I could say a ton on this topic, but I’ll just say this-for anyone watching this, and other stuff Žižek says about transness, don’t read him as criticizing the validity of being trans itself. Instead, he’s criticizing the common cultural talking points describing and *surrounding* trans people, not the legitimacy of the very existence of trans individuals. If you’re coming out of his discussions on “LGBTQ ideology” thinking he’s attacking the very legitimacy of *being* LGBTQ, you’ve misunderstood him. (I only say this because I’ve seen people who read him this way.) It’s just difficult, because people are so ready to hear whatever they want to hear about queer people, just so they can categorize them however they already want to within their OWN ideological field. Many video clips like this have intentionally inflammatory titles and thumbnails, misrepresenting his points from the get-go. Cis people LOVE to have a hot take on the “trans debate,” and this is a huge part of the problem. Many popular queer talking points try to address this issue by “filling in the answer to that question” with their own ideology, and THIS is what Žižek criticizes. The fact that many popular discussions about queerness commodify it, tie it to “identity,” turn it into a naive “choose who you really want to be” kind of choice…which all perfectly fit capitalist schematics at large. And, especially here, that they overlook the possibility of a divided subject whose superficial desires are deceiving, and can be genuinely imprisoning. From a psychoanalytic perspective, gender and sexuality ARE contingent and flexible, but *appear to the subject as a necessity.* They lie in a nebulous zone between biology and the symbolic/cultural, as he notes here. Žižek always points out that radical freedom always presents itself to the individual as a necessity. This is the framework he’s using to try and liberate us from the “it’s a choice” rhetoric of the center-left, while absolutely rejecting essentialist rhetoric from the right. It’s nuanced. I think too often people hear “oh so trans people are fake lol” when they listen to Žižek, and you have to be attentive…because he’s very much NOT saying that. I’d be happy to provide anyone with further listening on this if you’re interested :)
This is correct, but the problem is Žižek chooses a horrible example. Helen Joyce is a nasty bigot and you can find many of her statements which make clear she just wants trans people to be gone. So the protests against her are obvious and have nothing to do with the philosophical understanding of the transness which Žižek discusses. His general argument is fine, but many LGBTQ people will not even wait for the rest of it hearing "Joyce" at the beginning. To get the point Žižek is making we must assume that in the case of Helen Joyce appearance he did not fully know what he was talking about. For me it is clear given the rest, but I hope someone will correct him in this regard.
Being trans is not a choice. And that is why pursuing a transition is an expression of radical freedom because you are doing something that society will generally oppress you for doing. You are who you are and society doesn't like that even though you aren't harming anyone by being that. You are being yourself, but not in the way that "you can be whatever you want to be" you are being what you are and always were, despite what society has attempted to force you into being. Zizek once pointed out that trans people are willing bet their own life on their own transness and willing to go through great pain to be who they are. They would not to do that if they weren't actually trans or if trans people weren't real.
In the simplest terms what he is saying in this video is that the strategy that the left is taking, mainly the standard cancel culture, woke etc (liberals as we usually refer to them) is incorrect and ineffective because it needs a more dialectical material basis. In other words they basically aren't left enough to see the reality.
Merely creating an identity (Queer, Trans, etc.) and claiming it as subversive does nothing. What needs to be done is actual hard, radical, revolutionary work. Only through a return to a class based politics which fights for universal freedom and global solidarity can current problems, including otherness, be solved.
@@belstar1128 Zizek is great, clearly very smart, and speaks good english. I'm a fan. I'm just having a little fun about english pronuncation. "caius" is pronounced "keys" (which is ridiculous, of course, and how would anyone know that).
The thing about popular trans ideology is I don't see what's so important about internal gender? How does it affect who we want to be in life i.e. our values, dreams, goals, etc.? What does one gain by believing they are a given gender or another inside? I don't have a problem with it, but it seems insignificant compared to what really defines our personal identity. If it is indeed different than biology, then why should it be considered a requisite in athletic competition where only physiology is relevant? The world treats people based on the biological sex they appear as rather than what they believe they are inside. In other words, a physiological male will not be discriminated against as a female if those who discriminate against females believe a person to be male, but they may become hostile if that same male presents as a "woman". The cold cruel world is not aware of one's internal gender.
