Judith Butler: Your Behavior Creates Your Gender | Big Think
Вставка
- Опубліковано 5 чер 2011
- Judith Butler: Your Behavior Creates Your Gender
New videos weekly: bigth.ink/youtube
Join Big Think+ for exclusive videos: bigthink.com/plus/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nobody is born one gender or the other, says the philosopher. "We act and walk and speak and talk in ways that consolidate an impression of being a man or being a woman."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Judith Butler is a post-structuralist philosopher and queer theorist. She is most famous for her notion of gender performativity, but her work ranges from literary theory, modern philosophical fiction, feminist and sexuality studies, to 19th- and 20th-century European literature and philosophy, Kafka and loss, mourning and war.
She has received countless awards for her teaching and scholarship, including a Guggenheim fellowship, a Rockefeller fellowship, Yale's Brudner Prize, and an Andrew W. Mellon Foundation Distinguished Achievement Award.
Her books include "Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity," "Bodies That Matter: On the Discursive Limits of Sex," "Undoing Gender," and "Frames of War: When Is Life Grievable?"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRANSCRIPT:
Question: What does it mean that gender is performative?
Judith Butler: It’s one thing to say that gender is performed and that is a little different from saying gender is performative. When we say gender is performed we usually mean that we’ve taken on a role or we’re acting in some way and that our acting or our role playing is crucial to the gender that we are and the gender that we present to the world. To say that gender is performative is a little different because for something to be performative means that it produces a series of effects. We act and walk and speak and talk in ways that consolidate an impression of being a man or being a woman.
I was walking down the street in Berkeley when I first arrived several years ago and a young woman who was I think in high school leaned out of her window and she yelled, “Are you a lesbian?”, and she was looking to harass me or maybe she was just freaked out or she thought I looked like I probably was one or wanted to know and I thought to myself well I could feel harassed or stigmatized, but instead I just turned around and I said yes I am and that really shocked her.
We act as if that being of a man or that being of a women is actually an internal reality or something that is simply true about us, a fact about us, but actually it’s a phenomenon that is being produced all the time and reproduced all the time, so to say gender is performative is to say that nobody really is a gender from the start. I know it’s controversial, but that's my claim.
Question: How should this notion of gender performativity change the way we look at gender?
Judith Butler: Think about how difficult it is for sissy boys or how difficult it is for tomboys to function socially without being bullied or without being teased or without sometimes suffering threats of violence or without their parents intervening to say maybe you need a psychiatrist or why can’t you be normal. So there are institutional powers like psychiatric normalization and there are informal kinds of practices like bullying which try to keep us in our gendered place.
I think there is a real question for me about how such gender norms get established and policed and what the best way is to disrupt them and to overcome the police function. It’s my view that gender is culturally formed, but it’s also a domain of agency or freedom and that it is most important to resist the violence that is imposed by ideal gender norms, especially against those who are gender different, who are nonconforming in their gender presentation.
Watch on Big Think bigthink.com/videos/your-beha... - Наука та технологія
Want to get Smarter, Faster™?
Subscribe for DAILY videos: bigth.ink/SmarterFaster
Want to get smarter faster? Do not listen to anti-feminists who shall wave the feminist flag and "perform feminism" rather than defend women's rights. Shame on "Big Think" for going with the stupid narrative in support of the abusive multibillion dollar gender industry.
Your content is trash
If Butler can talk normally, why can't she write normally?! This is actually comprehensible.
Lel.
Perhaps the performance of the philosopher/sociologist requires more intellectual pompousness than the performance of the public intellectual.
because it's academic
what about Zizek xd
John Lo no she is uniquely good at saying very little while being pretentious
John Lo I'm read her works. There is very little intelligence evident. Interesting you don't actually have any concrete defense of her work
Anybody else here because they couldn't get past the (first sentence) of one of Judith's writings so they were hoping UA-cam could help.... yeah, that'd be me... :(
Me too! 🤣
@@kingsleyenaboakpe2107 The fact that you don't understad it does not mean that it's right, or complex. It means that you have to read some of the authors that influenced her. When you do it you will realizs that her theory is completely bullshit.
@@urielrodriguez2459 you just made a claim. You have to support said claim with actual facts and evidence and logical reasoning.
I was given one of judiths books and made it halfway through. It was nonsense
@@billsimms2511 again, this is weak reasoning. Someone can say the same about any and all academic research papers. Doesn't mean the academic work is inherently false.
Lol the way she says "I know it's controversial, but that's my claim" in the weathered way of someone who's been making the same claim for like 20 years
She knows she's wrong but it's hard for her to admit. This is what happens when you sit in an echo chamber for too long
@@fartinIutherking is devoting your life to studying a subject the same as an "echo chamber"? do you think not bothering to learn anything new about anything makes you a better person?
@@bravetherainbow Yes it is an echo chamber when you are studying something like gender completely discarding biology.
@@fartinIutherkingIn what way is she "completely discarding biology"? What biological discoveries of the last few decades are you referring to exactly? What do biologists have to say about the language and roles of gender in history? I don't know much about advanced biological theories of gender, so please enlighten me.
@jay did you bother to listen to the distinction she made between something being "performed" and something being "performative"? Because it sounds like you still think she means gender is faked. That's not what she means. She means it's actively carried out every day, like performing a task not like performing a play. I think she chose confusing language for it though.
Im still confused about the difference between gender being "performed" versus gender being "performative"
Performed means gender is there before the performance.
Performative means that gender is the performance itself (gender does not exist until it is performed)
@300bpm "me no understand smart words so me thinks you are wrong"
@300bpm why are you so mad bro? Butler wouldn't be considered as one of the most genius thinkers of our time if what she said was bullshit.
300bpm maybe it would be warranted to think about it more than 1 second before discarding it out of hand? Ignorance is bliss enjoy!
Go to school, then. It means repetition
Thing with bullying is not that they keep you in your gendered place. They make you feel like you'll never fit in with that ideal. Pretty messed up
That would seem to imply that the standard is incomplete and not the encompassing of gender that Butler implies.
If gender is performance, then why are those who differ from that performance treated as inferior versions of the gender rather than something else entirely?
back in my day when we didnt fit in we just did psyphadelic drugs and didn't do irreversible surgeries
@@Theonlyukr claiming you're a different gender versus expressing yourself in a way despite being your gender are two different things.
@@Grokford because other people have different ideas of what your performance should be, and if you have certain characteristics they expect you to act and identify a certain way.
Awful. It's the worst thing in the world.
Estoy leyendo Cuerpos que importan, es la primera vez que leo a Judith Butler y estoy sorprendido me la esperaba mas académica con mucho lenguaje especializado pero es muy entendible
I was a little surprised by the video. I'd heard Judith Butler's name in relation to current gender thinking. But here she actually moves in a different direction and says gender is socially created and reinforced rather than being something internal that one inherently understands.
Hey, that means Butler agrees with anti-trans right-wingers! That's not a good thing.
as a lifelong masculine woman that regularly dances between dressing feminine and masculine (like most women), i seriously do not believe this. even in my most masculine energy, i have always felt like a woman. it wasn’t learned, it was innate. and if it was learned, that’s like saying cats only know how to be cats because they take example from other cats. have them be raised by another animal and they’d behave like that animal. okay, true….they’re still a cat though, with mostly catlike characteristics! does this make sense?
yes, it does. you describe the describe the difference between sex and gender.
Not to be pedantic but cats need to stay with their mother for the first 12-14 weeks of their life in order to learn how to be a cat, this is quite literally the point of parenting. Though I don't think cats particularly have a concept of taxonomy.
If anyone must know my "classifications", I am a woman who detransitioned after spending a while identifying as male, and I consider myself a feminist. My theory is that gender is complex. Gender is partially biological, partially an identity, and partially a performance. There are differences between men and women. How much is nature and how much is nurture is something very hard to prove completely, because culture surrounds us and we take part in it every day.
