I started watching this interview live with my Mum and Dad at their house yesterday. We didn't get to far into it, not because it is complicated, with many moving parts and different levels, which it is, and which it has, but because it kicked off a long discussion after only a several minutes in. They have invited me back over today to watch some more, and i get a free home cooked dinner too. So very interesting, socially consequential, and with a high positive utility margin for me, so far.
I still haven' got any further though the interview. But an odd thing is, my feminist colleague doing post grad stuff after finishing, went from theory to praxis, and gave a me a pile of her feminists texts to add to my home library between my epistemology and logic sections. They are fairly recent general texts and collections of essays mostly. The thing is, Judith Butler is not even in most of them, and is only a couple of quotes in the one that mentions bodies. I mean I'm all for privileging margins, but really?
So i read all i have of Judith Butler in books in five minutes. Thing is i went full Butlerian for some years from late 2000's though to early 2010s. All the EGS seminars and lectures some I watched several times, and many other lectures too. So right now I thought I'd have a go at performing Butler and then return to this interview and write about it after some praxis and experience. Just don't tell my friends on the right and my conservative colleagues. You can assess this already in comments on a Konstantin Kisin talk at Centre for Independent Study 2 weeks ago. For praxis reasons I choose to omit any reference to Butler, until I've drawn them in.
Complexity is not easily reduced to simple answers. I'm certainly not able to easily answer these questions, so it is refreshing to see complex questions answered with complex answers rather than black and white responses as per the media discourse on gender.
@alioxinfree I thought they were all obsessed with "passing" and claiming no one notices they are there.... now its visibility. Nothing makes sense with you people 😂
like a surprising number of middle-aged alternative people, I wasn't particularly open to new ideas on gender. My children told me just to sit down and watch a bit of Judith and maybe eat a biscuit. Over time, I was able to understand a little better. I would really recommend Judith Butler and Biscuits approach, rather than massively freaking out and radicalising yourself on Twitter because a thing has happened that you don't understand.
@@PattisKarriereKarten We're all biology experts here, didn't you know? Elon has now insisted that all Blue Tick Twitter Accounts prove their expertise in biology and pass an ELON MANDATED BIOLOGY TEST and produce an inexpensive CERTIFICATE before being allowed to scream abuse at trans people!
That's an interesting way to characterise feminists objecting to, for example, convicted rapists in women's prisons. They are being hysterical, whereas you are, quite reasonably, outsourcing your politics to your children. And there are only people, by the way. There isn't an "alternative" to that.
So, I agree with many of the points made here. I would also label myself as quite a bit to the left (esp. in the area of economics). I also very much care about trying to increase humanization of often-dehumanized groups. That being said, there are a few points don’t make sense to me, perhaps because of limited understanding. Judith’s explanation of the difference between co-opting race and gender did not seem to actually differentiate them much. Ash pushed back a little, but the response did not further clarify. Also, I agree that xenophobia is NOT okay, but I think the dismissal of the fears of people in countries which have been more or less mono-cultural for centuries is a mistake. The influx of so many people of very different cultures in such a short time would be very unsettling for people in those countries. It does not justify racism or unfair treatment. I just don’t think it should be dismissed out of hand. Additionally, the flippant way in which it was addressed was disrespectful, and did not even hint of the important analysis of WHY there is so much migration. Proxy wars, multinational corporations’ practices, climate change, and the fallout of external interference in elections and coups have contributed significantly to the destabilization of social order in those countries. If life were liveable at home, they wouldn’t be leaving.
37:42 _" Does the same apply to race? Because when I saw Rachel Dolezal I had this instinctive sense that there's something wrong here but I don't own the category of race, right, no individual black person or class. Right, no social constructed class of black people own the category of race. Rachel Dolezal saying well look I'm identifying as a black woman, I'm identifying asa a black woman, I live my life as a black woman, my appearance is such that people are treating me as a black woman. Is it logically coherent to have different rules for gender as opposed for race? Is it coherent for me to feel very differently about Rachel Dolezal than I intuitively think about gender identity?"_ Good question, with which Butler does nothing with or even tries to answer in a logical way. Which of course she can't as the only correct answer will destroy any arguement she has for allowing people to only self identify gender. And here's a question to be answered. Why does Barrack Obama identify as black? Edited to ask a second question. When Ash says how she "intuitively" thinks about gender identity, is she using Intuit as in " having the ability to know or understand things without any proof or evidence "?
You say "identify", because noone can look into your head, where your gender is. Beeing black is observable from the outside, so no indentification is needed. This roots from the same misconspetion that gender and sex are the same. Sex is your body, like chromosomes, hormones etc. and gender your sense of self. Gender-expression is how you present you gender, by using clothing makeup or hrt to change the external view. The sex is still the same, as is the gender. But your gender (male) can be different from your sex (female). When you see a random person, to figure out their gender, its completely automatic, you arent rigorously proving that. You look at the gender expression, because its the only thing visible. If you aregue you see sex, then you need to be able to directly detect someone chromosomes, wich only works by making assumptions like: for most people (cis) the gender matches the sex. But even then you have masculine presenting woman or feminine presenting men (femboys). Trans people only change their gender-expression. I was always biologically male and will always be, and i was always of gender female and will always be. I only change my gender-expression so people can better assume my gender, and i am allowed to act more like my gender.
@@E_m1ly_6302 uh oh! “noone can look into your head, where your gender is.” careful! you could be liable to a private language argument. in the meantime, how do you know race is not also “in your head”?
One of the best interviews with Judith I have seen. She is comfortable and able to explain the broader way of thinking, not have to defend or attack an arguement
She sneers that her opponents haven't done their homework about what they're criticizing but then demonstrates she has no idea about the substance of their criticisms. Unbecoming and sloppy.
@@raincadeify "Sneers" was used metaphorically to indicate the arrogance of the behavior that was the subject of my comment. Funny how you completely ignored its substance to nitpick its vocabulary. Very Butlerian.
Judith, just because we've been expanding ideas about what a woman can do or how she can act, doesn't mean that actually being a woman has changed to the point that men can also be women. Our biology hasn't changed.
Historically men and women have being fluid cathegories up to roughly the last thousand years. Many non christian cultures have room for AMAB and AFAB people to move towards the opposite gender. The norse, the celts, many middle easter ancient cultures, many native american cultures, the roman and the greek have this features in one way or another. So, the idea of women and men being this monolithic fixed unity that cannot be changed is fairly new.
I watched this video with an open mind but after finishing this one hour interview, I could say that Butler is “The Queen of Word Salad”. Loads of word salad when the answer can be said in three sentences max. Let alone that most of her answers are descriptive instead of fully addressing the main question. Also you can tell that she doesn’t know what the position of her opponents are. Take for example that Gender Critics actually ENDORSE ‘Gender nonconforming’ and many of them are. Butler is the prophet of poststructuralism, which is illogical, incoherent, and in practice very anti-science. She is also immersed in a world of conjuring enemies where things are purely black and white. It closes the door for any possible self-criticism and self-reflection within this paranoiac movement she wants to create.
I came in here with an open mind, too- well, as open as I can allow lest my brains fall out. That one hour is enough to be fully convinced that Gender Theory/Ideology has no leg to stand on. I can watch debates from the Gender Critics for hours and be enriched with their coherence and rationality. I‘ve always wondered why she has not been on a debate, now I know why. She knows she‘s a fraud.
We were more progressive by the late 90s than we are today, transgender ideology is regressive and confining with it's labels. Watching this was tough.
This is, ultimately, an academic discussion being had at a certain level using academic language and terminology. Yes, Butler could use simple language, but that's not what this discussion is for. She is being asked to speak as an expert in her field to an audience that is already familiar with this stuff. There will be other more simple discussions for you to find, I wouldn't start with this. When I listen to quantum physicists, I technically know all the words, but I don't understand all the concepts they are referencing. People expect to be able to understand philosophy/humanities jargon, but don't have the same expectations to the sciences.