Whatever you find significant to your identity, these people probably don't. Why be prescriptive about IDENTITY, the very thing humans inevitably seek to define FOR THEMSELVES. Humans find security in defining their identity for themselves and feel a loss of control when they are defined by someone else's demands.
@@hkoxnw Sounds like you are promoting the idea of "relative identity" for lack of a better term. I define personal identity in the way I do because I believe words have definitive meanings, and I believe a person's values, ethics, dreams, goals have much more meaning/value to society than their belief in an internal gender. Although, I support people believing they have whatever internal gender, and feeling comfortable in any way they express themselves, of course without causing any undue harm. Regarding the definition of personal identity: would you trust someone who only defined themselves by their physical attributes, and thought the aspects I mentioned were irrelevant? What about someone who places value on internal gender above those other attributes? Have you ever considered that question? Surely you don't believe all beliefs or behaviors have equal value to communities, societies, survival of the species? Regardless of our personal beliefs about anything, the world defines us by how we present and ultimately by our actions. Perhaps the urgency by some of determining an internal gender may be a reaction to external oppression, in the way that much of what drove some aspects of black America culture was a result of external oppression?
Neurologically, the brain can respond to biology in conflicting ways. Many have legitimate struggles with a loose association to such given biological roles in the face of their own behavior. More crudely, there is a large comorbidity with schizotypal and autistic tendencies that is exogenous to that position, yet falls beneath the same discursive boundaries of language. It is what it is irregardless of it's affect, which actually is the psycholoanalytic take Z presents here as being far too absent within the movement.
@thee-wastegamer4044 If I follow your unnecessarily complicated explanation, I don't disagree that the brain responds to biology in different ways. Yes, gender dysmorphia may be akin to those other conditions. I don't want anyone to suffer unduly, and I support tax funded transitioning when deemed beneficial to the individual. That in itself has value. I believe in the old Three Musketeer adage of "all for one, one for all", but I still question the value of "gender". I guess I'm a gender abolitionist.
That is why “woke leftists” do not want to debate. However, this is something called a fools’s choice. In this person’s mind, the debate will go ONE way so it’s better not to engage. While it might sound intuitive to believe so, it is a logical fallacy to assume so.
@@valentinrafael9201It may be a logical fallacy to assume so blindly. But a wise person can learn from others mistakes and proceed carefully. Conservatives are not to be trusted in anything in my experience.
@@howeffingridiculous The trans part of transgender is a misnomer, it implies a movement from one thing to another, but according to the American Psychological Association this is not a necessary thing. So biological markers you see aren't usually going to be things like primary or secondary sexual characteristics. That said, the markers you'd look for to indicate transness would come partially from self reports. These reports can stem from various places. In the psyche they tend to manifest as dysphoria that comes from trauma, or strange incongruity between a person's self perception and physical body. They've also been linked to hormone imbalances in the brain, as well as the result of simple reasoning about the nature of one's sex and the self image they wish to have. Ultimately, even reasoned dissection of self image could technically be qualified as "neurobiological" if you're operating under the assumption that consciousness isn't magic.
There are much more trans-people then people who suffers from gender dysphoria, Im not saying that there are not trans-people without a choice about their gender, but definitely there are trans-people who had a choice, even if they would not agree about that, we are not detminated in 100% by our biology and culture, because those two often differ, and feelings of a teenager who is confused about his identity, can't be always accurate diagnosis, of course thats where doctor appears, but amount of people who want detransition grows and it says something about the quality of those "specialists" and their agenda, our ways of transition/correction are completely experimental, we still do not know the effects of it on psyche after longer period of time.
@@Dogsineed OK, I suppose it depends on when and where. I don't think a safe space is required as long as one has the option to vacate the premises, or to not respond without being assaulted. The problem is that some people won't let those they disagree with go, and they do become physical. Ideally, everywhere should be a safe space. I see no problem with allotting spaces on campus where people can feel free to be themselves without a looming threat of violence. FI, a therapist's office or a support group of some sort. Of course, it gets complicated as to where someone feeling "safe" may censure other's self-expression. I don't think there is a need to predicate college level discussions with a trigger warning. It should be assumed by students that they might be triggered by something controversial, or by anything. Someone might have trauma related to the way a teacher dresses, talks, walks or the sound of their voice. People should learn what triggers them, and work to overcome it b4 entering a place that might trigger them. The same goes for me. It's unrealistic to think everyone can be protected from being triggered. Becoming immune to it is a much better strategy. Maybe all college freshmen should undergo analysis to address their triggers, if they have any that would distract them?