That's exactly what I think
about to turn conservative
Do you have a penis or a vagina?
There is no 'gender' at all. There is sex and lived experience. The rest is scientific fraud blended with illusion.
I think this claim that gender is a construct or performative or this no gender, goes against the claim of transexual people who were born in a body that doesn't suit the gender they feel they are and are willing to perform surgery in order to claim their true identity. I don't understand how some people of LGBTQ + can't see how one thing contradicts the other. Most of the arguments seem to only hold when opposing the male patriarchy but they should be able to stand on their own. Also, it is difficult to claim that we are under male patriarchy if we believe that gender is performative or doesn't exist. Are we trying to say that we can still have male patriarchy even if people who identify as women take over it, or even people fluid? If not, then we are saying male patriarchy comes from people who were born men and identify themselves as men but by doing that we also acknowledge that gender exists as it was able to produce an entire system of government that is currently dominating the world.
My belief is that people in this self-centered western society are trying to impose their personal experience as a universal truth. Whatever you believe and feel is not necessarily how other people should believe and feel, as long as individual freedoms are respected. You can feel that your gender is fluid and not identify with one or another gender and use whatever gender iconography you want. It's your choice. This doesn't mean that your truth is everyone else's truth and just because your gender is fluid everyone's else gender should be too.
One thing I've acquired over time from listening to most intellectual speakers or philosophers is that it is crucial that you don't sprint to your conclusion, as you may be surprised at what you learn, even if you think you have all the facts. I neither agree or disagree, but interesting to hear.
@@RickBobO UA-cam comment sections are mostly ignorant drivel. But UA-cam comment sections under videos even remotely related to feminism are a special strain of malignant, hateful stupidity.
The suspension of judgment is not a virtue. In fact, I think it is the fear of being wrong that drives the withdrawal into pseudointellectualism. That doesn't mean every judgment is best acted upon, especially if it is underinformed, but if you are making observations and somehow magically evading the compulsion to judge, I would say you're either not human or not listening.
@@Diamondragan I'm pseudo intellectual and quasi libertarian
@@Diamondraganjudgements and conclusions are not the same. Series of judgements are made to eventually arrive at conclusions
I’ve also thought that gender was a kind of re-enactment, where we pick up images and ideas of gender and we use those to inform our own gender manifestations. This means we take what we’ve witnessed and apply it to ourselves to provide or potentiate our gender.
yes, like normal people
No, this is not how that works. Your whole life is performative. Gender is not something that is special. Your whole personality is performative and changes depending on the situation you are in. We are social animals and we adapt to our social environment. You act different when you are out with your friends than when you are out with your co-workers or on a business dinner. Life is performative. This has been known for ages and i am surprised most people don't seem to know this and think Butlers drivel is a revelation.
Yes, the human brain has being evolving to do that for millennia, shocking how a brain can detect someone is a female that enacts male trait and call this a lesbian.
Gender is an objective scientific descriptor. It’s not intrinsically an identity type. Identity exists outside of gender in personality type and absorbed culture. Gender must be separate from identity for evolutionary reasons pertaining to propagation of the species.
@@wattlebough Are you talking about gender or biological sex?
Alright, so I've been reading this comment section for a while now and I keep hitting on the word 'propaganda'. But propaganda for what exactley? Please enlighten me, I'm puzzled.
The chromosomes, the sry gene the prenatal hormones, this is what creates you gender. I am a biologist not a speciast in gender studies
She comes across like she is smart, but doesn’t get the simplest things it’s crazy
2:31 She told it. It's just her view.
Yeah but it’s her view or ur a homophobic transphobic racist with ties to white supremacy 😂
@@aj-zt8br I'm homosexual .
@@ramirogutierrez6312 I know I was being sarcastic since usually people who subscribe to her ideology claim to be open minded and they basically say there is some nuance to everything but opinions.
They believe that a person can be not a male or a female but nonbinary which is an argument that's kind of valid but to them the only thing thats binary is politics and ideology youre either agree with every word i say or you're just a white supremacist
So, are insect and animal genders simply learned social roles as well? Female spiders who don't want to lay eggs face harassment and violence? Do we also condition our pets in to gender roles? If genetics do not inform behavior, then what are primal instincts?
+Valchrist1313 I don't think so... behaviour and instincts are way different from one another... Another thing is that animals and insects do not have "social" roles...
amethy hooker Really? Animals do not have social roles? Worker ant/breeding ants/soldier ants? Alpha canines? Ape and monkey societies... Elephants? Dolphins? I mean this is widely researched.
Even chickens have a 'pecking order'.
How are instinct and behavior "way different" when one guides the other? We eat and sleep and procreate because of instinct, not learned social behavior. Fear and aggression are often (though not always) instincts as well, not learned behaviors.
Pheromones directly affect behavior tendencies as well, and affect female and male physiology in different ways, further negating the theory that behaviors are solely social constructs.
point taken about social roles... but i do not quiet agree with you in terms of what you said in behaviours... to start, i have read her theory about gender as performativity however she does not specifically say that behaviours are "solely" social constructs.. what she meant was that our society has a larger impact or influence in our behaviour because the society is a major variable that each individual is exposed to.. for example, galton had this mirror image in which a person has to reflect himself as to how another person wants to see him. thus affecting how he behave in the society.... i do agree that psychological tendencies are one of the factors that affects how we behave but we cannot alter the fact that we tend to base everything about anything to what is surrounding us...
These leftists don't even believe in biological instincts. They're academic frauds, they believe in pseudoscience.
Animals don't have gender roles or formed societies, so they can't have gender, which is a social phenomena.
Point taken. Yes ur reply was definitely in the same vein:)
This reminds me of the interview where an african anchor asks a gay activist why she's gay and she just answers "who says I'm gay" and the anchor is just confused.
y r u ge?
@@sebastienriou6603 L G B T Q
Where is da h?
@@heatsink47 da banana
😂😂😂
it was a trans activist which is why the quesiton "are you gay" confused everyone if i recall correctly
This is what she said in 272 pages of book.
I think you miss the significance of "performative" here; the term's use in poststructuralist theory derives from J.L. Austin's idea of performative language: a judge saying "I hereby sentence you..." both declares the sentencing and *is* the act of sentencing. She's arguing (through an expanded, poststructuralist form of the concept) that gender exists in a way somewhat analogous to performative language. Quite different from "performance" per se, as she says in the video.
Probably because the video is a distilled version of Judith's idea. Read Gender Trouble and see that the post-structuralist picture is well-painted.
@@AlbornozVEVO You are dissiumulating her meaning, because she has appealed to the authority of arguments that were dissiumlated by her. Isn't this a pickle?!
this all goes back to the reality of being an individual. as an individual, you are out of the group, you are yourself. either people accept you or they don't, but they cannot force their opinion or "norm" on you. if they do that, then they are going against your freedom, and if they are allowed to do that, then that diminishes the concept or stand of freedom itself.
people are individuals, not groups. the behavior of gender is defined as a personal issue, not a "must-follow" norm.
Exactly. They are 'different' not weird.
Diversity in Human beings. 💙💜🌸
you clearly didnt understand how gender operates then lmao its not a ' personal' thing, specially for those who dont follow what its considered normal
Ah, yes. Sartre's argument that literature cannot be anti-freedom, because literature invites the reader to freely adopt new ideas. The only thing is that most literature is divinely paternalistic and has very little to do with freedom. That's what the word hypocrisy exists to describe. By itself, no one 'has to' follow gender-sure. But this isn't a harmless decision: access to opportunities will be shaped by such a decision. The reality of rules and enforcement is that you only have to enforce rules 10-15% of the time and people will go along with it for the other 85-90%. Gender norms operate like this just the same as wearing seatbelts and driving under the speed limit.