Great interview. Thank you Ash for always asking the right questions. Never really heard Judith Butler speak before - only knew their name from all the tansphobia panic, great to see they were not snide or cruel to anyone and answered every question with intelligence. Look forward to reading their book.
The problem is that even when we are polite, transphobes will spin it any way they can unless peoppe take the time to watch videos like this, and most right wingers don't watch this channel unfortunately, because it'd pretty leftist
It sounds like you thought you were getting out of your echo chamber, when in fact, this is just you discovering another voice within the same echo chamber.
7:00 So after minutes of talking in circles, this expert can't define what a woman is either, and that's one of many, many problems about gender ideology. It trumps humanity and common sense. This is why the world is better without this than with it, on balance. The definition of a woman has been straightforward throughout history. Why are trans ideologues changing the definition of what a woman is and forcing others to accept it, when they can't define it themselves, and when their expanded definition of womanhood trample upon the rights of others?
I'd like to point out that the interviewer didn't ask Butler to answer what a woman is, but rather talk about what do people intend when they make the question "what is a woman"
What is a woman? The answer is either “a human with XX chromosomes” or it is “a feeling.” Historically, the definition of woman has been “a human with XX chromosomes,” so that definition has precedence. The Trans ideology would like to change the definition to be “a feeling.” Changing the definition of a word can cause confusion and unexpected consequences, so there has to be a very good reason for us to make such a change. Under what circumstances would we change a definition? We might change the definition if it helps a larger majority of the people. Women are more than half of the population. Transwomen are only a small precentage of the population. If we want to protect a largest number of people, we should prioritize the safety of women over the safety of a small subset of men. The definition of woman being “a feeling” is harmful to transmen too. The “feelings” definition could cause health issues. Drugs affect XX and XY people differently. When a man goes to the doctor and says that he is a woman, he could get the wrong medication. “Feeling like a woman” will not change how the drugs will affect his body. His XY chromosomes dictate what medication he takes. A man feeling like a woman will need medication for men. When they were talking about prisons, it was said that women could get raped, but that transwomen might get raped too. The argument they made in favor of moving transmen into women’s prisons is that transmen might get raped if they stayed in men’s prisons. They disregarded the possibility of an increase in the number of rape of women, and said that you were a bigot if you even mentioned it. They asserted that transmen must be moved to women’s prisons because the problem isn’t transmen, but rape in general. They said that we must focus on stopping rape in women’s prisons altogether. But wasn’t their concern of transmen being raped as led in men’s prisons? Why don’t they focus on stopping rape in men’s prisons? It is widely known that rape in men’s prisons is rampant. Why not focus on stopping rape in men’s prisons altogether. That would help the greatest number of people.
Just from the start she is gaslighting us. "What is a woman" - the "stays in the kitchen" was never part of definition of what woman is. There was an expectation in some societies that presupposed certain role for a woman, but woman itself was still the same. Adult human female. You do not need to say how long hairs she happen to have, what she likes to do and what she has to do to make clear definition what that word means. In all languages around the world at least to my current knowledge. Feminist changed what role woman can choose for herself, but didn't changed the definition or meaning of the word woman.
Succinctly and eloquently stated!! Her 20 minute bout of logorrhea when asked, ‘what is a woman’, was just an embarrassment of pseudo intellectual transcendental nonsensical word salad.
Butler seems to not be able to comprehend it's imperative for women's rights to differentiate between "a woman can be everything" and "everything can be a woman". The former opens the world for women, the later puts us back in the box, because for any concept to be meaningful, there has to be a coherent definition behind it. If that definition isn't grounded in biology - such as a woman is a woman because of her biology as a woman no matter what she looks like, does, says, etc. then what is a woman? By Butler's words, if anyone can become a woman, then for women to be anything at all, you have to fall back on stereotypes or just erase the concept completely, because there is no inherent concept to step into. A trans woman is a trans woman by approximating the concept of womanhood, but they inherently can't enter biological womanhood. By this same token Butler is suggestion, what is the limitation to womanhood? Because any concept has a limitation for it to have a meaning. It's actually by far easier by her logical than any patriarchal one to limit women from the concept of womanhood through their behavior, looks, words, because if they no longer are defined as women by their biology then they can be excluded from it by any other concept.
Of 129 trans identified males in UK prisons 78 are convicted sex offenders. Isn't anyone seriously worried about this? This is a much higher % than the male population. This isn't of course to say all trans identified males are perpetrators as these are prison-specific figures. Good to see Judith much more concerned about the welfare of men in prison than women here. Not sure which stats Ash is using here to seriously suggest that trans identified men are the most vulnerable in prison.
Ash is probably referring to PMC6830990 and or PMC10756016, which states that on many occasions that incarcerated trans women have it worse in many ways, including resource access and sexual violence inflicted onto trans women. The former also does specifically mention where error and limits can conflict with the result, which can come as an issue with the data collected. Respectfully, I also have had many suspicions with how the data in the Parliament evidence (referring to the 78/129 statistic) referenced is collected. The pool of trans women is quite inconsistent, sometimes exceeding Prison and Probation reports on their own times, and is overly vague across the paper (of which I suspect is due to a strong emphasis on evidence collected by single-issue groups), there is too little data to make any conclusions. That's not to say this article isn't valid in all aspects, it at the very least shows that self ID access shouldn't be entirely unfettered, although it does not mean to abolish it entirely.
@@brentboymebob8754There are protection wings in men's prisons where they can put men scared of other prisoners. Absolutely nothing to do with women whatsoever - not one man should be in a women's prisons don't care if they've had surgery or whatever. Not women's problem.
@ayeright320 You should look at the studies I just linked, they literally mention that protective custody is ineffective for solving the problem in it's entirety, because the prison never works in mental help, counseling, or providing medication. It's even been mentioned that prison staff of the mens prisons often discriminate against the trans women in particular. Not to mention, excluding trans people from prisons provides more problems. Trans men also come into custody, and regardless of your thoughts on their identity, they are still masculine people that get incarcerated, and like anyone else, they can be abusive, violent, and if the law does not care about surgery, still penetrative.
@@brentboymebob8754 Prisons have better things to do than pander to these people. Everyone in prison has mental health problems no one gets fussed over because of their lifestyle choices.
Bless you Ash Sarkar for your advocacy and integrity. And big love to Judith Butler too of course! I think their insights around gender are getting sharper every time they speak.
Neoliberal, Corp driven ideology. Butler’s been paid well. NZ Author Renee Gerlich’s brilliant 12 min talk encapsulates it. Recently Norman Finkelstein spoke about this in an interview also. “Integrity” 😂 the heart & soul of Neoliberalism of course.
Within a couple of minutes of starting this she makes a comment about "gender non conforming uncle" - that can only mean something if she had a stereotype in mind. Everything she talks about is with reference to stereotypes - that's all gender is a collection or old fashioned stereotypes.
This was a very weak interview imo. If you want to get to the meat of the argument you have to ask the "right wing" questions. The way I see it, is if someone went into this interview gender critical they will come out gender critical after watching. only softball questions
We already know quite well the "right wing questions", and their political purpose: to prevent any structured argumentation, to cut the grass under our feet before any real discussion start, to frame the conversation as badly as possible for the minorities and their rights. The same pro-fascists propagandists have been repeating them as loud as possible for years, and too many liberals are intoxicated by the same rhetoric. At least, we have here one hour without the usual right wing pollution. This may sure make some rightwingers and transphobes unhappy, but every one of our trans, intersex, non binary, non gender conforming existence make them unhappy anyway, making cisnormative people happy is out of reach for us.