@@GCKelloch I am personally a big fan of introspection, it has helped me deeply understand my general situation, my stumbling blocks etc and I think many people would benefit greatly from it being taught in school. Certainly in this time of great emotional intimateness compared to the past people should introspect to see where exactly many of their issues lie, and also to consider how the ways they may act could cause offense to others (e.g. some people may be used to using discriminatory language from growing up in an environment where that is generally accepted). In general, many people would benefit a lot from being more mindful.
The Freudian solution is here rather simple: yes, psychic sexual identity is a choice, not a biological fact, but it is not a conscious choice that the subject can playfully repeat and transform. It is an unconscious choice which precedes subjective constitution and which is, as such, formative of subjectivity, which means that the change of this choice entails the radical transformation of the bearer of the choice.
The problem with Žižek here he is generally very intelligent and wise person, he just doesn't know what he is talking about in this topic. Helen Joyce is not a person who should be debated with. She is a raging bigot who sometimes pretends to be reasonable when it suits her. Žižek also does not reflect well the views of pro transgender people. No one is questioning biological reality and denying its importance, this would be just stupid. This is what transphobes want people to think this is about. In reality it is giving authority on gender on the gender to the people in question, not the society or government. I am pretty sure he would agree with that.
Classic example of a bad faith argument. Joyce isn't a bigot. Labelling her so is just a way to try and close down discourse. And no one cares what gender people want to ascribe themselves. We care about the law, which is the agreed consensus of society. Any law which gives male bodied individuals access to women's spaces is bad law. It is not bigotry to say so. It is bigotry to attempt to prevent people from discussing our laws and the reasoning that goes in to making those laws. Like you just did.
@@paulhalfMy willingness to discuss with transphobes is quite limited, but just for the sake of potential people observing this exchange, enjoy a quote of Helen: “And in the meantime, while we’re trying to get through to the decision-makers, we have to try to limit the harm and that means reducing or keeping down the number of people who transition. (...) That’s for two reasons - one of them is that every one of those people is a person who’s been damaged. But the second one is every one of those people is basically, you know, a huge problem to a sane world.” As clearly visible, she just wants trans people to be gone. Protecting women's toilets is just a handy trick to fool people who don't know her. I invite anyone having doubts to check her true views themselves. I just warn it may feel disgusting.
Your position is precisely what Zizek criticises here. You lock yourself up in your 'woke' fortress and label those on the attack as 'raging bigots', which to you is so impactful you won't even engage with them. What do you think exclusion is going to do if you want to exclude the majority of the population? Or even like, a minority of 40%? You really think the criticism is just going to lay down and die eventually if you just ignore it and hope it goes away? To manifest cultural change, you _have_ to engage with racists, bigots, homophobes, whatever. If you leave it to fester, nothing will change.
@@daanmollema6366 No, this is precisely what fascists and bigots want, to behave like they have reasonable views that are tolerable. You can speak in social media whatever you legally can, but to talk at the university you must be reasonable enough. Wanting trans people to be gone is not reasonable enough. Helen Joyce (only when it suits her) wants to talk about men in women's toilets. This is a non-existing problem which she and other TERFs created. In reality she is a raging bigot, this is just the truth. She has no right to decide what we should and should not debate about. So first, we do not let her talk at universities. Second, we succinctly explain what her real views and goals are. There are many people on TH-cam which made precisely that in great detail, ContraPoints for example.
To start stupidly simple : Name is identity. Where does your name come from ? Your identity and everything coming along with it is handed down to you from society, culture, peers, parents and friends.
Your name is arbitrary. It could easily be something else. There is nothing intrinsic about it One's sex organs are exactly what they are. They define who you are biologically. They are a material fact. How one reacts to such facts are variable. The underlying biology is not
My name is an arbitrary identifier, there for social recognition and nothing more. It is not related to anything empirically verifiable. Gender is though.
Zizek is like that grandpa that is very in the know on all the current trends in culture and society and he can’t help himself and has to talk about and have an opinion on everything… He dismisses the crippling nature of being trans in this society, you’re being attacked constantly just for existing. There is a large minority of people that think they shouldn’t even exist - This is worse than the rhetoric of apartheid - yes you can exist, but in your own space. Zizek likes to use Marx and his material analysis only when it’s useful, but reverts to Freud and Hegel when this analysis could lead to, for him, an undesireable outcome. One should ask of Zizek, where’s Marx?