Female gender = XX chromosome. Male gender = XY. If a woman wants to act like a man, that's her life. If a man wants to be feminine. That's also his issue. I just don't get why it's such a huge issue talked about like it's rocket science
Identity isn't about "gender" ! That's the fundamental lie in all this.
There also seems to be some confusion when it comes to assessing the play between environment and "choice", something she seems rather certain about.
I'd like to hear more about the kin relations around these issues which one never hears about as if such people exist in a vacuum & their relational context has nothing to do with it, their family politics has nothing to do with it, yet some go as far as mutilating themselves - anything so as not to face up to their problems. Very irresponsible to see the medical profession colluding in this. There's also a problem with the idea of a "performative" gender, in the end there are women who have deep voices and sound like men and even behave in some ways like men but don't go as far as self identifying as such. Why would they need to? To go to the extremes of changing your physical body means something more troubling is happening.
I've read JB claims that trans-critical feminists don't represent the feminist movement - and she does? The feminist movement isn't an academic movement it's a social movement, always has been.
I think gender is implicitly, or sometimes explicitly co-constructing with identity, until one’s sense of gender arrives as a meta-construction framing further identity development. In some families gender is imposed- that is, it is explicitly performative. Does that make sense?
@wereaux Thank you for being so clear about where you stand. I respectfully disagree. No problem for me, I believe there is room enough in this world for many different points of view & I am not interested in proving anything or deciding who is 'right' or 'wrong'. I'm just fascinated with this topic and the different opinions and ideas about it.
I love how half the comments criticize her because they don't have a clue on what's the difference between sex and gender.
The difference between sex and gender is just somebody's interpretation about a fact of the world. Those who claim gender ideology's universal validity are being as dogmatic and intolerant as the ones they criticize.
+Life is a gift awesome answer :)
1. Sex and gender mean the same thing
2. Chances are, you don't actually believe what she is saying. She claims that gender is determined by your mannerism and your overall appearance. That means that if a person where to wear a dress, makeup, and watch My Little Pony, that means they are a woman regardless if they have a penis or if they identify as a man. Besides, research has been done showing clear differences in brain structures between men and women, so we all know now that gender is real and not a social construct.
Sex: good. Gender: boring.
+Life is a gift
> The difference between sex and gender is just somebody's interpretation about a fact of the world.
...an interpretation widely accepted by most experts in the field[1]. Telling you you're wrong isn't "dogmatic" or "intolerant"; stop being a baby.
1: American Psychological Association www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/sexuality-definitions.pdf
'Gender' now has become to have the same meaning as 'fashion', and fashion means something we can put on and take off as we wish, but wishing has never really made anything 'real', just as ideology has never made anything real , when viewed over time. Ideology contains spectacle, and spectacles never nourish and endure in life enhancing ways. All public shows of gender statements show a desire for increased power and desire for public acclamation. Public acclamation is addictive and requires an ever present audience, and audiences need to be fed by a constant stream of new fashion in order to create a new gender to live in. And on it goes...
gosh what a deeply depressing comment section
I presume that the reader of my lines here was once in an uterus and that there had been some sort of fertilization before. Whether naturally or done in a petridish doesn't make a fundamental difference. It just means that for all of human history the biological sex was THE reality (and is the reality of your parents). What we humans will do in future with all of our new biotechnological possibilities and our cultural and social freedoms is another question. I think there might actually come a time when we are not bound anymore to our natural heritage. But even if it was to come or is already happening we cannot ignore facts.
Judith Butler in line with Big Think values:
“There are probably forms of incest that are not necessarily traumatic or which gain their traumatic character by virtue of the consciousness of social shame that they produce.”
Judith Butler
😲
I had to look that up. She did say that, which is of course in line with the father of queer theory, Michel Foucault.
She's absolutely right tho. In many cultures it was a normal phenomenon to marry cousins together ( sometimes even first cousins) whereas nowadays this is something unheard of
- @@DMp-xp6mj, incest defender
I can tell by the comments here that y'all don't know papa freud,
To say a women is sex biased stereotypes and sex roles instead of an adult human female is very misogynistic. Especially when you claim a man can be a woman if you follows the stereotypes and roles associated with women.
This comment section is like a p-zombie sink strainer.
I was going to delete this comment but then I reread some of the comments posted and decided it's a valid assessment.
anonymous, posting one's emissions as opinions really doesn't count.
I understand that some people may feel not the same inside as their "presentation", but what is valid for this person is not automatically true for everybody. I never wondered what I was, I always knew I was a girl, and I always wanted to have long hair and wear rings. Sure, it's more convenient to feel exactly how we look. But imposing this strange vision to the whole world, that chocks me. Being different doesn't mean being universal, as being "regular" doesn't mean it's valid for everybody.
E.G. - Gloria Anzaldua, Naila Kabeer, Ann Fausto-Sterling, Donna Haraway, bell hooks, Alice Walker, etc. etc. I'm not just throwing out a reading list ... I think it is very important to understand the variations of feminism and what they offer, especially when one has such a quick, negative reaction to complex movements that have done an incredible amount of work for women's rights, women's agency, and the way we think about ourselves and others in terms of gender and power.
It seems that most of the comments already got confused at the first step of differentiating sex and gender. Which I guess is understandable because 3 min is too little to explain her theory fully.
To make it more understandable I will try to make a resume of my understanding of her theory, sorry for my english.
First of all one should give a look into two concepts of Saussure...
one, that no matter what we do we are always thinking within a system. For example, we cant imagine a new colour without distancing ourselves from all the other colours first, that means that we are not assuming a position outside of the "system of colours", we are still within the system. So, every type of "protest/alternative thinking" only finds meaning because of the conscious contrast and meaning of the other parts of the system.
two, the triangle of reference....which means that when we see an object we perceive it as a whole but one needs to make oneself clear that there are different processes going on here:
(1) the physical existence of the object.(2) the name we give to it.
(3) the meanings and assumptions that we related to it.
so, for example, "chair" ...chairs exist outside of language, the physical existence of what we call them has its own reason of existence in which the chair doesnt care what humans think of it, it just exists (1) . Then there is the name, in this example "chair" , language is a system of symbols, so we need expressions to refer to things (2). And then there are all those assumptions we relate to "chair" , that can be our knowledge about its potential materials that its made of, or also the knowledge that we use it to sit, that it can be usually found in dining rooms and so on,
many many things.
So, Judith Butler makes use of the thought line in which we need to be aware of (1) , the human physical body, (2) the name we give to divide its genitalia = "sex" and (3) gender as all the ideology and assumptions we relate to it.
One should also take into consideration the concepts of Pierre Bordieu of
Habitus and Praxis, in which Habitus is like the knowledge we got "programmed" with since we were little, and Praxis daily actions we do to replicate such "Program"...that can mean a lot of things, and its divided into many different categories and environments, for example food taste, based on what type of food habits your family had you are likely to replicate those in your further life and with your children, it is not a must obviously but life is full of those details. It also includes table manners, religion, or basic things like how to use a phone, how to react when we face stress, the way we express love or perceive love and so on. All that can be highly personal and individual but also goes further, it is a part on how society divides into poor and rich, or intelectual or not, or also how we create our perception of "foreigners" "nationalism" and also things like racism or sexism. We are born into a structure and based on how we are molded by that structure we then later replicate it with Praxis. Because a society is an alive thing that has the ability to adapt. We tend to think that society is something big and powerful and often ignore that its made of individuals like you and me. Also our identity tends to be formed based on differences...so, the white racist does discriminate against black people for example, not because of those persons inferiority but because of his attempt to try to establish him/herself as superior, so, by telling ourselves that "I am not x" one establishes that "I belong to this other category = I am this" (Stuart Hall)
And then there is also Michel Focault with his Discourse. For him power is not a matter of hierarchy...instead its that what those complex social systems produce constantly in interaction to each other. So, power is omnipresent and not understandable directed by an individual. It also means that we are all below it. For example one might say that a president is above power because he owns it, but he was too below the structure of power that forced him to adapt to the "rules" of elections, or that he is below the social rules for a president of being for example extrovert (usually), or that he is expected to be smart and have good table manners, to be an excellent public speaker and so on...That whole combination of rules and concepts has many divisions and segments in which one reaction causes another one and so on. They are like chains of Discourse in which they give meaning to each other.