This interview is just legendary, I've come back to it so many times since it was uploaded. Ash's questions are all super pointed questions which, had they been asked by a conservative 'gender ideology critical' person, would have all been framed as 'gotchas', but because they were asked in good faith they led to some super interesting conversations that really dug into the core of Butler's work. Ash knocked this one out of the park, loved it.
Here’s a thought, an “ethical” man does not enter a womens changing room and reveal himself knowing he’s scaring or making uncomfortable everyone inside so he can feel better about himself!!
@@expedition346 No it doesn’t. Its the sane scarecrow always used by the right/conservatives. It doesn’t govern bathroom usage and those countries/states that have it didn’t report any abuse of the law. Why would any man change their identity to be ridiculed by smooth brains just to do what he could do anyway, entering a restroom hes not supposed to be in? This fear is not based in reality…
I think you're mixing up what is femininity with what is a woman. Whereas the mutation of what is masculinity does not undermine what is a man. Nobody is saying that if you have a penis you're a rapist. I don't think that's helpful to suggest that because women are standing up for their rights that they think all men are rapists. Women do live in fear of men and so the trans women question is something that needs to be discussed in terms of women are allowed to speak without being ridiculed or dismissed as illogical. Trans men's rights are not impinging on the safety of men. Men haven't had to fight for their rights. Women have. Women have had to fight for their safety from men. I don't have a problem with the mutation of femininity, but I am defensive about the question what is a woman. Why are we asking that question? Why when women in women's prisons are wanting them to protect themselves from sexual violation is it a prospect, but when the trans woman is in a male prison it is definite that she will be sexually violated. It's trans rights over women's rights when it should be equal. And if you're saying the sexual violation of a trans woman in a male prison is a definite because they are men, then the trans woman is just as a big a risk, but women's rights to safety are undermined. Your point that women is prison are a high risk of being sexually violated, so why listen to their concerns is not very convincing.
butler seems to want to countenance these anxieties that women have around 10:00, but again its also rare to see her actually in dialogue with someone bringing up these points
I love how Judith asks for statistics for the risk of having trans women in women’s jail, but gets to just infer what would happen if a trans woman is in a man’s jail “we all know what would happen”. You showed your inconsistency but get to breeze right past it.
They have protection wings for vulnerable or at risk inmates, men's prisons aren't safe for many men, do they all get to go to the women's prison too? Funny you NEVER hear of Transmen going into men's prisons. It is the most bizarre thing to have feminists advocating for men over actual women.
The risk of having trans women in women's prison is lower for women than the risk for trans men if they are in men's prison, but that's just because of numbers. With transwomen in women's prison, we have a low number of transwomen compared to women while with transmen at men's prison, we would have a high number of men compared to a low number of transmen. Basically, a rabbit is in less danger if there are 100 rabbits and 1 fox in a forest than if there are 1 rabbit and 100 foxes. That does not remove the danger however, it just means it's lower than it could have been.
@@chibu3212 What significance? That our capitalist imperialist or any authoritarian dictatorship depends on oppression as a feature of that system continuing?
There was no simple definition given but that's not denial. Biologically not all people have simple sex markers (xy/xx). There are XXY, XYY, multiple combinations. It's a complex topic without even adding gender roles to the conversation.
At a certain point, one has to wonder if you're even listening. Judith is asked layered questions, which require layered responses. Having an attention span that lasts longer than three sentences really helps to parse the language she's using here.
@@theotherzaphriel488where is the lack of substance in the idea that cultural expectations of gender are different from the biological expectations of sex?
@@zacharybosley1935 mainly the follow through of thought. The cultural expectations of the sexes are determined by their biological contribution to the family unit and based on average physical strength. I don't see where she mentioned that they're born of actual limitations and strengths and although one size doesn't fit all, it has served a historical importance in a protection of the biological imperative.
that's because the "actual differences" don't meaningfully contribute to how those expectations are sculpted in the present day, boss. You gotta recognize that the norms of the hunter-gatherers have less than zero utility to a fully industrialized culture. Historical precedent is just as illogical as any appeal to tradition, especially when we have been re-evaluating those expectations since before first-wave feminism. Acknowledging biological differences does not meaningfully justify the status quo.
Judith Butler proves that any idiotic ideology can always be backed up with seemingly plausible rationalizations that a lot of otherwise well meaning and highly educated and intelligent people will fall for. Novara Media, which otherwise does a lot of good journalism, should know better.
It's an intriguing contradiction: initially, the assertion that men should not be presumed to be rapists by default, yet if a transwoman enters a men’s prison, they face a risk of sexual assault.
But it’s true? Trans women in male prisons are at a higher risk of sexual assault. It’s not “assuming every man is a rapist” it’s just stating a fact. The department of Justice found in 2015 that 35% of transgender prisoners had been sexually assaulted in the last year and this number could be incorrect due to how often rapes, especially against trans people, go unreported
I am not right wing. I have always been a leftist. But I find this type of discussion of identity worse than frivolous and actually antithetical to what leftism is supposed to be about, i.e., improving the material quality of life for working people.
How is gender liberation antithetical to improving the material conditions of the working class? Are workers oppressed by the transgenders? This is how the right intends to divide us. You are falling into their trap.
Isn't leftism meant to stand up for the underdog? To raise the lives of the disengaged and disenfranchised. Trans people are currently at the bottom of the culture war heap along with refugees and it has REAL effects on their lives and mental health. It doesn't effect YOU and that's fine. I love that for you. Sadly it effects alot of people, it's not indulgent to speak about real harm
That's the thing though, it goes on far more. I mean, take, America for instance right now, if a certain someone wins in november there it's likely hormone replacement therapy (HRT) for all women will be under attack by the companies because they've been asked to stop giving it out even making it altogether. Some dystopian future if you ask me. What about those women that need help in menopause with hormones..? And other things generally. the "trans debate" or "trans issue" goes on far more than just trans people generally.
I'm disappointed in Ash, thought she was intelligent but seems to have a large blind spot. The backlash from women is nothing to do with being anti-trans. Its about our fear of our well- earned rights being undermined yet again by men. Rowling has not once said anything anti- trans....she's just calling this out as an ideology, not unlike any other belief system/religion. I will not collude with this deluded behaviour.
I came here to take a deeper look into pro trans trans movement and I listened for 19 minutes and 44 seconds, and Butler hasn't directly answered a single question! Everything that comes out of her mouth is twisted.
The Yin has a Yang in metaphysics. A Buddhist might say: You have lived in a female body a thousand times, and in a male body quite as often, and now you are still not getting it? At the same time I totally agree to Butler saying that people have the right to choose a style of living and presenting themselves.
@@RikPurde Ah the good ol' appeal to authority ruse - Dawkins said sex is binary. Whether or not that's true it does not make it congruent with gender. However, he did explain how transphobics would get that wrong with his meme hypothesis.
@@aky10011 It also appears that you don't understand how variation is an essential component of evolution and social animals aren't constrained to sex specific gender roles.
“The most striking difference between ancient and modern sophists is that the ancients were satisfied with a passing victory of the argument at the expense of truth, whereas the moderns want a more lasting victory at the expense of reality” Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism. Butler is a Sophist personified.
It’s fascinating how criticism of Butler so rarely touches on anything they’ve written or said. Here: “Butler is a sophist.” Why? Dunno. Because you said so, I suppose.