@@howeffingridiculous didn’t word it correctly - doesn’t reflect would be better - he compares a white supremacist to trans people for god’s sake (talking about safe spaces) and that is a false equivalence
@@jansvatek5029 I believe the comparison is not a moral equivalency but rather on the specific topic of the protection of your own declared identity and a societal requirement to conform to and protect this identity. On the question of trans peoples existence, I'm interested whether you see a distinction between: a) those who would are bigoted against trans people e.g. would want it to be illegel or would physically harm them. b) those who would assert that one can be wrong about their own identity but cast no moral aspersion on trans people.
![4BANG - NOT LIKE US (REMIX) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/HO22cYkha1s/mqdefault.jpg)
If you want to get Zizek's 'I WOULD PREFER NOT TO' t-shirt you can do so here:
i-would-prefer-not-to.com
I could say a ton on this topic, but I’ll just say this-for anyone watching this, and other stuff Žižek says about transness, don’t read him as criticizing the validity of being trans itself. Instead, he’s criticizing the common cultural talking points describing and *surrounding* trans people, not the legitimacy of the very existence of trans individuals. If you’re coming out of his discussions on “LGBTQ ideology” thinking he’s attacking the very legitimacy of *being* LGBTQ, you’ve misunderstood him. (I only say this because I’ve seen people who read him this way.)
It’s just difficult, because people are so ready to hear whatever they want to hear about queer people, just so they can categorize them however they already want to within their OWN ideological field. Many video clips like this have intentionally inflammatory titles and thumbnails, misrepresenting his points from the get-go. Cis people LOVE to have a hot take on the “trans debate,” and this is a huge part of the problem. Many popular queer talking points try to address this issue by “filling in the answer to that question” with their own ideology, and THIS is what Žižek criticizes. The fact that many popular discussions about queerness commodify it, tie it to “identity,” turn it into a naive “choose who you really want to be” kind of choice…which all perfectly fit capitalist schematics at large. And, especially here, that they overlook the possibility of a divided subject whose superficial desires are deceiving, and can be genuinely imprisoning.
From a psychoanalytic perspective, gender and sexuality ARE contingent and flexible, but *appear to the subject as a necessity.* They lie in a nebulous zone between biology and the symbolic/cultural, as he notes here. Žižek always points out that radical freedom always presents itself to the individual as a necessity. This is the framework he’s using to try and liberate us from the “it’s a choice” rhetoric of the center-left, while absolutely rejecting essentialist rhetoric from the right. It’s nuanced. I think too often people hear “oh so trans people are fake lol” when they listen to Žižek, and you have to be attentive…because he’s very much NOT saying that.
I’d be happy to provide anyone with further listening on this if you’re interested :)
I would love to read more about this !
Me too
This is correct, but the problem is Žižek chooses a horrible example. Helen Joyce is a nasty bigot and you can find many of her statements which make clear she just wants trans people to be gone. So the protests against her are obvious and have nothing to do with the philosophical understanding of the transness which Žižek discusses.
His general argument is fine, but many LGBTQ people will not even wait for the rest of it hearing "Joyce" at the beginning. To get the point Žižek is making we must assume that in the case of Helen Joyce appearance he did not fully know what he was talking about. For me it is clear given the rest, but I hope someone will correct him in this regard.
Being trans is not a choice. And that is why pursuing a transition is an expression of radical freedom because you are doing something that society will generally oppress you for doing. You are who you are and society doesn't like that even though you aren't harming anyone by being that. You are being yourself, but not in the way that "you can be whatever you want to be" you are being what you are and always were, despite what society has attempted to force you into being.
Zizek once pointed out that trans people are willing bet their own life on their own transness and willing to go through great pain to be who they are. They would not to do that if they weren't actually trans or if trans people weren't real.
In the simplest terms what he is saying in this video is that the strategy that the left is taking, mainly the standard cancel culture, woke etc (liberals as we usually refer to them) is incorrect and ineffective because it needs a more dialectical material basis. In other words they basically aren't left enough to see the reality.
Merely creating an identity (Queer, Trans, etc.) and claiming it as subversive does nothing. What needs to be done is actual hard, radical, revolutionary work. Only through a return to a class based politics which fights for universal freedom and global solidarity can current problems, including otherness, be solved.