And those Discourses do not follow some sort of strict Superior logic, they vary based on culture and also based on time. Different factors create different reactions and a society adapts to those changes of costums. One just needs to be aware how deep that goes, even things like for example punctuality, some cultures pay more attention to it than others. But that is also based on a combination of many small factors and one of them is a different individual/ cultural understanding of time that varies. That also leads to body perception...there were times in which being overweight was considered to be a sign of Beauty, tattoos and their social acceptance also vary. Based on how the outside demands are put on us by society we have a different perception of everything. And institutions for example create the effect of believing that the way we think is objective, that there is some sort of thought line that exists outside of subjective perception.
So, now we come to Judith Butler...she is aware of all those and a lot more. She thinks based that, that when we think about gender (which is NOT the same as sex) we talk as if the body was like a chair in which whether it rains or snows the object does not get affected...But that is not true. Because there is not such thing as a human form before the formation of body, like, we cant freeze our brains. Because one essential side of human beings is their capacity to learn, to create an Habitus and we are what we learned to think.
Based on that gender is a type of Habitus and we perform it daily and through that we create our identity through differentiating ourselves from each other by trying to create stereotypes or social rules that fit within that whole Discourse complex in which we live in.
Now, gender is Performance and a social construct...again, we are not talking about sex here, and as we live within a system in which we cant fully escape it one might say that, sex is gender because as we are all anyway formed and created around it since we are born, it might be artificial but its still valid because its part of what we are or turned our minds into.
And yes, that is true to some extent but our identity is based on many things more than that...the way of being "male/female" in one culture differs to the way of being "male/female" in another culture, your age also plays a factor, your grandmother has a different concept of "woman/man" than you do. Whether you are born as rich or poor, your skin colour also marks somehow how you are perceived by society and therefore how you perceive yourself, it marks your life and your identity.
A person from the opposite sex than you who was born in the same social environment as you, who looks similar to you, same religion, Ideology and so on is more similar to you, your way of talking and everything than someone from your same sex who was born in another position of a social structure.
So, we are born in a body and then turned into what we are through many many factors and sex is only one of them, a minimal fragment in a combination of thousands of details that we are constituted of.
But for some reason we keep talking and thinking as if that one difference defines everything we are. We have incorporated in our mind that there are two type of subjects, male and female, and that everything else are atributes, like race, social class, hobbies, nationality and so on.
Butler tries to bring up the concept about that we should perceive sex as an atribute as well, That there is only one human subject with many different atributes and not some sort of core that depends on your sex.
Based on that we also wouldnt try to discriminate people for not fitting into their "gender" standard for example.
More liberty to try to understand ourselves as complex creatures and not a mix of boxes.
I am just a cultural anthropology student and we didnt study this subject thaaat well either so I am sorry if I mixed up some of the details around the terms or intentions of the respective philosophers.
There is the option to have in mind Butler's rhetoric while also disagreeing and ask: ok, what would be the alternative? I would say education is the solution, but not a biased education, as in the one offered at most universities where you can nit-pick only the convenient parts and go march for Marxism. I think Butler is not fully aware of her appeal to activist youngsters who haven't read and learned enough simply because of...well...time. Categorization has been there before civilization, simply because people always need a way to simplify the complexities of the surrounding world, regardless of the culture they belong to. That's why we have archetypes in mythology and that is why we have stereotypes all around us. It is not something evil, it is just something natural. Psychologist Gordon Allport made a clear stance for "in-groups" and "out-groups". If you delete one form of categorization, another one will be formed instead. Allport also noticed that strict equalitarian values or any other strict values, regardless of their good intentions, can lead to prejudice against any "out-group" that disagrees. And if we look at the current academia, we find ourselves in echo chambers of social justice. That is not progressivism. I will end my stance by saying that, in theory, many ideas are perfect, tempting, interesting and may seem applicable. When putting them to practice, however, they don't work. In real life, we are humans. And I think this is the biggest error when reading Butler. Not distinguishing between theory and practice. And I could go further and state that this is the biggest error in the field of humanities and social sciences. Dismissing reality in favor of idealism. Which in return backlashes through this snowflake reaction we see in universities...
"But for some reason we keep talking and thinking as if that one difference defines everything we are..."
Who? I think no one does that or even thinks that way.
@300bpm Butler doesn't pretend to be a "real scientist" so she can't be accused of being a "fake" one.
@Lewis C. you’re literally wrong stating that. gender and sex is different. go do your research. it’s literally on the world health organisation.
Can someone explain to me what the difference between "performed" and "performative" is?
Performed means Gender is a constantly reiterated act. Performative means the act of performing Gender produces a series of effects both on yourself and on others, who "perceive" the perpetrated act.
"performativity" is a notion used in linguistics (Austin). A sentence becomes performative when it does what it says. For instance, the sentence a bride can pronounce at a weeding "I do" is performative because the words are not only pronounced, they are producing a certain effect. Likewise, gender characteristics are not simply there, they are producing the impression, and consolidating the "meaning" that we are a certain gender. sorry for my english
I never understood Butler to the core, I mean: Aren't there biological differences between man and female? Like genitals, hormones etc? Can someone help me? Would be greatly appreciated.
I think her thing is pointing out the difference between biological traits (sex) and the behaviors we assign to people based on them, via culture (gender).
u look like jamie lannister n its good
the only comment that sort of makes sense
@@seanieboi1234 true , I mean when it comes to gender politics out brains die
NB!!
Anyone know who this interview was conducted by??
Probably Penny Wong
She interviewed Rubin
isn’t that hakyeon in ur pfp omg sjzjzj
Persona: the aspect of someone's character that is presented to or perceived by others.
I don't really understand butler's point of performativity. for instance, as a kid I liked playing with cars and dolls. I built forts and played school teacher...so very mixed. I did like doing 'girly' stuff a little more. I am not interested in numbers, physics, electronics etc. and I think that is totally me feeling that. no one is forcing me into the role of a woman who loves talking more than staring into the tv scratching my belly so to speak. nor am I painting my finger nails all day or think about hairstyles and make up. I just don't feel like I am doing a gender someone forced onto me.
I think you're mistaking discursive with coercive
That is because you are not. You are being your sexed self and that is not gender. You have a sex and you are you behaving the way you are comfortable. You are not moving among genders. You are behaving according to the way you are made within your sex, and that has a significant amount of variety.
@@2wheelz3504 I'm "being my sexed self"? that sounds like nonsense.
the best way to describe what I am is: I'm being me. with a variety of interests and behaviors. leave my sex out of it. what I have between my legs has zero to do with it.
@@2wheelz3504 I'm being my sexed self? that's nonsense. I being myself, regardless of what is between my legs.
PEOPLE what Judith is saying is that "gender" is a social construct. She is using a word you have already assigned a different meaning to, let that go. SEX is male female, essentially your biological makeup, if you're born with a penis or a vagina. What she's saying is that from society and ourselves and this "phenomenon" around us, we believe that BECAUSE of our SEX we have to adopt certain traits. For example, you may have a penis but not CONFORM to all stereotypes such as enjoying football.. you may prefer a fashion show? Judith uses a brilliant comment "I have some friends who say "I would die if I had to wear a dress" some of those are men, some of them are women". Just because you're born with a vagina doesn't mean you have to do anything society tells you to, you don't have to wear dresses for example. Essentially Judith is freeing us of all constraints, basically shes saying do what you want! If you're against her then your for society controlling your identity.