@@sasha_something . I find it equally fascinating, that the confirmation bias, and celebration of cognitive dissonance evoked by the words of Butler is rife.. She espouses rhetoric that is at best contradictory, and at worst disingenuous, but she remains the go to figurehead when it comes to all things transgender, so much so she has made a successful career out of it. Her 1990 book, Gender Trouble as one example, introduces the now-mainstreamed (academic) concept that gender, sex, and the “category of woman” are “fluid.” "The main conundrum faced by gender identity ideologues today (and, by proxy, women’s rights advocates), which they have refused to respond to in a cohesive way, is that, 1) If there is no concrete definition of “woman,” what is a “woman’s right”? And 2) If a woman is not a material thing, but just a vague idea, why the concerted, often violent effort to insist “transwomen are [literally] women”? What does that mean? What is a woman? And why is it important we “accept transwomen as women” (particularly if there is no such thing)? What are we accepting them as, and how does it improve a male person’s life to be “accepted as a woman”? Hence my use of Sophist to describe her.
@@rexcarrulers6504 When I clicked on this video, I was prepared to give this perspective a fair hearing. But they (plural, the two of them) lost me with the casual, group-loyalty-signaling use of the derogatory term 'terf'.
It's accessible. And everyone needs a jumping off point that is grounded in their reality. I myself appreciated some simple anchors. Given at the end you reflect on it, but the fight isn't for ground zero on social identity. Its about taking ground back from ignorance. You don't teach math with algebra. You start with the numbers.
@@philsanders9625Then why not start with biological reality rather than the seemingly idosyncratic social norms that have developed over the course of millenia? Then you might learn why those social norms exist in the first place, and thereby learn why it's idiotic to use them as a proxy for becoming the opposite sex.
@@philsanders9625 and when talking about gender and sex stereotypes, you start with the immutable nature of sex. A transwoman is only a transwoman because they are a male sexed person.
I grew up never being told what it "means" to be a man or a woman, my parents are feminists. I can't help but think that religion plays a large role in people holding onto gender roles.
But even if you weren't "told" directly, society tells us the way things are. Most learning is aquired, not instructed, such as language. You need to know that bigots, such as Richard Dawkins, also don't like transgendered and queer people. Religion has a par, but being conservative is more of a factorx and that doesn't necessarily equate religion, especially if you look outside the US. Sorry, I thought I had to add that, just saying are implicit values that we learn or aquire in society without having lessons on it.
Yes, because religion can be an expression not of spirituality but of authority. God the father, is the chief guy in charge and he must be obeyed. Faith constitutes the rules that lay down fundamental rules of being that cannot be contravened.
@@JohnnyComelately-eb5zv He's also been roundly condemned for anti-semitism, Islamaphobia, and promoting classist eugenic ideology - as well as several pseudo-scientific ideas.
@@paulsmart4672There's nothing obedient about disagreement. You seem to agree with what you have just heard. That stinks to the core of obedience, passivity, ignorance and thoughtlessness.
Quite a biased spin Butler puts on the gender ideology question. She front loads the entire discussion by framing it in terms of of right vs left. No, Judith. The question “What is a woman?” Can mo longer be answered with common sense. We NO longer share “common sense.” And how dare you speak for “feminism” at large?
When she said that she doesn't understand any of the gener crtitical stuff, I thought "I'm not surprised". One needs a functioning, open, and not ideologically corrupted mind for that
Sorry I am with Kathleen Stock on this one as I suspect are most reasonable people. This person's opaque and barmy ideas have caused considerable damage to the trans debate. Novara Media are showing themselves to be completely out of touch here which is a shame as they are pretty good on other topics.
Which part did you find to be toxic? Genuinely interested because I listened and thought Judith was considerate and intelligent. Many of the discussions I hear on this subject (all sides) are often cruel, mockery with debate that doesn't go further than meaningless slogans. Would genuinely consider your take if I misheard something?
What 'most people' think is precisely how marginalised groups become stuck in that space of marginalisation. It's not a byword for 'truth'. However, 'most people' might surprise you, and agree with Judith Butler, against Kathleen Stock, that rather than focusing on specific cases of policy implementation (such as where to imprison a trans-woman convicted of rape), which is not Butler's job, we should be ensuring that no one, whoever or whatever they are, is subjected to a criminal justice system that leaves them vulnerable to violence or abuse in custody. It's not rocket science. And it's obviously right, and ethical.
I am 'Butler-critical', though they'd say, as both a radical feminist and a Hegelian etc etc that's part of the point. But Kathleen Stock has allied herself with some deeply noxious elements - 'strange bedfellows' almost doesn't do it justice. It's akin to Foucault etc supporting the theocratic Ayatollah's party in the Iranian Revolution because they thought it would open up a 'new space' for rights once the corrupt US backed Shah had been deposed: except Stock's support has more valence insofar as she potentially launders the reputations of reactionaries amongst otherwise left-leaning people, rather than just being a fairly 'performative' gesture in Foucault's case...
You were asked whether you could define in good faith what a woman. After 12 minutes of nonsense your answer was... "why define a woman". Am so pleased Judith that you don't build bridges...
@@dakinichick yeah that's a very simple and clear definition. but go read the definition of "female" on dictionary and say farewell to all the simplicity.
Ya chatting slop. Social liberalism and economic liberalism are not inseparable. In fact, social liberalism and leftist politics can be very happy bedfellows.
@@climaksy1659 Clip kicks off with Butler critiquing neoliberal and its multifarious social impacts -all fine. Then you remember they donated to Cop-ala Harris in the 2020 primary. Wendy Brown is definitely the 'based' one in that partnership.
Q: What is a woman? Judith Butler - Takes 7 minutes to NOT answer a question a 12 year old with some biology knowledge could answer in less than a minute. When people cannot answer basic questions of fundamental reality - this sets off most people's BS meters, including mine. The Transactivist movement would win more hearts and minds, if their experts could clearly and succinctly answer the foundational questions upon which their movement is based.
Its great when you click newest on comments, i wonder when TH-cam will do away with that like the dislike to give a false representation of popular public opinion.
The newest comments also include people whos comments are later deleted because: Unwanted commercial content or spam Pornography or sexually explicit material Child abuse Hate speech or graphic violence Promotes terrorism Harassment or bullying Suicide or self injury Misinformation Legal issue Sure thats public opinion, but also extremist views, neutral people comment less, so get a bias. There is a extension for the browser called "Return TH-cam Dislikes". I may not agree with you on things but i still want a objective and scientific view.
Most people don't comment because of trolls and the oversmart "debate bros" so the like/dislike thing gives a better representation for popular opinion.
@alioxinfree Bit of a shame about the mic feedback in this, huh? I didn't want to moan about it, but come on, it's Judith Butler! Get the tech shit together!
First time I've heard Judith, very impressive. How they are able to reduce a controversial & often emotive topic to simple, yet extremely focused logical propositions should be a lesson to our politicians & policy makers.
@@nataliekhanyola5669 Of course you can intellectualize prejudice anyway you like, to claim a persons logical world view doesn't meet your personal cultural bias, so not add up by your logic doesn't mean the other persons thinking is illogical, you just lack empathy or understanding of nuance for their particular points.
Interested that the question is 'what is a woman? not 'what is a man'. Trans women are sometimes quite aggressive about their right to female identity. It's very complex psychologically, much more so than the trans rights lobby would admit.