Why is Connor O'Malley in the thumbnail?
Slavoj Zizek is very smart indeed
he may be, but he doesnt know how to pronounce the word “caius”
@@simonpedley9729 he is Slovenian. I am surprised he even speaks English
@@belstar1128 Zizek is great, clearly very smart, and speaks good english. I'm a fan. I'm just having a little fun about english pronuncation. "caius" is pronounced "keys" (which is ridiculous, of course, and how would anyone know that).
The thing about popular trans ideology is I don't see what's so important about internal gender? How does it affect who we want to be in life i.e. our values, dreams, goals, etc.? What does one gain by believing they are a given gender or another inside? I don't have a problem with it, but it seems insignificant compared to what really defines our personal identity. If it is indeed different than biology, then why should it be considered a requisite in athletic competition where only physiology is relevant?
The world treats people based on the biological sex they appear as rather than what they believe they are inside. In other words, a physiological male will not be discriminated against as a female if those who discriminate against females believe a person to be male, but they may become hostile if that same male presents as a "woman". The cold cruel world is not aware of one's internal gender.
Whatever you find significant to your identity, these people probably don't.
Why be prescriptive about IDENTITY, the very thing humans inevitably seek to define FOR THEMSELVES.
Humans find security in defining their identity for themselves and feel a loss of control when they are defined by someone else's demands.
@@hkoxnw Sounds like you are promoting the idea of "relative identity" for lack of a better term. I define personal identity in the way I do because I believe words have definitive meanings, and I believe a person's values, ethics, dreams, goals have much more meaning/value to society than their belief in an internal gender. Although, I support people believing they have whatever internal gender, and feeling comfortable in any way they express themselves, of course without causing any undue harm.
Regarding the definition of personal identity: would you trust someone who only defined themselves by their physical attributes, and thought the aspects I mentioned were irrelevant? What about someone who places value on internal gender above those other attributes? Have you ever considered that question? Surely you don't believe all beliefs or behaviors have equal value to communities, societies, survival of the species?
Regardless of our personal beliefs about anything, the world defines us by how we present and ultimately by our actions. Perhaps the urgency by some of determining an internal gender may be a reaction to external oppression, in the way that much of what drove some aspects of black America culture was a result of external oppression?
@@GCKelloch I'm skeptical of value
Neurologically, the brain can respond to biology in conflicting ways. Many have legitimate struggles with a loose association to such given biological roles in the face of their own behavior. More crudely, there is a large comorbidity with schizotypal and autistic tendencies that is exogenous to that position, yet falls beneath the same discursive boundaries of language.
It is what it is irregardless of it's affect, which actually is the psycholoanalytic take Z presents here as being far too absent within the movement.
@thee-wastegamer4044 If I follow your unnecessarily complicated explanation, I don't disagree that the brain responds to biology in different ways. Yes, gender dysmorphia may be akin to those other conditions. I don't want anyone to suffer unduly, and I support tax funded transitioning when deemed beneficial to the individual. That in itself has value. I believe in the old Three Musketeer adage of "all for one, one for all", but I still question the value of "gender". I guess I'm a gender abolitionist.
I think the issue comes down to bad faith debates. Consider the Jordan Peterson vs Slavoj Zizek debate.
That is why “woke leftists” do not want to debate. However, this is something called a fools’s choice. In this person’s mind, the debate will go ONE way so it’s better not to engage. While it might sound intuitive to believe so, it is a logical fallacy to assume so.
@@valentinrafael9201It may be a logical fallacy to assume so blindly. But a wise person can learn from others mistakes and proceed carefully. Conservatives are not to be trusted in anything in my experience.
"bad faith" is a completely meaningless term.
Its only use is to arbitrarily throw out any argument one does not like.
@@mixorinThat is a bad faith argument
@@Mastikator Why do you think so?
I did a semester and a half at Seton hall, I understand transgenderism, as a concept.
Great, now I'm in the zizek-soprano algorithm
@@davidecimino6138zizek would be good friends with Tony tbh
👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👌🏼
"without irony'" +
I claim, touches nose
Transness is a neurobiology/sex variance thing, not something that can be chosen. Having said that, I agree with everything he said.
what are the markers or tests for this neurobiological variance?
@@howeffingridiculousthere have been brain scans, although I don't entirely see the relevance.