Kate Butcher Actually sex isn't a binary opposition, and you don't need to gender testicular/heterogametic or ovarian/homogametic. To call the sexes male and female is just as socially constructed, and also depend on cissexist/dyadist influences on science, academia and discourse. But overall, you're correct.
so if we reduce all of this to a single proposition, "society's control is broken by the actions of the individual," it becomes trivial & is hardly groundbreaking. does an academic discipline *really* need to be created in order to further our "understanding" of something that's a truism? I don't think so. indeed, there's certainly sociologists that have helped, but seldom does this occur on a national level. that's it. all the "performativity" in the world won't change the undeniable fact that men act like men & women act like women. the "left" & "right" are the same beast.
This is a great way to look at it because I’m just lost on how to think about it.
I worry that just because a young girl hates dresses could be told it means more. Not Letting them find their own way to their feelings. No one should enter with suggestions. Being different is not harm.
I was a ton-boy. Didn’t carry a purse, didn’t wear makeup, climbed fences and wanted to be an architect. None of that feed into who I was attracted to. I liked boys and not doing girly things kept me from getting them early on but by college boys loved me being one of the guys. And dates started. I never was told to question my sexuality.
Nothings wrong with waiting to find what is true for you. No need to fake it for anyone else’s eyes.
Many problems in the world started with this "woman" and her ridiculous assertions.
straight male here. i got bored of performing maleness. it's boringly restrictive. i take what i like now. it's better.
If you arent taking the piss, im genuinely glad to hear this because people should feel free to do whatever!
@@siobhanchristine-bligh183 yup, truth. just got tired of the nonsense.
Interesting video, I knew about her, but it's the first time I'm really getting into her theory. One question though : isn't it a bit contradictory to say that gender is culturally formed (in other words determined) and then say that you have a liberty, an agency to define your own gender ?
Something being culturally determined and not biologically determined means the thing is malleable in itself, since cultures vary.
We gender certain actions and attributes pretty arbitrarily as a society. the individual then takes on these attributes in order to perform their gender.
It's no more contradictory than to say that in writing, specific themes, genres, motifs, ideas, plot-points, resolutions, are culturally formed ideas, and that you as a writer have the liberty to write your own book. You can use those pieces just described in writing your story, or you can discard them all or most of them all and go at it as self-built as possible.
Genders cultural formation is the pieces of gender that you can then pick from or discard as you see fit in defining your own gender; the more culturally-described pieces you use in your gender (or in your writing) the more easily others can understand it, but that doesn't make either formation-style better or worse than the other.
Your self-identification, ultimately determined by your free will, is informed by the culture you are in. You cannot escape the influence the world has on your mind.
@@hema5638 No not really because stereotype implies that there is a better or more "real" way of getting to the truth of what the stereotype portrays.
Bed Nucleus of the stia terminals in the Limbic System:
Its the relay station for emotional behavior. When electical chemical messages pass through this region, memories are stored in a female fashion.
Oxford, Harvard and Standard University Neuroscience.
@Marian Study it means that there is a specific region of the brain that shows sex differences. When you look at a trans persons brain, it looks like the sex that they believe they are. Robert Sapolsky, neurobiologist talks about this. Basically, brain imaging shows that gender is very much rooted in biology and trans is a real thing, not a delusion.
brad Lute well only that the brain-sex thing is absolutely a lie. gina rippon has already proved this. and honestly, is there’s a part of the brian that makes some see themselves as males and other as females, why there are SO many differences between males from different cultures and females from different cultures? like in “sex and temperament” m. mead made a full study and showed how some females in small communities in asia are more manly than out current standard of the male. what is perceived as male and what is perceived as female (and this applies to a lot of things like perception, clothing and much other symbolics structures) age merely social constructs
@@joaogabriel1820 I don't think that she has proved anything. She has refuted it with a book. There are many that disagree with her findings and the way she has represented the studies. For one, she ignores animal studies completely. And the weird comment that female brains are more different than male and female brains are different is always a strange argument to me. Doesn't really refute that their is a bimodal distribution of sex characteristics.
brad Lute well secondary sexual differences is not the same as brain sex. are you a wild animal? i don’t believe so. it’s really stupid to try to use findings about wild life in comparison to human beings, especially when it comes to gender and sexuality. we are infinitely more complex cultures than wild animals and our sexes and genders is completely different. sexuality in wild animals may have brain sex factors, but their sexuality is moved by instinct, ours is moved by pulse
That’s sex, she’s talking gender
Isn't she just doing the same thing as the bully though? Just in a progressive sounding way.
The bully says: "You're a girl, so act in a girly way"
Butler says: "You're acting in a girly way, so you must be a girl"
Shouldn't we stop putting people into boxes based on their behaviour or their gender expression? You can be a woman, and act as masculine or as feminine as you want. And same for men and non-binary people.
In my view, your gender is an inner sense. I know that makes it hard to define and conceptualise, but not everything needs a concrete definition. The colour red, for instance. You could say something about light waves, perhaps. But you couldn't make a blind person truly understand what it means for something to be red. I think the same applies to gender. You can't explain what it is to be a woman, but if you are a woman then you 'just know' that you are one.
I'm mostly on board with what you say. Though I still don't really understand the notion of gender being an inner sense divorced from the world. Isn't someone's conception of a man or a woman based in large part on the external definitions a culture uses? I feel like a man because of how I define being a man, which I get in large measure from my experience and the culture. I have a broad definition, I have many traditionally feminine characteristics, I could adopt a more narrow and traditional view of manhood and call myself non binary instead, but I don't because of the externally sourced definitions I choose to adopt.
No, she is not inversing the way of bullies, she is doing a meta-gender where she deconstructs what gender and human beings really are. Here, she states that gender is produced by the human senses and reason (mind) based on our physical attributes (biology), and this is an evolving phenomenon where our conception of gender changes or is not set in stone; it reproduces. To make a generalized conception of gender is imprecise because we are not considering every physical attribute that constitutes gender categories, and we still do not know every physical feature of gender. This is precisely why gender non-conforming people exist in our society with imprecise gender conceptions.
Her argument is not "you look like a girl, so you must be a girl"
her argument is how a lot of what we perceive as gender norms are not internal or based in objective truth, but rather social standards, and with this we portray our (keyword: OUR, to assume autonomy) gender identity externally with the way we act and present.
Yes.. however, I'd also caution (from an intersex/trans perspective) fully embracing the cis-feminist idea of "phallo(go)centrism" and the psychoanalytic idea of the "phallus." Not to say that it's simply wrong, but its use tends to reinforce the association of male and phallus/penis in discourse, as you do here. Not that I can provide my own, fully-fledged theory in opposition to the idea, but...
What happened to "Born this way?"
I would have liked to watch this without all the cuts!
Everyone imagines they are helping. So few actually are.
Maybe we should called it No Think
I'll repeat this again for the tenth time. Although we tend to follow certain patterns of thought and behavior, it does not mean (simply for the fact that we are individuals) that everyone follows those patterns and behaviors. It means some (not all) break out of that trend. It's not wrong to follow those patterns, I do it myself, but it's not weird or wrong or out of evolution to not follow those patterns. I think that fact speaks for itself.
That is my entire premise.
Thank you for this. 💜💙🌸🌌
Agree. Unfortunately, the current cultural trend is to hyper focus on minority, fringe positions and put them over the majority. Cause apparently majority think is now considered bad in a democratic society.
Didn't she also say incest is sometimes "okay"?
I like listening to her more than reading her work. Her writing style makes it impossible to read quickly. I have to reread entire paragraphs just to get at what it is she is trying to say. I think she has a lot of interesting points though.
