useful to have four separate words for these things rather than trying to shoehorn four meanings into two words. 21:01
And who will be invited into the new term? The minority probably. Isn’t that just a form of othering that will be used for discrimination and bullying? We can do this just fine without having more words, it seems. Imho we should grow tf up and accept religion is a personal coping tool and should be used very carefully as a source of truth and morality. Especially since it’s hard to update cause god and book and hierarchy. Let people live in peace and give them the healthcare they need to live a happy life. As happy as can be in the late stage capitalism shitshow we experience.
that's why we say cis- and trans-
Lots of polysemous terms in English and we tend not to have issues disambiguating when we need to…
Most people don't have a 'gender identity' they have a biological sex.
Most people do not use those words. .
Male and female say it all. @@Celestina0
A word salad of obfuscation.
Two sexes, male and female. Interests, preferences etc. are personal. No need for gender.
"Man" and "woman" are the human equivalent of "stag" and "doe" in deer. They denote males and females of a species, it's not nearly as complicated as so many want to try to make it for whaatever reason
Cow and bull…… x
Humans are not animals though. Try again. Think a little this time
@@Anonymous-xm8ir that statement is completely and utterly stupid, nuclear waste level, American stupidity. We are mamels, didn’t you ever listen to the Blood Hound Group. Hahaha
We literally are bipedal mamels, with an obstetrical dilemma - mothers carry the infants, who can’t even hold up their own head during the altricial phase of life (unlike an elephant or a horse).
Oh help us Jesus, from the collective stupidity and mind virus breading ground that is the internet, where people like Judith’s Butler aren’t immediatley dethroned for fundamental paucity
@@Anonymous-xm8ir Are we plants then? Fungi? Please do enlighten me
@@Anonymous-xm8ir: ''Humans are not animals though''
What the hell are you going on about? 😂
She acts as if only the right criticizes her. I read her book Gender Trouble along time ago in grad school. She's gotten absolutely in the nonsense garbage theories since then. Camille Paglia offers a far more in depth analysis of gender, sex and the history of such.
It’s the only way any of these people can square their ridiculously flawed circle. They have to pretend not to hear anyone but the evil oogie boogie alt right bc they quite literally cannot argue with anyone with half a brain cell. The jig would be up and they’d have to confront what they’ve done.
Can I ask for clarification on what the nonsense garbage theories are to you?
I'm no intellectual but I think wombs are important because humans are not made in factories and don't grow on trees. I choose to acknowledge that, although not definative, actual gestation or the potential or perceived ability to gestate has a profound influence on many aspects of individuals' lives.
@@nathanaelsmith3553 how does making room for people whose biology is different deny the importance of wombs? I don't understand why allowing people to transition and accommodating them take anything away from women. This is some territorial nonsense.
Is the nonsense in the comments with us?
When you have to put that much effort into trying to label something that is obvious and natural then obviously you’re trying to sell a lie. Biology matters.
@Realitycheck-rh4bk To you.
There is no point is asking her to define "gender" at the start then letting her use the word in a variety of different ways without acknowledgement of it's sliding meaning or pause for a redefinition.
Leftists like her have no integrity.
She did say the debate is fluid, so what!! 😮
That IS what the whole rhetoric, not scientific or philosophical strategy consists of. That is plainly it.
Sorry it's hard for you to follow conversations
I think she clearly acknowledges the shifting definition from the outset and I don't think your comment is in good faith for that reason.
This whole queer theory delusion is so tired and tedious. Sex has nothing to do with philosophy. Sorry, not sorry.
Sex is real. Philosophy is just words on paper.
@@PoliticalRegality Philosophy is the practice of advanced human thought
@@Coelacanth1 That's stem, peasant. ;D
Usual Butler guff, luxury beliefs from an out of touch academic
She will not be able to waffle her way out of the reality of being a woman if she was born in a poor village in Africa.
@@PoliticalRegalityBut she was not and here we are.
If people could mobilise against the corruption, self-interest, classism, bigotry and cronyism in politics the way anti-trans folk mobilise against any kind of vaguely trans-supportive media, the country would be so much better for it.
Plus people would likely care less about this “issue”, because they wouldn’t be full of rage caused by the fact that nothing in this country works and everything costs twice as much.