@@prufenful you're saying there's a biological basis so that's why I am asking if there is a test beyond subjective self reporting
@@howeffingridiculous
The trans part of transgender is a misnomer, it implies a movement from one thing to another, but according to the American Psychological Association this is not a necessary thing. So biological markers you see aren't usually going to be things like primary or secondary sexual characteristics.
That said, the markers you'd look for to indicate transness would come partially from self reports. These reports can stem from various places. In the psyche they tend to manifest as dysphoria that comes from trauma, or strange incongruity between a person's self perception and physical body.
They've also been linked to hormone imbalances in the brain, as well as the result of simple reasoning about the nature of one's sex and the self image they wish to have.
Ultimately, even reasoned dissection of self image could technically be qualified as "neurobiological" if you're operating under the assumption that consciousness isn't magic.
There are much more trans-people then people who suffers from gender dysphoria, Im not saying that there are not trans-people without a choice about their gender, but definitely there are trans-people who had a choice, even if they would not agree about that, we are not detminated in 100% by our biology and culture, because those two often differ, and feelings of a teenager who is confused about his identity, can't be always accurate diagnosis, of course thats where doctor appears, but amount of people who want detransition grows and it says something about the quality of those "specialists" and their agenda, our ways of transition/correction are completely experimental, we still do not know the effects of it on psyche after longer period of time.
Imagine standing up to someone who is in a disagreement with you by saying
"let me just make my way to my safe space".
What does your definition of "antagonize" mean?
@@GCKelloch That was the wrong word, I meant facing a verbal confrontation or disagreement.
@@Dogsineed OK, I suppose it depends on when and where. I don't think a safe space is required as long as one has the option to vacate the premises, or to not respond without being assaulted. The problem is that some people won't let those they disagree with go, and they do become physical.
Ideally, everywhere should be a safe space. I see no problem with allotting spaces on campus where people can feel free to be themselves without a looming threat of violence. FI, a therapist's office or a support group of some sort. Of course, it gets complicated as to where someone feeling "safe" may censure other's self-expression.
I don't think there is a need to predicate college level discussions with a trigger warning. It should be assumed by students that they might be triggered by something controversial, or by anything. Someone might have trauma related to the way a teacher dresses, talks, walks or the sound of their voice. People should learn what triggers them, and work to overcome it b4 entering a place that might trigger them. The same goes for me. It's unrealistic to think everyone can be protected from being triggered. Becoming immune to it is a much better strategy. Maybe all college freshmen should undergo analysis to address their triggers, if they have any that would distract them?
@@GCKelloch I am personally a big fan of introspection, it has helped me deeply understand my general situation, my stumbling blocks etc and I think many people would benefit greatly from it being taught in school. Certainly in this time of great emotional intimateness compared to the past people should introspect to see where exactly many of their issues lie, and also to consider how the ways they may act could cause offense to others (e.g. some people may be used to using discriminatory language from growing up in an environment where that is generally accepted). In general, many people would benefit a lot from being more mindful.
The criticism he levies, I almost forgot he was levying against the trans activists. They are spot on criticisms against the transphobes.
trans people need to read jung to confront freud
The Freudian solution is here rather simple: yes, psychic sexual identity is a choice, not a biological fact, but it is not a conscious choice that the subject can playfully repeat and transform. It is an unconscious choice which precedes subjective constitution and which is, as such, formative of subjectivity, which means that the change of this choice entails the radical transformation of the bearer of the choice.
I can’t decide if I find funnier Zizek’s or Mandela’s English accent.😅😅😅.
I don't give f....ism
The problem with Žižek here he is generally very intelligent and wise person, he just doesn't know what he is talking about in this topic. Helen Joyce is not a person who should be debated with. She is a raging bigot who sometimes pretends to be reasonable when it suits her. Žižek also does not reflect well the views of pro transgender people. No one is questioning biological reality and denying its importance, this would be just stupid. This is what transphobes want people to think this is about. In reality it is giving authority on gender on the gender to the people in question, not the society or government. I am pretty sure he would agree with that.
Classic example of a bad faith argument. Joyce isn't a bigot. Labelling her so is just a way to try and close down discourse.
And no one cares what gender people want to ascribe themselves. We care about the law, which is the agreed consensus of society. Any law which gives male bodied individuals access to women's spaces is bad law. It is not bigotry to say so. It is bigotry to attempt to prevent people from discussing our laws and the reasoning that goes in to making those laws. Like you just did.