A sign of intelligence is the ability to write complex ideas in a simple manner and not the other way around.
@@petereames3041 Complex idead by denying billions of years of evolution and biology ? There is no scientific basis to prove transgender people exist. They live in the psychological realm, not biological. If you are a men that thinks he is a women, you still think it, it is not a fact, it is a thinkin, pure psychology. The whole trans ideology is based on her books, and since she makes no sense and has no scientific proof, only complex philosophy that nobody understands, has no value at all.
This poor woman's legitimate questions have been so distorted by the very people who support it (intersecrionalists and their kin). The whole point of questioning gender expression was simply to avoid, as she stated, the "policing" of variance in expression, like manliness/femininity in one culture is different from another, and the social repercussions in straying from those gendered expressions should not be punished or socially persecuted and ostracized. A noble critique in my view.
The IRONY is now is its modern, liberal educated supporters are now the police of anyone who resides on the ends of the spectrum: if you are too feminine, you are oppressed by the patriarchy, conversely, if you are too gendered in masculinity and Heaven-forbid, heterosexual, you ARE the patriarchy (and deserve the historical comeuppance due!!)
And now supporters of the theory have gona as far as publicly shaming and bullying anyone outside of the minority expressions, poetically eating themselves from within. Shame that the pushback end result might be the discarding of gender performativity theory altogether.
It was supposed to offer the student a mental exercise in creating awareness in variance of expression, not make them the judge and jury of it! It was a noble step in accepting variety in expression (in this case the expression of one's gender based on their sex) and the freedom one has of it, but it may have overstepped now...
@@_blank-_ A lot of big words for you to play around with.
Which is noble, but she is wrong. There is indeed a biological component to gender. Gender is partly cultural yes, but she seems to suggest that it is all it is. Which is kind of hurtful to people who feel very strongly that they are their true gender like classical cis people as well as classical trans people. Trans women have female looking brains. Their are sexed brains.
Thanks judith butler for explaining it
Explaining what ? That Biology wich has evolved for billions of years doesn't exist anymore because of this crazy dude ?
@@Bilangumus I think she's engrossing!
From what I understand is that gender is a role to take on and at the start we are a blank/undifferentiated and the environment will form us who we are in terms of gender. Understandable but humans aren't a blank slate in the beginning.
There are 2 types of ignoramus. 1. He knows that he doesn't know, 2. He doesn’t know that he doesn’t know.
I don't hate Butler, in fact she seems fairly personable..And btw quite a few people have influenced the minds and thinking of many, often not for the better. Have a pleasant evening.
@Son Of Rabat Think I have made it clear that I consider her ideas dereadful.
Has anyone else noticed Butler's striking resemblance to Charlie Sheen?
Or George Soros. She looks more like George Soros.
How could that lady have possibly guessed correctly that Judith was a lesbian, and why did Judith assume it was to harass her?
I love how Judith Butler herself is finding the words to describe her own notions while she speaks them. it's such an elusive concept you cannot claim anything about it that is unambigous
Insanity disguised as intellectual.
Such a concept is not actually a concept. It is a feeling. As such, it belongs to the realm of the anti-intellectual.
cloak it in fancy language and you can sell madness
@@chrismcgraw9829 "It is a feeling. As such, it belongs to the realm of the anti-intellectual." - As does much of psychology? I don't think that's reasonable.
@@davidm1926 Not sure what you mean, David. Emotions are part of your psychology. Psychology as a science, whenever it is actually a valid science, is predicated on inductive reasoning on the part of the psychologist.
I am not denying gender is preformed. It's an other way of stating men and women behave differently, on average. But why? Judith states this is a cultural phenomenon, and to an(y) extent that is obviously true. One merely has to look at recent history to see differences in behaviour amongst men and amongst women. But does culture explain ALL gender behavior? I think Judith's ideas are insightful, but the postmodern feminist idea that gender behavior is completely a social construct is bollocks.
"This cannot be explained by " bad" society."
Yes it can.
"the postmodern feminist idea that gender behavior is completely a social construct" is mostly a strawman.
No, gender is not 100% the result of nurture. That is the main point of the critique.
Peopel like Butler argue that human behaviour has nothign to to with natural factors, and that arguemnt is just horseshit.
did you.... watch the video? Butler literally begins by saying that she is NOT ARGUING gender is a performance--she is arguing the gender is PERFORMATIVE. What you are understanding to be her argument is actually not at all her argument.
ua-cam.com/video/BAYYJWJF994/v-deo.html
Why would you want to split sex and gender? I sometimes dont feel like a man. Still I am biologically male. Our spirit is always gender/sexless. But its just awesome getting to know your biology. Its part of exploring the material world by firstly accepting our biological vessel. Accepting societal norms that are hopefully adopted to the natural order. We cant change the material world. We can only change our societies but also they are dependent on nature.
Can behaviour also create a person's ethnicity? Their date of birth? Their species? Their nationality? Why not?
Some extremists in the radical intersectional feminism have taken Butler's ideas too far, what she is advocating in fact is empathy towards people who act in a non-normative way.
She also doesn't mean to say that gender/sex (which to her are merely different expressions of the same thing) AS A CONCEPT doesn't exist, but rather that the ways in which differences are defined are arbitrary (only one/few out of many more options) and no more essential than any other interpersonal differences that you could base a category on.
@@R1821g we also have to take into account the fact that Butler is deleuzian, which means that for her any identity is based upon irreducible differences, and not the other way around
By saying that all gender is a performative... Sure not all people are gender normative and that is perfectly fine but she is absolutely wrong in her assertion that gender is totally performative. It has both an innate and cultural component. I would even go as far to say that her gender is innate to her because i'm sure her parents and culture did not make her boyish, that was how she was born.
@Meister Incognito that is all fine! That is the natural state of that person. I am highly atypical as well. But to deny that their is a large biological and genetic component to our gender is highly suspect. I think Butler has a lot more nuance in her argument but that hasn't really shown through in modern feminist mainstream discourse. Sure gender is partly a construction, but most cultures have similar roles and most primates have similar roles. Sure, the traditional gender modes didn't make room for much variation but I think that outlook is a relic of a particular phase of society. By unifying nature and nurture in our explanation, we are better able to speak to the full range of human gendered experience. Trans people, at least classical trans, can be explained by innate biological impulses. Just because they are atypical doesn't mean they aren't expressing an innate part of themselves. Furthermore, by exclaiming that gender is a construct, we push hyper gendered people to the opposite end of the spectrum of biological essentialism. But neither extreme seems right to me when both would suffice. A typical person doesn't exist, just an average person.
@Meister Incognito that is the performative aspect of your self that is shifting in response to cultural expectations. But your androgynous self is able to be itself when you're alone. I'm similar in that way and always have been. But those people that have very strong gender impulses probably don't have the same experience as we do! We can't conclude that our feelings on gender say anything about gender being a construct. For me, I think my gender is very much a product of having a single mother until I was 5. Even though I still have very strong male inclinations, I have been influenced by my mother. To me this is nature and nurture interacting to form a unique individual.
I studied sociology for 5 years but never took her work seriously.
I doubt she will take your opinion of her seriously especially when you've studied sociology only for 5 years....
Not once she mentions biology as an important factor.
And no, I don't believe in biological determinism but developmental psychologists have known for decades that boys and girls differ from an early age, before even any socialization happens. To claim that all "performances" are constructed randomly without a biological basis would make us wonder how male and female behavioral universals could have arisen at all. The same patterns can be noticed over and over and in societies that had no contact with each other and that's way before this globalized world in which we live.
Filipe de Carvalho unfortunately, there is no point at which socialization begins, making this debate difficult. French and German babies cry differently- French with an upward note at the end and German with a lowering one. To say that gendered socialization begins with a child’s “active” awareness of the world around them is... well, false, regardless of where you stand in the debate. We are socialized and placed in a gendered paradigm at times before our sex is even examined via ultrasound!