Hi my name’s Tarquin - great to be here at this Socialist Workers Party! First time here! I’ve always felt a certain class dysphoria even when the silver spoon was firmly wedged in my mouth. But now I’ve come to accept and be proud of my working class roots - and am so happy that this is fully acknowledged and respected by all of you here in this stupendous community. Can’t wait to run for a leadership role and shake things up - sorry Bob, i know you’ve been gunning for that for a while. Next time old chap. So glad there’s no discrimination against trans-class people any more. That was such a bore. Don’t worry everyone - I’ll blend in - I’ll wear my Eat the Rich T and beanie at the next meet. Now where’s the juke box? There’s got to be one here. I want to hear that Pulp song…
Agree with your 2nd paragraph at least.
You could swap "anti-trans" and "trans-supportive" in your sentence and it would be just as valid. Welcome to the culture wars, where the best response is always "I don't care."
@@paulstanway6076 well you should care. Biological men in young girls locker rooms used to be called perverts and pefiles. Police would come and lock them away, folks in town would organize and protest. Now folks want all that being normalized by adding new words and stuff, by staying silent you become a part of that.
The reason people have mobilised against the trans fascists is because they are a threat to science, freedom of speech, common sense and women's rights. They basically want to control everything and everyone, and will not allow any other viewpoint to be tolerated. Nobody cares if you want to dress like a woman. Everyone cares when men, self identifying as women, refuse to take any females views into consideration, indeed they think that only they have the right to now speak on behalf of all females, and anyone who disagrees should be forced to shut up. Therefore the fact that people have risen up against this poison is a good sign. Once we have finished with the trans fascists, we can then go on to mobilise against .corruption, self interest[which is the trans mob], classism, bigotry and cronyism in politics. It says it all that you are not brave enough to put your name to your rant.
Social construction as a theoretical school is fine, if used in appropriate situations.
How does advertising affect our sense of self? Social construction is the correct stance.
What is a woman?
Biology is the correct stance.
If I used economic theory to decide whether or not to apply medical treatments, you would call me a monster. If I used humanitarian theory to decide how to run my bathroom appliance business, I would go bust.
Knowing which social theory to apply, and when to apply it (and its limitations therein) is essential to a complete application of social science and philosophy.
What modern theorists (of almost all schools) fail to understand is "just because you studied this one thing and got a doctorate in it, and wrote some books in it, doesn't mean there are no other valid social theories to Problem X"...
Please understand this people. Nuance will prevail, but only if you understand the roots of your ontological (and resulting epistemological) position.
I disagree whole heartedly with Judith.
Agree - taking medical advice from a philosopher is like taking legal advice from a chiropodist...
Yes, nuance will prevail. Like understanding that one generally needs to learn and synthesize information from multiple disciplines in order to attain something like knowledge or wisdom on a subject.
Do you understand what ontology or epistemology means? Because no where in this video does Butler make a metaphysical argument or any argument for the way in which we acquire knowledge.
If you understood theories of social construction, you'd understand that they do not make ontological arguments, because there is nothing metaphysical about suggesting that concepts are socially constructed. Believing that social construction negates existence just means that you don't understand what social construction is.
Theories which discuss social construction simply describe relationships between people, how we conceptualize them and how that affects social, cultural and political relationships and power.
As Butler mentioned (literally in this video) the discipline of biology is hugely influenced by who is doing the biology and for what purposes. Just consider the way the Atlantic slave trade was in part 'justified' by the then emerging discipline of biology and 'race science'.
As Butler points out (again, in the video) the problem with a positivist argument is that what is considered settled facts changes. Most of society once believed the earth was flat, based on the both the tools and the dominant political order of the time. When our instruments got better, the 'fact' that the earth is spherical didn't immediately become settled fact. There was a great deal of political and religious backlash to the idea for a long time.
Also, again very basic philosophy, but knowing what is (i.e. settled fact) doesn't automatically therefore follow what to do about that. It's the Is/Aught gap. That's why theories of social construction - and synthesizing information from many disciplines - is so important. Scientists can make all kids of discoveries, but it is what we do with them that actually makes the largest difference to our society.
@@isaacmarsh6025 Do you have any recent examples - say within the last 50 years - of biology changing owing to the identity of the biologists?
The example you cite from the 19th century is hardly useful in advancing your argument.
At that time, evolution, DNA, germ theory, the periodic table, and pretty much all of modern biology had not been discovered.
Can you point to a recent example of biology changing based on who was doing the biology?