@@paulhalfMy willingness to discuss with transphobes is quite limited, but just for the sake of potential people observing this exchange, enjoy a quote of Helen:
“And in the meantime, while we’re trying to get through to the decision-makers, we have to try to limit the harm and that means reducing or keeping down the number of people who transition. (...) That’s for two reasons - one of them is that every one of those people is a person who’s been damaged. But the second one is every one of those people is basically, you know, a huge problem to a sane world.”
As clearly visible, she just wants trans people to be gone. Protecting women's toilets is just a handy trick to fool people who don't know her. I invite anyone having doubts to check her true views themselves. I just warn it may feel disgusting.
@@paulhalf Well said
Your position is precisely what Zizek criticises here. You lock yourself up in your 'woke' fortress and label those on the attack as 'raging bigots', which to you is so impactful you won't even engage with them. What do you think exclusion is going to do if you want to exclude the majority of the population? Or even like, a minority of 40%? You really think the criticism is just going to lay down and die eventually if you just ignore it and hope it goes away? To manifest cultural change, you _have_ to engage with racists, bigots, homophobes, whatever. If you leave it to fester, nothing will change.
@@daanmollema6366 No, this is precisely what fascists and bigots want, to behave like they have reasonable views that are tolerable. You can speak in social media whatever you legally can, but to talk at the university you must be reasonable enough. Wanting trans people to be gone is not reasonable enough.
Helen Joyce (only when it suits her) wants to talk about men in women's toilets. This is a non-existing problem which she and other TERFs created. In reality she is a raging bigot, this is just the truth. She has no right to decide what we should and should not debate about. So first, we do not let her talk at universities. Second, we succinctly explain what her real views and goals are. There are many people on TH-cam which made precisely that in great detail, ContraPoints for example.
To start stupidly simple : Name is identity. Where does your name come from ?
Your identity and everything coming along with it is handed down to you from society, culture, peers, parents and friends.
I have chosen my name
Your name is arbitrary.
It could easily be something else.
There is nothing intrinsic about it
One's sex organs are exactly what they are. They define who you are biologically. They are a material fact.
How one reacts to such facts are variable. The underlying biology is not
@@NevimcoxdNo, society and friends and family still chose your name. You just formulated it and claimed it as your own.
My name is an arbitrary identifier, there for social recognition and nothing more.
It is not related to anything empirically verifiable. Gender is though.
Transgenderism has been shown to include neurobiological factors. "Society gave you your entire mind" is both false and stupid.
Amazing lecture, need to go wipe off my face now though.
Yawn.
I bet this guy got his speech impediment trying to pronounce his own name.
Did you not have anything original to say?
Just yes. You realize that most academics simply don't do anything useful with their energy. Perhaps all spoiled?
Zizek is like that grandpa that is very in the know on all the current trends in culture and society and he can’t help himself and has to talk about and have an opinion on everything… He dismisses the crippling nature of being trans in this society, you’re being attacked constantly just for existing. There is a large minority of people that think they shouldn’t even exist - This is worse than the rhetoric of apartheid - yes you can exist, but in your own space. Zizek likes to use Marx and his material analysis only when it’s useful, but reverts to Freud and Hegel when this analysis could lead to, for him, an undesireable outcome. One should ask of Zizek, where’s Marx?
It's his job to comment on these things. It what he does...
@@BlankRami yeah, I’m not critiquing that he does it, just how he does it
Where does he dismiss the crippling nature of being trans in this society?
@@howeffingridiculous didn’t word it correctly - doesn’t reflect would be better - he compares a white supremacist to trans people for god’s sake (talking about safe spaces) and that is a false equivalence
@@jansvatek5029 I believe the comparison is not a moral equivalency but rather on the specific topic of the protection of your own declared identity and a societal requirement to conform to and protect this identity.
On the question of trans peoples existence, I'm interested whether you see a distinction between:
a) those who would are bigoted against trans people e.g. would want it to be illegel or would physically harm them.
b) those who would assert that one can be wrong about their own identity but cast no moral aspersion on trans people.
Trigger warning, don't eat, drink or try to chew gum while listening to this guy talk. Gross.
dude :(
I’d rather listen to him talk than read your nauseating and unoriginal remarks about his speech.