@@phosphorous4712 What,,,are you that deluded...where did you get that choice bit if research from
Yes to a certain extent, but most Sexologists and Biologists now kind of see gender maping onto sex as a spectrum, with Extreme: Male, Extreme Female on one end. Most people exist within the middle of thier studies, and have attributes we could call both masculine and feminine. Butler, though she does piss me off a bit, is attempting to explain how socieities talk about gender- as if the language we use is real 100%, but really psychologicaly we might not always easily map how and why we do what we do, with reference to inernt biology. I view the whole debate around this with growing interest, as I think people vary soooooooooooo much that its hard to determine the exact role of psychology and society!
@@finchbevdale2069 Hmmmm, no they are not universal. But there are distinct scientific commonialities, or thematic inferences. I think thats whats pretty interesting, its hard to unpick what is someone's sex, and why they act because of thier societal gender!
So she is basically saying don’t make men and women think anything is wrong with them if they don't act masculine and feminine?
1 will someone explain genetics to this lady
2 y is a literature prof talking about gender?
You dont know what gender is watch the video
The title of the video is "Your BEHAVIOR Creates Your GENDER" Sorry but genetics disagrees. You are born the way you are. No one gets to choose. I wish you would have read AND understood my comment before lashing out at a stranger simply for a difference of opinion. If you don't agree with my viewpoint that is your CHOICE, but don't get snippy at a complete stranger for it. Be a moral person and just agree to disagree. We don't have to agree to coexist.@@SmashingCapital
It's interesting to note how phallocentric the phrases she used are "sissyboy" or "tomboy". She's spot-on, but it's interesting how even with "insulting" terms there's compulsory maleness. Unless some just says "don't be a girl" and that's impled anything bad.
I heard the "sissy" term and I was like 'lolwut, what the heck _even is_ that?'
Dear lord, way too many airquotes
Dear Judith Butler, I have always had the feeling that you defend freedom and that you support those in need. Today I would like to ask you to say some
sentences in public demanding the release of Julian Assange. Assange
has been fighting for free information and bringing war crimes to the
eyes of the public. He is a journalist and helps all of us the
understand what´s going on. Thus reducing wars and the possibilities
of successful `war lies´.
Thank you for your understanding and
all the best.
Michael Haas
Nah he turn coated against the American ppl ✌️ if you were talking Snowden you’d be wasting less time
Anyone else notice the video is mirrored?
I love to listen to her. I'd love to see her chat with Paglia.
Just saying it doesn't make it so - what arguments and/or proofs does she actually have for her statement "nobody really is a gender from the start"?
That’s what the book is for. This interview only presents a claim, which is supported in Gender Trouble and other Butler texts-here, they are only clarifying what it means for gender to be performed/performative, not explaining why that is.
This comment.......is so dumb.........it's kind of amazing actually
The idea that gender is a socio-linguistic construct comes from humanities departments. The assertion that nornative gender behaviors are deeply rooted in biological sex comes from science departments.
As a humanities major, I'll go with the science departments.
this is a childish view, economics is also a humanities department lmfao. Like the idea of STEM being inherently more "real" than other forms of education is what you learn in school assemblies, it is not a coherent worldview of a society that needs all.
plz don't comment unless you have an understanding of Foucauldian discourse. Thanks.
@D Maxson "filosofy is dooble spek me no read filosofer" crybaby
So nobody gets to comment?
Sorry, I'm a dumbass that's read 1984 and watches joe rogan, I get to comment all the drivel I want
We are males and females behaving.. "Nonbinary" is nonsensical
For a while I felt like I was a man trapped inside a woman's body ....and then I was born
George Nagy hahaha
We've had a listen Judith. No dice.
you must have been a huge baby
at least she said "controversial"
What exactly is "doing gender"? Please can someonen explain
Judith needs to distinguish gender and gender stereotypes and roles.
Her problem seems to be that she thinks gender=gender roles. My gender comes from me finding my body repulsive. From experiencing gender dypshoria. It has nothing to do with me being feminine. I am feminine, but I could be feminine and male. She seems to talk as if we are creating our genders by how we act, but I see that as rather we are choosing how well we conform to gender roles, and what is expected of us as a particular gender. We can not adhere to them. People who are female can adhere to male gender roles, and vice versa. However that doesn't mean we are actively creating gender. It is easy for someone who is cis to think that gender roles and gender are the same thing, but for someone who is trans it's a lot more difficult. The two really aren't the same.
(late response, sorry) I think you've missed the point on this, since it was not supposed to be about gender roles per se. Imagine being raised by robots on a dessert island, separated at birth from any human society, but otherwise normally-developed due to high-tech AI all around you. You are the only human that you've ever known, and you have been kept ignorant of any gender categories that other civilizations have come up with. There would be no possible way for you to see yourself as having been "miscategorized" in one gender or another because you have no point of reference for such categories in the first place. Of course, your body dysphoria would still be a very real neurological phenomenon. This what is truly innate in your psyche, and Butler would not deny that. But the association of this subjective uncomfortable feeling with a particular gender category is, per Butler's theory, only dependent upon learning and internalizing socially-defined categories of gender. You couldn't possibly identify yourself as "fa'afafine" without first having learned about Samoan culture, and likewise you can't possibly have formed an identity as a "man" or "woman" without having been imprinted upon by the prevailing gender categories that exist in our society. Put a cis person in the desert island scenario and the result is the same: no gender ideation. Hope that thought experiment helps.
+OberonTheGoat I disagree to an extent. first off, I would still call the dysphoria feelings of an innate gender. You just don't understand them. A cat needs to eat, it has thoughts about eating, even if it doesn't understand what it means to eat. your feelings are not the same as a cis persons in all respects, certainly not with respect to their acceptance of their gender. In such a case I would imagine more of a rejection of what you are, and a lack of understanding of what you should be.
Now to add. Imagine you were on the island with someone of your preferred gender. No societal conditioning in either of you. You could still identify with what they were. So to understand what you should be takes no conditioning from society, just an image essentially of another. And to reject your physical gender takes no other at all.
The mental gymnastics and conjecture are a sight to be hold.
Jose Perez dumb conservatives like you are the reason there is never a sense of finality. Because you guys can never sense the real issue.
Not only do you need to demonstrate how synthetics out of any persons control exist and construct our being, we also have to explain the origin of this delusional phenomenon of us controlling all of reality which is precisely where this retarded notion of gender control comes from. I think, therefore I am.
@@John-lf3xf blah blah blah blah mindless jargon doesn't make this pseudoscience real kid
@@cameronguinn2360 Why is it pseudoscience?
Are you saying that someone who is biologically female but doesn't act 'feminine' isn't actually a woman? What is she then? Isn't this extremely counter-productive for a feminist?
I was born female and I tried really hard to like things that are stereotypically male but I never made it. I ended up with 95% of all my interests stereotypically female!
Because you're . . . female.
And there is nothing wrong with that. Why did u want to like things you didn't already like?
@Son Of Rabat don't even waste ur time mate
Whose stereotypology are we talking about, exactly? The Holy Roman Empire?
@@Diamondragan Yes. You will find most of our gender stereotypes are the gender stereotypes of almost every culture throughout history, or very similar.
I think the concept that gender is produced by how you act contradicts a long time goal of the lgbtq community. Haven't we been trying to explain to people that the way people express themselves doesn't necessarily have anything to do with their gender? Of course, biological factors cause a tendency among male and female identified people to perform gender in a way that is in line with so called societal expectations of gender norms. But with this type of viewpoint, is a very feminine gay man simply a woman because he is performing gender in a feminine way? Would non-binary people have to be androgynous in order to be valid in their identity? The more I think about it, the more contradictory Judith Butler's way of thinking (and the theory that gender is mostly or entirely a social construct) becomes.