Many people still believe the earth is flat and are immune to contrary evidence-does that mean the question is still open or truth of earth-flatness depends on who asks the question?
something tells me this person already made up their mind a priori
@isaacmarsh6025 If you don't think post modern social constructivism has any has any underlying assumptions about and implications on epistemology you must have simply never encountered any serious epistemological critique of the idiology. You should go check out the old debate between Noam Chomsky and Foucault, might learn something about why so many non authoritarian egalitarians have no time for the incoherent circularity of postmodern ideological stances, despite fully understanding that much of how we think and value things contains elements of social construction
What an embarrassing performance of the interviewer.
Incredible interview. Let’s get back to the origins of feminism refusing to accept society’s view of what being a woman means
Let's not...
Pseudo intellectual. Talks in labels for ages without saying much really.
Yep
More idiocy: she says science cannot say "who someone is", as if science can't say "based on your physical attributes, you are human, so this is who you are (not a cow or a flower), and thus it is best that you engage in life according to what humans are". To be clear, I'm not saying sexuality (the behavior) is limited to following the binary arrangement that nature has long ago established for humankind.
Certainly we don't only engage in sex for procreation; we've found other benefits to having intercourse, even though biology set up our sexual organs for the vital function of procreation. But if one is born with a male body, for example, don't dismiss that biology in favor of pretending to be an AUTHENTIC female just because one would prefer to be female. I'd prefer to be God, but I can live with being what science informs me I am. If I want to play God, I can write a novel to Generate, Operate, and Destroy life in that realm.
Shes so bloody banal - science doesn’t pretend to say who you are, but it can say what you are…
Sex feels good because that motivates us to procreate.
Sex is not binary, thats your first mistake.
@@daramccluskey thats why science, psychology, genetics and biology agrees with what trans people are saying.
@@DavidGraeberWasRight I doubt genetics & biology agrees they're women. Those fields wouldn't even have a proper measurement within their domain to measure anyone's or anything's psyche to ascertain gender identity.
Listening to JB it’s as though the enlightenment never happened.
reading all the pithy comments that don't address the specifics of anything she says.
Really gives you faith in the world...
@@Celestina0 I’ve listened to her word salads on more than one occasion where she disregards boring old science in favour of a world where 1+1=3 and XY=XX.
@@antonydavis2764 I wish I had the selfconfidence of someone who completely misunderstands a philosopher and thinks that the philosopher is the one who's completely mistaken, and not them lol
@@Celestina0 curious that you keep trying to bring this round to philosophy instead of science. Is this because you recognise JB’s ‘science’ is shaky and doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. By the way I’m an admirer of philosophy too but not when it seeks to undermine basic scientific principles with gobbledygook. I’m sure you can find some philosopher telling us all that the earth is flat.
@@antonydavis2764 the question of whether the earth is flat is an empirical question
the question of how we categorise people into 'man' and 'woman' is not.
This is the foundation of your misunderstanding of Butler.
When you go on a tangent about reality being just an idea you forget how much sexism affects people & how sexual perversions linked to control & power diminish all our safety especially children & mentally limited.
The only person here not having a firm grasp on reality is you, where in the video do they say reality is 'just an idea'?
Yes, the feminist philosopher who writes extensively on gender and political power and violence doesn't understand sexism.
And what do you mean by 'sexual perversion'? Because it never seems to mean the actual agents of sexual violence does it.
I probably disagree with all of you, but as an ex-feminist and still leftist, I don't see how most feminist intellectuals or feminist activists can understand violence or sexism. Feminists literally cause quite a lot of both, in criminal justice for example@@isaacmarsh6025
@@isaacmarsh6025 who are the "actual agents of sexual violence"?
its 2024, caring about kids is so 1990es.... 😐
@@isaacmarsh6025
''Yes, the feminist philosopher who writes extensively on gender and political power and violence doesn't understand sexism.''
No to this all, the feminist philosopher who writes extensively on gender and political power and violence doesn't understand or devalues the importance of biological, undisputable sex on human behaviour.
Fixed that for you, you're welcome.
Not one bit of pushback. Embarrassing stuff.
What would you have him push back?
@@john.premose
A few simple examples
-Her absolute strawmanning of ppl who disagree with her
-Her analysis of Latin America, Italy and Eastern Europe and equating them with the UK. She clearly doesn't speak languages from these areas. Including English.
-Her claim that trans women are feminists
-Her claims on past ideas of facts and the ramifications of what that means. Essentially that gender identity exists on a non-factual basis whereas sex exists factually.
He should at least bring up when sex is far more important than gender. As in for basically everything. He should challenge her on single-sex female spaces and the indisputable history of crime. Also that gender is inherently regressive and why most ppl in the West were steadily moving away from treating ppl based on gender.