Nothing about "trans studies" is scientific. These studies are based on the assumption that people are born with "gender identity" - some feelings or essence of being a man, woman, between that, neither, sometimes this and sometimes that, etc. that has nothing to do with the sex of the individual, is unchangeable and immutable, and if there is some incongruence between this and the "gender they assigned at birth" - which basically means their sex, as no one "assign gender" randomly - you might experience some unbearable pain called "gender dysphoria", so you must changed your body so you could be more comfortable and live as your "authentic self". None of this had ever been proven. None of it. The idea of some "gender identity" separated from the body is extremely bizarre to begin with in the realm of science, and very much reminds the idea of a soul. The same way you can't prove that soul exists, you can't prove that gender identity exists. Since it has no material manifestations whatsoever, and no defined symptoms or characteristics you can point to, it can't be measured, observed or definited. It just remains "a feeling". But we know feelings are fluid and changing, and can be influenced by others, so why do we assume gender identity does not? Why do we assume this is some innate thing? Why do we assume it can't be changed, or can't be influenced by things like your peer groups, media, trend, wanting to belong to something, wanting the attention declaring yourself trans and transition give you? We base transition of minors on these assumptions treated as facts that had never been proven. This is grave, especially when we talk about children transitioning, because putting a child on puberty blockers and then immediately after cross-sex hormones means they would never go through natural puberty but some assimilated proccess driven by cross-sex hormones - we have no idea what the implications of that are, they would forever need external sex hormones as their body could not produce their own, and would be sterile. If they decided to detransition, they have no original body to get back too. That's horrifying. And for what? Throughout history we have seen that most gender nonconforming kids grow up and don't become trans. Many of them turn out gay, others not. Only very, very small minority of these people become trans. So why risk it? Sex is actually immutable and cannot be changed. Throughout our lives, we remain the same sex. This had been observed and proven by scientific means. Healthy males and females have different levels of the different sex hormones. This had also been observed by scientific means. What happens when you give the wrong levels of sex hormones to females or to males for a long time? We know some of it, but so much we don't know yet. I guess we will figure more out in the next decades. I of the individual, is unchangeable and immutable, and if there is some incongruence between this and the "gender they assigned at birth" - which basically means their sex, as no one "assign gender" randomly - you might experience some unbearable pain called "gender dysphoria", so you must changed your body so you could be more comfortable and live as your "authentic self". None of this had ever been proven. None of it. The idea of some "gender identity" separated from the body is extremely bizarre to begin with in the realm of science, and very much reminds the idea of a soul. The same way you can't prove that soul exists, you can't prove that gender identity exists. Since it has no material manifestations whatsoever, and no defined symptoms or characteristics you can point to, it can't be measured, observed or definited. It just remains "a feeling". But we know feelings are fluid and changing, and can be influenced by others, so why do we assume gender identity does not? Why do we assume this is some innate thing? Why do we assume it can't be changed, or can't be influenced by things like your peer groups, media, trend, wanting to belong to something, wanting the attention declaring yourself trans and transition give you? We base transition of minors on these assumptions treated as facts that had never been proven. This is grave, especially when we talk about children transitioning, because putting a child on puberty blockers and then immediately after cross-sex hormones means they would never go through natural puberty but some similar proccess driven by cross-sex hormones - we have no idea what the full implications of that are, they would forever need external sex hormones as their body would not be able to produce their own, and would be sterile. If they decided to detransition, they have no original mature body to get back too. That's horrifying. And for what? Throughout history we have seen that most gender nonconforming kids grow up and don't become trans. Many of them turn out gay, others not. Only very, very small minority of these people become trans. So why risk it? The fact that this frankly *spirtual* idea of gender identity is referred to as a proven fact in these so-called scientific studies is absolutely outrageous, and the fact that you can't even question it or offer an alternative concept, offer an alternative explanation to what is called now "gender dysphoria", or try to explain the undeniable statistics of the unprecedented rise in people identify as trans in any way, is truly frightening. We now witness in real time how politics and social ideas impact actual science - all scientific studies are built with the purpose to affirm these idea, conclusions are draw to affirm these ideas, every study have to includes words of faith in their study, such as how much trans people suffer discrimination and stigma (source: none. This is just a known fact, apparently), every study that dares question these ideas or offer alternative explanations is silenced, scrutinized and vilified, and the researchers and scientists are discouraged from publishing such studies, denied founding, silenced, vilified, risking their jobs and positions, and are threatened and have their lives ruined by trans activities and "allies". It's serious scary.
Absolutely. Where exactly does one feel gender dysphoria? Stunning that the medical😅😮 community is willing to perform “gender care, including radical surgeries” based solely upon a child’s feelings-especially when the “care” is not based on sound longitudinal studies. I have to believe that the medical community has bought into participating in this anti-scientific practice primarily for profit. “Gender care” has become an industry-fueled by a radical, wrongheaded ideology.
gender ideology, much like biology, is just a series of words we use to describe the world that let us understand our lives better. current scientific research shows some people have better life outcomes when they're able to transition, and when they receive external support during their transition. why you would treat a dictionary with more respect than thousands of medical professionals is as fascinating as it is embarrassing
Can I just say that so much of what you’ve said here is actually the subject of Butler’s work on gender. So if you spent less time typing out screeds of blind hatred and sanctimony and more time actually digesting the work of academics and philosophers, you may actually understand. Butler’s ‘Bodies That Matter’ addresses gender in relation to the body.
5:26 Femininsts keeping the question open - I dont think femininsts ever debated what a women was? At least not in the main stream. There was an understanding that women exist and the question was around what is their role and what are their limits in society? with the intension of expanding that range. With respect to broadened the category they ask "why stop here?" The response is "why not stop here?" Every category must have a limit. An all encompasing category has no meaning. The the question really is where is the end point for that category?
Butler literally wrote a book asking that question and uses lots of quotes from French feminists also engaged in that discussion and this is decades ago! You are just advertising your own ignorance and lack of theoretical knowledge and reading
0.5% to 1% of all people are trans. If all of them are perpetrators, you would feel that way more. Its like saying, most school schooters are gamers. That is true, but only a minor fraction of gamers are school shooters. We shouldnt reduce a group to extreme individuals of that group.
Such a stupid and ignorant comment that just highlights a phobia of nuance and thinking and typical anti intellectualism We should all just rely on ‘common sense’ - like when people used common sense to justify slavery or women not voting?
@@wephilips6651 Do you think there is a difference between what a woman is and what society says a woman should be doing? For example, is "woman" defined by, say, the requirements to keep house, or take care of children? Is "girl" defined by the requirements to wear pink and play with dolls?
As a trans man, I was never a lesbian! I was always interested in men, and especially gay men! Did find it kind of sad that the conversation almost only allowed the discussion of trans women, their hypervisibility and our invisibility are the same side of the shite coin
@@anfearaerach Miriam doesn't understand that side of the debate, much less the trans women/woman side of the debate. To fully understand it, you need to know both sides there (trans men and women)
There's not sufficient intellectual honesty or internal consistency in the definitions and reasoning used by the modern transgender movement for her to do that. They know there's no logical defence to limit 'identification' to gender under their ideology, but it's not acceptable to many people that accept their ideology to apply it to race. So they can't offer an internally consistent condemnation of the idea of race identification, without it also applying to gender identification, and they can't accept it as being part of their ideological framework. So when you ask the question you get waffle as an answer.
@Narapoia1 I can give you a clear answer as a trans woman. Please explain to me what hormones that I can take to become a different race? Humans on a development level have both sexes inside of them to some extent. We all start female. 50 percent of the time it develops onto male. Basically, we all have inside of us gender and sex already and it's there to be used regardless of race. Race doesn't work like that medically and a white person doesn't likely have any capacity inside of them to become Asian as they weren't born with that inside of them. There. Perfectly, scientifically answered. By the way, yes I am the one you are refusing to answer in the LBC. Where I have completely pulled apart your moral panic over us and provided zero backing for any of your wild claims. Most notably comparing our healthcare to lobtamies which I found hilariously inaccurate.
@@calumlambert but there are no hormones you can take to become a woman, only simulate womanhood and that’s not the same thing. Scientifically the entire human race originated in Africa so why can’t a white person say he has ‘African inside of him’. Also what if a white blonde person discovers that he is 13% percent ‘Japanese’ in him, can he then claim to be transracial? Get all the surgeries on his eyes? Dye his hair? Learn Japanese? Live in Japan? Does he become Asian/Japanese? No one is a pure example of any race , to some extent you could argue that we are all inter-related , so why can’t we identify as each other’s races?