To take your example, about the feminine gay man... it is up to the man to tell me what gender he identifies with. And that's that. he could be a woman, or he could just be a feminine gay man. Or any other gender. That's not important. What's important are the "roles" we assign to genders. The feminine gay man , upon identifying as a woman, might suddenly find his societal roles changed (more domesticated perhaps) . That's the only relevant thing about gender, otherwise what does it really matter what gender you belong to.
Judith Butler's version of Gender isn't even a thing. There is only male and female in the material world. That's it. Everything else is arbitrary.
A person who says "that's my claim" without providing evidence to support said claim is a snake-oil salesman
to add onto floppy disco, even in my own experience the way someone informs me of their gender changes how I may view them. people wish to ask androgynous folks there gender/sex because they feel the need to catergorize them into something that makes sense. or, they make an assumption and hold onto that belief. then they act accordingly. it doesn't matter what their actual anatomy is, as the other person has to trust they are telling the "truth".
LGBT people often express notions that, "nonbinary people don't owe you androgyny." I think it's very assumptive to say, "you think gender is performative? then that must mean you believe anyone who identifies such a way must act accordingly." it's not hard logic. the consistent belief is self expression, autonomy, and lack of "normalcy". it is in good faith. they don't wish to enforce ideals of gender norms, but simply acknowledge how other people may view it
@@TarredImage If his gender is based on what he identifies as, being a "woman" or "man" is only defined by * people who claim those identifies*. So, the meaning of "man" or "woman" is non-existent. So why do we even create those categories? Those labels do not add anything to our society if there are absolutely no definitions/descriptions to them. In this case, why don't we just drop them?
@@edithtea9477 yes but gender becomes an important marker to identify behaviour against specific group. We need to label it to be able to measure it.
"There are institutional powers, like psychiatric normalization, and there are informal kinds of practices, like bullying, which try to keep us in our gendered place. There's a real question for me about how such gender norms get established and policed, and what the best way is to disrupt them and overcome the police function."
Is this the "Gay Agenda" I've been hearing so much about?
But what creat your behavior?
Edgar Martínez no it doesn’t, if it did then all male and all female would behave the same. what creates you behavior is very complex and depends on biological, social, structural and cultural aspects. we are humans, we have biological impulses, but we also have the deeper and more complex culture know between living being, the variety of behaviors that the culture promotes is not measurable
a lot of factors, but highly cultured influenced
@@nosojdjos There's more difference within a gender than there is between genders, in the sense that if you average out every woman and every man and then compare them, there would be more similarities between those averages than there are between the most different (or 'outlier') men, or between the average man and the outlier man.
Your "clear distinction" is almost certainly based on stereotypes (you can call them 'ideals' if you want, but they're prescriptive rather than descriptive either way), unless you care to tell us what these clear differences are? And those stereotypes are almost certainly Western ones; the same 'clear differences' are likely to be completely different based on the culture of the person and the audience.
Both of which are to say: Prove it. Show us all a) what these differences are, and b) what 'innate factors' they're based on. And by show, I mean like, actual proof. Not stereotyping, but actual data which shows that women or men have a strong showing in some category of behaviour or another, and that those who show that behaviour have some innate factor in common.
I actually clicked this video because I saw the picture and thought it was Richard Dawkins. lol
Dawkins is actually far prettier, and I say that as a heterosexual man.
hahaha
To all of the people out there making ugly, cruel comments about Judith Butler,
Calling her a man because she doesn't dress traditionally feminine just means she scares you. You're scared of being intellectually challenged by strong, intelligent women because you've been socialized to think they don't exist. But we exist and we're going to change the world. Find a better way to spend your time then commenting about how Butler is "ugly" or a "propagandist" because you're clearly afraid of what you don't understand.
Judith Butler is a charlatan, not a "Strong, intellegent woman".
Why is it that leftists always know the deep psychological processes of their opponents?
It makes sense that its cultural, like for example in Scandinavia, women can do stuff that men do like lifting things up, being independant and stuff. In Eastern Europe, Southern Europe, Latin America where the culture is more ''traditional'' people will be surprised or even angered that women are allowed or empowered to do such things.
Doesn't this mean that it's a form of narcissism? A constructed persona?
and my professors persistently push her and other thinkers alike onto us
@CankerousBooch Arís "Subversive activists"
Shut the fuck up, reactionary.
Market Driven culture wouldn't be good, btw, markets are currently driving genocide in the Congo.
She made this topic actually very understandable and simple and I love it.
She's still wrong, wrong as fuck. Like holy shit no ones been more wrong probably since Karl Marx, but alright.
Are you serious. 20 likes as well😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
The premise that we can change gender at will simply by thinking or taking a particular hormone seems reductive...
Am I wrong?
Youre wrong
@@SmashingCapital Can you explain please? I don't want to think wrong things.
@@battags22 define gender
@@SmashingCapital Can't give a good definition cause I'm still trying to understand. I get the bio definition of sex, then gender seems to be the way our mind feels regardless. But, how do I know if I am actually becoming the gender I wish to be?
@@battags22 i dont understand your question
This woman is not a psychologist, she never did a job of self-knowledge and of making the unconscious conscious, therefore she does not realize that she is simply talking about personality traits.
In psychology we use personality models. Personally, I use the model that seems most complete to me, to help us get to know ourselves. Most adults don't know themselves, but they demand that a teenager who is just starting down the road to becoming an adult do so. This personality model consists of 9 different personality types. Each person can identify with one of them. Of course, each one is unique and different and does not fit perfectly, but this model serves as a map. Regardless of whether you were born female or male, each of these personality types and all human beings have masculine energy and feminine energy. (This has nothing to do with sex, it's personality.) Four of these personality types have more feminine than masculine energy, 4 of them have more masculine than feminine energy, and only one of them has the two energies in balance. This does not define the sexual orientation of people at all.
This model of gender ideology, of which she is one of its ideologues, is taking on aspects that simply have to do with your personality and your masculine and feminine energies. All human beings have both energies and in fact they change over time and as we heal internally these energies become even more balanced in their positive aspects.
This ideology is becoming one of the greatest sexual and psychological abuses of humanity. It is confusing children and adolescents, making them believe that our parents committed the great audacity of assigning us the sex at birth. With this logic, there are thousands of children and adolescents who are believing that because they have one of these personality types that has, for example, more feminine energy than masculine, then they were born in the wrong body (I repeat this has nothing to do with sexuality) .
Their ideology is contradicted since they live complaining about ëstereotypes "but then if a child wants to play with a dollhouse, he is trans. Then they are given hormone blockers and then surgery is reached when what had to be done was to work therapeutically on the dissociation that the person is experiencing. It is a tragedy and a crime against minors. There are thousands of young people detransitioning at this time because they were indoctrinated with these ideas. The forerunners of these ideas, instead of working internally with all their internal conflicts and confronting them are projected onto minors.Their ego claims and screams for their theories to be confirmed by minors while their ego grows larger and larger.
"Are you a lesbian?!"
"Yes! I am!"
Why did the young lady in the car ask that? Is Judiths response a gender normative reply? Are you dressing and acting the part of a lesbian based on cultural norms of what a lesbian should look like?
That's exactly what she is trying to demonstrate! That is her theory. Butler doesn’t exclude herself when it comes to the performativity of gender. Of course her being a lesbian is a performative in her theory, u got it!
Judith never says she's excludes from gender performance, in fairness. She might be the first to admit that she dresses "like a lesbian" due to the social expectations of what a lesbian should look like.
Do you people really think through these things (discursively) about your fellow human beings? Not sure what the utility is of that. Abstraction is great in certain circumstances. I just feel maybe it's time to work on relationships. But maybe y'all are good.