Frankly he could just occasionally say, I'll stop you there cos you've made no points and what you have said is objectively false and shows a historical ignorance that you should be ashamed of.
@@robertmarshall2502 well, I found nothing objectionable in anything she said, and I find it surprising that anyone really would to the extent you seem to. And I'm by no means particularly "pro train" (I won't spell it right so I don't get taken down). I mean, I am 100% for acceptance and political rights of trains, but I don't necessarily buy into all their ideas.
I do agree with you on one point. That is that I agree that society was on track to stop fixating on these distinctions, and I do find a lot of the current debates being brought up to be regressive in that sense.
But I have a different perspective. I believe the commodification of identities is a techniques of current consumerist capitalism, which attempts to sell people identities, and thus control them. So I see the train ideology in the popular media and academia to be basically bourgeois and reactionary. That's why the media promotes it so much. If it truly were revolutionary or radical, the establishment media would be trying to suppress it, not sensationalise and popularise it.
@@robertmarshall2502 so yeah, if there was one thing I would have had him ask her, it would have been "do you think the current explosion of identities is a commodification of our very personalities and identities, a very extreme form of alienation?" That is the aspect of it that interests me.
@@robertmarshall2502 but also I will say, you seem guilty of straw manning yourself. I never heard her say "train women are feminists". What she said is that feminists have always played with and tried to expand what it meant to be a woman, and challenged the traditional notions, and that's also top some degree what the train movement does. Remember this isn't just about women. I find it interesting that, according to the way most people talk, it would seem that the only train that exist are the female ones. There are also men and all sorts of other non-conforming varieties. But to hear you lot, it's always only about the women. That's revealing.
What an incredible display of hypocritical, low-resolution thinking.
Watching from the tyse chair
Biological characteristics certainly makes you a woman. The general structure of the female pelvis is thinner and less dense, in comparison to the thick and heavy male pelvis, which is designed to support a heavier body build.
The true pelvis is wide and shallow in the female, and the pelvic inlet, also known as the superior pelvic aperture is wide, oval and rounded.
While in the male it is heart shaped, and narrow. A male pelvis has a v-shaped pubic arch that is approximately 80°.
In a thousand years time when an archeologist digs your bones up. No knowledge of your pronouns will exist or how you identify. You will be identified by your skeleton structure.
And yet if tomorrow you see a trans person walking down the street you will, in many cases, refer to them by their desired pronouns. Why? Because, without an in-depth medical examination, many trans people are indistinguishable from cisgender people.
For the purpose of everyday life, how do you think the way someone’s body will be viewed in an archeological dig thousands of years in the future is relevant?
In general usage, a "phobia" is an actual diagnosis done by a mental health professional and it bothers me that is it bandied about to label anyone who disagrees with someone. There is no official diagnosis from the mental health community that there is such a thing as transphobia or homophobia. Technically speaking, a phobia is a fear so great it stops you in your tracks and you cannot go forward without being knocked unconscious by drugs. For instance, a person with severe social phobia (which is real), cannot leave their home. How do they go shopping? How do they go to appointments? etc. Another example would be arachnophobia where a person is absolutely frozen in place when they see a spider. Or fear of heights, which I happen to suffer from, I literally cannot move my body if I am 3 rungs up a ladder. it's quite silly really, but I literally cannot make my body move. This "phobia" of other peoples' life-style is simply a disparaging remark against someone you actually don't have to say anything to.
Outside of technical, scientific terms the meanings of words are user- and context-dependent. There is a technical, medical use of the term 'phobia' and then there is its normal use in the English language, which most people understand and agree on. Most people understand what is meant by transphobia as used in this interview and would use it to mean much the same thing. It's clearly not intended as a medical diagnosis in this context. (Similarly, if somebody asks me my weight, I don't normally give my answer in newtons.)
@@brianpatterson7332Accurate to certain point. The problem in this context though is the use of the phobia add on is to shut down and cancel any other person's point of view, be it correct or not. So it is not a simple case of oh well people know what is meant by transphobia... the label is designed to prevent anyone asking a really difficult question such as the one mentioned herein by the presenter and guest: what is a woman? A really demanding question is it not? And this weaponising of language has resulted in some of the landmines that have been stepped on by various parts of the "medical" community in the UK for example. So to dismiss it casually as you have i think does not give enough weight to why this sort of problem needs to be better handled than it has been.