The onslaught of gender ideology is a threat to women more than men and it makes me sad to see women seeming to back it to the hilt. Id love to see how they dealt with Helen Joyce.
Neoliberal, Corp manufactured ideology. See NZ author Renee Gerlich’s brilliant 12 min talk on it, Norm Finkelstein recently touched on this in recent long interview also.
What is 'gender ideology'? When TERFs say it the obvious implication is they don't believe trans women in particular are a legitimate category of humanity. Of course the slippery slope to that is eliminationist actions and rhetoric.
This such an excellent & accessible interview/conversation full of commonsense, intelligence and sprinkled with wonderful humour. Definately a delight.
Trans people exist, they have always existed and they will always exist. You can debate us until the cows come home if you want to. Doesn't change a single thing. My advice would be to get on with your own life and stop obsessing over what other people do.
17:33 is where I stopped listening, with Butler actually claiming that we terves recommend that transwomen be sexually violated, after a good ten minutes of wind to the effect that woman is a category without boundaries, with everything and nothing inside it. This particular boomer is the platonic ideal of academic insanity. Her dishonesty about the opposing side is insulting and not worth listening to behind this point.
Well by forcing them to go in the bathroom that matches their sex instead of their gender, you are literally forcing woman into men-toilets etc. Wich often leads to sexual violation. One thing for the terfs (not terves): What about trans men? They are now forced to be in womens spaces where they also dont want to be. Yes sexual assault is a lesser problem, but still you will whine. And why? Because its not about that.
@@E_m1ly_6302 “Well by forcing them to go in the bathroom that matches their sex instead of their gender”. strawman. apparently no one has thought of third gender bathrooms. “What about trans men?” no one talks about trans men because they dont pose sexual-violent threat to men; why does no one realize this?
Iconic moment: "Ash Sarkar: As you say in your book, no one person or class can own a gender category... Judith Butler: [interrupting] Well Beyoncé does" Who'd have thought Judith Butler would out-sass Ash!
I dont think being unhappy with the expectations of your gender, as dictated by society, is reason enough to decide that you were born the wrong gender. Loads of people don't agree with society's expectations or experience of being a certain gender, or race or religion.
It's often not about other people's expectations about how to live, so much as one's own. If you've got to live in that body and those roles every day of your life, why not customize them to suit you?
Only through a return to a class based politics which fights for universal freedom and global solidarity can current problems, including otherness, be solved.
I find a purely Marxist approach lacking in intersectionality - As if illustrating it, it has been a recurring problem with revolutionary politics that it often turns into a lot of straight cis white men talking about what liberation looks like for both themselves and everyone else. Class politics alone fails to encapsulate all possible intersections of oppression, likely because certain forms of oppression predate the advent of class politics, and even within otherwise solid class movements you can find misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, racism, etc.
@@alphajackal6648 In the case of antagonisms in relations between sexes and sexual identities, the struggle for emancipation does not aim at annihilating some of the identities but at creating the conditions for their non-antagonistic co-existence, and the same goes for tensions between ethnic, cultural or religious identities. The goal is to bring about their peaceful co-existence, their mutual respect and recognition. Class struggle does not function like that. Class struggle is a “pure” antagonism.
@@RADMIL-ro1rl I disagree - gender identities exist in relation to heteronormative standards, as do racial identities with racist standards(See how prior to Bacon's Rebellion, white and black were not political categorizations). When you abolish heteronormativity, gender becomes meaningless, as there would be a number of genders equal to the number of people in the world. Furthermore, historically speaking pure class warfare isn't sufficient for encapsulating other struggles and gaining their support - Leftist movements dedicated purely to such have a history of being very white, straight, cis-male, which is part of why those other marginalized groups tend to splinter off to form their own movements. On a practical and ideological level, sticking purely to class is insufficient to engender solidarity.
No, because the purpose of class politics isn't to raise one group's status in relation to another. It's to abolish the distinction between them through the reorganization of society.
It’s not anti trans, it’s pro women, and pro women’s safety being a priority. Everyone deserves equal rights and protections, and safety should be prioritized.
one of the most cited academics? after listening for 20 minutes, I have to say this title is a sad indication that academics are losing their grip on reality.
Yeah, lets invite a person that ignores 98% of all studies available on trans healthcare for their review and then even backpaddles on the report. Not even going into the bias she obviously has...
@@davidwarden4974 Reality? Just read the "report" and you know what I mean. It is clearly disclosed that 101/103 (EDIT: iirc) studies were excluded because they were "weak". Some of those weak studies were used anyway as they painted a transphobic picture, LOL. As to her backpaddling, she gave an interview to the Kite Trust. There she acknowledged that it would be inhumane to conduct double blind studies on trans people (the reason they declared 98% of all studies as weak). “In the data the Cass Review examined, the most common age that trans young people were being initially prescribed puberty suppressing hormones was 15. Dr. Cass’s view is that this is too late to have the intended benefits of suppressing the effects of puberty and was caused by the previous NHS policy of requiring a trans young person to be on puberty suppressing hormones for a year before accessing gender affirming hormones. The Cass Review Report recommends that a different approach is needed, with puberty suppressing hormones and gender affirming hormones being available to young people at different ages and developmental stages alongside a wider range of gender affirming healthcare based on individual need.”
Unless you're either trans or one of our healthcare providers, we aren't asking for your approval, FYI. Nor should we need to, this doesn't concern your life.
@@garyg1705 you don't have a legitimate opinion. That's absolutely correct you aren't part of this discussion. Learn some concept of what's your personal business.
@@garyg1705 how could what someone else is doing with their genitalia possibly have any bearing on your life unless you've been invited into that person's life.
@@jamakaya1332 It is my experience that the majority of single issue GC campaigners are not in fact feminists of any kind. I am a second wave feminist from the 1980s onwards and biological essentialism was never a part of our feminism.
I live in Thailand, gay, lesbian, and trans people have been visible and normal part of life for the past 100 years or so. Nearly everybody will have at least one if not a few gay, lesbian, or trans friends, even kids know what they are and think nothing of it, christian churches also pretty much dont bother with the "issue". I can't see any Western conservative concerns coming true, not even remotely. To top it off, drag is so normal here you would see it just about everywhere. Its not like its causing kids to become confused, given they mostly don't care and laugh about it.
A hundred years ago there were no predatory surgeons mutilating bodies for no good reason. No comparison to modern Western inflexibility that funnels all non-comfirming towards medical butchery
That WAS the way things were in UK. We have had all sorts. It is the pernicious hatred of the majority people which is being validated by being enshrined in law and "advice" and applied in an unequal unfair way. Plus dressing as the opposite sex and adopting their mannerisms is fine. We should be able to express ourselves but children have been manipulated to believe that they have only one way to go...not gay, not transitory with free choice to flow with their mood. A permananent painful full stop to their lives. And bioligical women have been demonised and put in danger by men exploiting the system.
@notsurewhattobelieve2990 I wholly agree with what you said here, couldn't have put it any better. I am one such person, I used to obsess over being "normal" I have made permanent changes myself, and now I regret a lot of it, but then I can't go back anymore....so live and let live........wish I'd have thought that way 10 years ago, wish I knew being a femboy or tomboy was absolutely okay.......I was raised in the Texas, and Evengelical on top of that.....so being normal, or at least appearing normal was everything. The trans thing is so crazy these days though.......with the pushing bit, like putting people in the boxes, that's not even acceptance of diversity anymore, it's more like a sorting box you can not escape, that sounds more like traditional gender roles to me than anything.......and the current policy regarding trans people in sports and bathrooms is a complete farce. It isn't one bit fair to women, period.
4:42 Apparently the history of women only goes back as far as there is language... Like, the social constructionists speak as if the majority of hominid evolutionary history doesn't exist.