I think that women in prison may fear trans women being allowed into their prison. The question is whether all types of fears are phobias.
@theoutsider6191 No, the label is designed to - quite rightly, in my opinion - call out bigotry for what it is. From a biological perspective, what defines a woman is actually extremely complex; so much dmso that several biologists have written entire books on the subject. In terms of gender, it's different again and not something a politician should be expected to articulate off the top of his head in Parliament. Such a question coming from Sunak - a man who has never shown the slightest concern for women's rights in any other context - is clearly motivated by anti-trans bigotry (ie transphobia) and it's naive to the point of idiocy to think otherwise.
So a social phobia requires not being able to leave the house? Who made you an expert? Phobia has to match the specifics of your case? Check ANY dictionary... You dont get to redefine words with yourself as the reference point for everything 😂
I would love to listen to it later (i dont have time now), and Im one who would do so in a goodwill spirit. But I can't because you dont allow to include your video in a list. I dont understand why you do that. Very disapointing.
It will be in your watch history. Or you can just write down the title of the video and search again. UA-cam normally remembers how far through the video you got even if it isn't in a playlist.
Is this person insane?
Yes
and get this, she gets tons of taxpayer money for her unqualified, ideological nonsense that she doesn't even have to prove ... while many of her victims don't know how to make ends meet
Come on PolJoe - I love that you interviewed Judith Butler, but isn’t it a bit sloppy to use she/her pronouns in your video description and make no mention of Judith being non-binary and preferring they/them pronouns, especially given the context of your conversation and their work?!
From their Wikipedia:
“Personal life
Butler is a lesbian,[129] legally non-binary,[130][131] and, as of 2020, said they use both singular they/them and she/her pronouns but prefer to use singular they/them pronouns.[6] Butler indicated that they were "never at home" with being assigned female at birth.[5]
They live in Berkeley with their partner Wendy Brown and son.[132]”
There’s a sea of people in the comments using she/her pronouns to refer to Judith; many of whom I’m sure would make an effort to be respectful and use the right pronouns if they were clearly presented with that information, but if this is the first introduction someone has to Judith and their work as a viewer, you can’t blame anyone for picking the wrong pronouns if they’re just going by what you’ve used!
I was initially going to comment just to say, hey, it would be cool if you could make a point of putting everyone’s name and pronouns on screen at the start (including you as hosts!), no matter what their gender identity; just as a matter of course, and as a token of respect and inclusivity… but I think as step 0 you also need to take the time to check which pronouns to use for someone, and then use the correct ones!
Do individuals get to choose their adjectives as well?
They is plural is she more than one person??
@@r8chlletters 'They' has been used as a singular pronoun since the 14th Century, actually.
Judith Butler is a woman and she is one person. Therefore I will refer to her as she and her not they and them. You can ask me to respect how someone looks, dresses and behaves but you cannot dictate to me a change in the English language for no reason at all. As Kathlern Stock says, if you change the meaning of the word 'woman' as we know it, we would have to invent a new word to describe biologically female humans. Why should we? That is dictatorship.
@@GingerblazeI could think of a couple of sexually relevant adjectives to describe her.....
Links with authotarian right. Over 100, 000 people marched and protested against the far right in London against the Iraq war. The BNP campaigned against the Iraq war, so does that mean the 100, 000 people are far right?
No.
There, I just destroyed your strawman for you, so you dont have to 😅
Just because Butlet is saying that the right is responsible for much of the suppression of so-called “gender ideology” does not mean that everyone who opposes that ideology is on the right. That is not logic. All women are people, that does not mean all people are women.
I came to this interview seeking some clear and concise points. It is hard to be persuasive when points are overly-complex and rely on jargon. Maybe the next book should focus on varying ways of defining a human separately from other living creatures (10:27). Finding common ground seems impossible and even undesirable in these academic debates.
It's because people like her aren't academics. They are damaged and dishonest ideologues that don't deserve the time of day, intellectually.
Get your audio in order amateurs
what is wrong with the audio?
If I had to invent something that would frustrate class consciousness and the working class organising to advocate for themselves it would be something like this rubbish.
Human rights are workers rights.
I’d suggest that you’re not really concerned with class consciousness or working class organising at all.
i would say feminism at large fulfills that role. Imagine if the abortion question was about reproductive rights or bodily autonomy in general, for everyone, rather than a conspiracy theory that men want to control women's bodies. Women don't have anywhere near enough reproductive rights or bodily autonomy, but they certainly have more than men - in the west anyway.