Some comments saying that Butler doesn’t make any point clearly or that they deflect the questions didn’t pay attention to the part when they ponder about the significance of the word critical and how it implies examining presuppositions of any kind, linguistic, social, philosophical, cultural, which is what judith does best, not only here but in all their written works. That kind of analysis doesn’t lend itself to snappy quick answers, it requires background explanations, to go back to other points already made and for the audience to keep engaged with it. So yeah, if you came here expecting to get a few one liners that you can easily agree or disagree with for sure you’ll be disappointed.
Good questions Ash, but i would like to have probed into the distinction between what someone "is" amd what someone "does". I think this is fundamental in this discussion, and without clarification it causes a circular argument e.g. "Are you a woman?" This is an 'is' question for some and a 'does' question for others.
I think one of the points made in Judith's book, Gender Trouble, is that someone's gender is the result of repeated gendered acts (hair, clothes, speech etc). So in a way it equates what people are and what they do. A bit of a chicken and egg question
Why are you missing the only and correct definition of woman and womanhood which is SCIENTIFIC because it is based on BIOLOGY? The definition of Woman DOES NOT refer to any philosophy, religion, political party, or even era, or any policy of "inclusion" or gender ideology. It's simple, a woman is the adult female of a human being, whose body is designed by her XX chromosomes for it to be capable of getting pregnant and whose GENDER IDENTITY IS embossed on her hypophysis after getting hormonal feedback from her GENITALS. From then on, you can begin talking about a social construction based on the human ability to adapt to the environment based on variables such as era, culture, etc. YOU CANNOT MAKE UP ANY DEFINITION OF WOMAN BASED ON WHATEVER YOU ASSUME ARE SUCH IMPOSED VARIABLES THAT MAY CHANGE EVEN GEOGRAPHICALLY.
there is no such thing as a “correct” definition…eg is the definition of the SI meter “correct”? is the definition of “living” “correct”? many get this wrong
The definition of a term is stance dependent, constructed through social usage, not discovered objectively. Some terms refer to social constructs, others refer to merely biological constructs; what's so untenable about reorienting a term previously used towards a biological construct towards a social construct when we still have terms (male/female) to refer to said biological construct?
One of most nonsensical parts of this interview, for me, is when Judith seems to suggest that the broadening of *the definition of a woman* is the same as, or a continuation of, the expansion *of the rights* of women. Women can be CEOs or presidents now, so if they can be men then even better!
No? Part of the expectations of women previously were that would not be in positions of authority, like a president. That’s an expectation of women - bound them to the idea of a domestic place. That’s a conception of what a woman was - now that’s expanded.
@@moonpixelle No. I meant Orwellian. Look in a dictionary. It's Orwellian to describe a men's rights movement as feminist. Nothing to do with 'dystopia.' Although, if you have your way we may well be in a dystopia.
Male and female is one of the few binarys we have... Judith has helped create an ideology that has synergised with narcissism, individualism, misogyny, homophobia and patriarchy. While we are enmeshed within this poisonous, polarised debate, the poor go on being poor, the privileged middle classes comment on Novara Media :)
A binary is generally an oversimplification. Statistically, a clean binary is achieved by excluding ambiguous data from the set. Butler was talking about including the ambiguous data and dealing with the 1% or 0.1% of complex cases.
@@naomieyles210 But society doesn't organise around categories based on 1%, hence we have 'male' and 'female'. The 1% you refer to are cases of intersex or other deviations from the general norm. Trans identified females are still biological men, hence they have the same offending patterns of biological men, because they remain biological men regardless of how female they 'feel'.
@@badgermeat as a society, we do meet the needs of various kinds of 1%, but of course we fail at that, too. Failure is not a good option. Wheel chair ramps are a good example, cochlear implants another, guide dogs is another. The 1% that I'm talking about, lumps various intersex and transgender people together. Those groups, while varied, have more in common with each other than with typical characteristics of the 49% of the population that fits male biological norms. That 1% are victims of violent assault at 2.5 to 4.5 times the rates of the general population.
Her point around using individual cases (e.g. rape by transgender women in prison) and applying it to the broader group is likely correct for some of those opposed to the practice or transphobes more broadly - but it does not address the subjugation of the rights of females to female only spaces. It's a symptom of it, so its not just being used as an excuse for bigotry, half of the population are being asked to give up rights that were hard won and previously unquestioned. Some females might be happy to give up those rights, others are not and it seems insufficient to dismiss their position as simple bigotry.
What exact spaces are we discussing? Should we generate more exclusion or perhaps develop a new category as opposed to expanding the social categories already present? Should we develop social categories merely based on traits recognized as merely physical? I am not disagreeing, however I am not exactly sure what spaces are we talking about. Besides. If we did chose to develop and implement social stratification based merely in physical characteristics wouldn't it also open doors to using other similar characteristics such as race or hair color in order to develop new kinds of stratification?
You do realize that trans women have been using female only spaces for decades and decades without issues? Also, your argument would exclude intersex women with XY because they too are biologically male. PS I love how you people never even consider trans men in all these conversations. If it was all about biological sex, then trans men and intersex XX men would / should feel very uncomfortable and unsafe in men's spaces, but they don't. Interesting.
@@clarkbowler157 he doesn't know so there is no point asking him. I've called him on a few of his comments now. He basically speaking endlessly in this ideological drivel while accusing others of doing it.
Absolutely fantastic. I didn't think ive ever just watched a 56 min video in one go - was great to hear Judith's thoughts and explanation on this current pile on to trans rights. Just sad that people are not respectful of trans experiences especially in some of these comments. I hope this video at least makes one person question their perception of trans experiences and reflects.
Not fantastic at all! Butler in the first section of the video is confused. Feminists historically have of course tried to expand the acceptable boundaries of what it was to be a woman: they did so by aiming to expand upon the acceptable forms of behaviour etc that BIOLOGICAL FEMALES were allowed to display. Removing gender stereotypes and saying a biological male can be a woman are not conceptually equivalent, because (a) removing stereotypes society applies to biological females does not remove a necessary condition for someone to be a woman: namely, that they be biologically female, but (b) saying a biological male can be a woman is an attempt to remove, or sweep under the carpet, a necessary condition for a person to be a woman: namely, it is an attempt to say a woman does not have to be a biological female. I think it is far more accurate and reasonable to say that trans women are pushing the acceptable boundaries for what it is to be a man (and good for them!), rather, than, as Butler claims, trans women representing the expanding of acceptable boundaries of what it is to be a woman.
@@nickthepostpunk5766 _trans women are pushing the acceptable boundaries for what it is to be a man (and good for them!)_ What a great thought! I'll be using it, thank you for that.
@@nickthepostpunk5766 Trans people have always been with us . They were/ are considered Two Spirits within Native American cultures. They are as legitimate as anyone else. Bravo for Prof Butler standing up for them and the rest of our queer communities❤❤❤
@@melissabirch459 of course I never claimed anything about the historic existence of trans people, and nor did I say that trans people were not ‘legitimate’. I therefore find your reply to me a little odd …
I started watching this interview live with my Mum and Dad at their house yesterday. We didn't get to far into it, not because it is complicated, with many moving parts and different levels, which it is, and which it has, but because it kicked off a long discussion after only a several minutes in. They have invited me back over today to watch some more, and i get a free home cooked dinner too.
So very interesting, socially consequential, and with a high positive utility margin for me, so far.
Meanwhile Britain is doing genocide in Gaza
a free dinner cooked by a loving parent is not to be sniffed at! lucky you! ;)
@@atee876 its true and I got two of 'em.
I still haven' got any further though the interview. But an odd thing is, my feminist colleague doing post grad stuff after finishing, went from theory to praxis, and gave a me a pile of her feminists texts to add to my home library between my epistemology and logic sections. They are fairly recent general texts and collections of essays mostly. The thing is, Judith Butler is not even in most of them, and is only a couple of quotes in the one that mentions bodies. I mean I'm all for privileging margins, but really?
So i read all i have of Judith Butler in books in five minutes. Thing is i went full Butlerian for some years from late 2000's though to early 2010s. All the EGS seminars and lectures some I watched several times, and many other lectures too. So right now I thought I'd have a go at performing Butler and then return to this interview and write about it after some praxis and experience. Just don't tell my friends on the right and my conservative colleagues.
You can assess this already in comments on a Konstantin Kisin talk at Centre for Independent Study 2 weeks ago. For praxis reasons I choose to omit any reference to Butler, until I've drawn them in.
"Are we bringing vibes to a gun fight" is such an iconic line and the perfect way to express that sentiment 😂
Means nothing
No, trans activists are bringing lies to a war on the truth.
@abcxyz2927 have you any sort of proof of what you are arguing? Or are we supposed to just trust you??
Everyone always asks "What is a woman" but no one ever asks "How is a woman".
That’s a great question !
Thank you for such an enlightening discussion that didn't shy away from tough questions.
But answered none.
😂😂😂
Complexity is not easily reduced to simple answers. I'm certainly not able to easily answer these questions, so it is refreshing to see complex questions answered with complex answers rather than black and white responses as per the media discourse on gender.
This is one of the most mind expanding talks ever. I think butler’s point is to make us ask questions. Recommending this!
"Are we bringing vibes to a gunfight" :) Ash is well on form, brilliant.
i loved that lol
I'm gonna steal that.
What does it mean?
@@uncoiledfish2561 "are we focused so much on feelings and ideas that we are unequipped to deal with the material consequences of transphobia?"
@alioxinfree I thought they were all obsessed with "passing" and claiming no one notices they are there.... now its visibility. Nothing makes sense with you people 😂
Brilliant. Thanks for advocating for us 🩵🩷🤍
like a surprising number of middle-aged alternative people, I wasn't particularly open to new ideas on gender. My children told me just to sit down and watch a bit of Judith and maybe eat a biscuit. Over time, I was able to understand a little better. I would really recommend Judith Butler and Biscuits approach, rather than massively freaking out and radicalising yourself on Twitter because a thing has happened that you don't understand.
Thank you Jane, for being considerate :)
I think that's a good approach, I think that's what my parents did as well after I came out
Obviously you don’t understand basic biology. Please study what exactly Postmodernism is. Then you will understand what reality bending Butler does.
@@PattisKarriereKarten We're all biology experts here, didn't you know? Elon has now insisted that all Blue Tick Twitter Accounts prove their expertise in biology and pass an ELON MANDATED BIOLOGY TEST and produce an inexpensive CERTIFICATE before being allowed to scream abuse at trans people!
That's an interesting way to characterise feminists objecting to, for example, convicted rapists in women's prisons. They are being hysterical, whereas you are, quite reasonably, outsourcing your politics to your children. And there are only people, by the way. There isn't an "alternative" to that.
Glad you understood something from her explanation of what a woman is, other than “nothing.”
So, I agree with many of the points made here. I would also label myself as quite a bit to the left (esp. in the area of economics). I also very much care about trying to increase humanization of often-dehumanized groups. That being said, there are a few points don’t make sense to me, perhaps because of limited understanding. Judith’s explanation of the difference between co-opting race and gender did not seem to actually differentiate them much. Ash pushed back a little, but the response did not further clarify. Also, I agree that xenophobia is NOT okay, but I think the dismissal of the fears of people in countries which have been more or less mono-cultural for centuries is a mistake. The influx of so many people of very different cultures in such a short time would be very unsettling for people in those countries. It does not justify racism or unfair treatment. I just don’t think it should be dismissed out of hand. Additionally, the flippant way in which it was addressed was disrespectful, and did not even hint of the important analysis of WHY there is so much migration. Proxy wars, multinational corporations’ practices, climate change, and the fallout of external interference in elections and coups have contributed significantly to the destabilization of social order in those countries. If life were liveable at home, they wouldn’t be leaving.
Excellent! Ash you are smashing, thanks for introducing me to Judith.
37:42 _" Does the same apply to race? Because when I saw Rachel Dolezal I had this instinctive sense that there's something wrong here but I don't own the category of race, right, no individual black person or class. Right, no social constructed class of black people own the category of race. Rachel Dolezal saying well look I'm identifying as a black woman, I'm identifying asa a black woman, I live my life as a black woman, my appearance is such that people are treating me as a black woman. Is it logically coherent to have different rules for gender as opposed for race? Is it coherent for me to feel very differently about Rachel Dolezal than I intuitively think about gender identity?"_
Good question, with which Butler does nothing with or even tries to answer in a logical way. Which of course she can't as the only correct answer will destroy any arguement she has for allowing people to only self identify gender.
And here's a question to be answered. Why does Barrack Obama identify as black?
Edited to ask a second question. When Ash says how she "intuitively" thinks about gender identity, is she using Intuit as in " having the ability to know or understand things without any proof or evidence "?
You say "identify", because noone can look into your head, where your gender is. Beeing black is observable from the outside, so no indentification is needed.
This roots from the same misconspetion that gender and sex are the same. Sex is your body, like chromosomes, hormones etc. and gender your sense of self. Gender-expression is how you present you gender, by using clothing makeup or hrt to change the external view. The sex is still the same, as is the gender. But your gender (male) can be different from your sex (female).
When you see a random person, to figure out their gender, its completely automatic, you arent rigorously proving that. You look at the gender expression, because its the only thing visible. If you aregue you see sex, then you need to be able to directly detect someone chromosomes, wich only works by making assumptions like: for most people (cis) the gender matches the sex. But even then you have masculine presenting woman or feminine presenting men (femboys).
Trans people only change their gender-expression. I was always biologically male and will always be, and i was always of gender female and will always be. I only change my gender-expression so people can better assume my gender, and i am allowed to act more like my gender.
@@E_m1ly_6302 Being a man or woman is observable from the outside. No identification needed ✌️😂
@@E_m1ly_6302Yes go back to the 1950s women means long hair and a nice dress, men have short hair and suits. Butler is living in the last century
@@E_m1ly_6302 uh oh! “noone can look into your head, where your gender is.” careful! you could be liable to a private language argument.
in the meantime, how do you know race is not also “in your head”?
Judith answers the question.
Listening to Butler is always a treat, but when the interviewer is super excited and having a great time, it’s even better!
You don't like your pope being challenged?
You need to get out more
Thank you Ash, fantastic to see such in-depth discussion around freedoms 🤩
I love Judith Butler & Ash was a perfect interviewer 🫶🏽
It's not freedom, it's slavery. The first step, preparation. If you don't see it, I am very sorry.
I'd love Ash to interview Helen Joyce or better still a conversation between Butler and Joyce.
Yes, please! 😂
They don’t dare, it would result in Butler looking even more ridiculous than she is on her own.
No not Joyce. I think Kathleen Stock is a better debater.
Yep
no? we do not debate with fascists.
One of the best interviews with Judith I have seen. She is comfortable and able to explain the broader way of thinking, not have to defend or attack an arguement
She sneers that her opponents haven't done their homework about what they're criticizing but then demonstrates she has no idea about the substance of their criticisms. Unbecoming and sloppy.
When have you ever seen her defend an argument in a situation where her nonsense is actually challenged?
Judith is the epitome of sophistry
@@umamicashflow1809 "She sneers"? Really? You might be projecting.
@@raincadeify "Sneers" was used metaphorically to indicate the arrogance of the behavior that was the subject of my comment. Funny how you completely ignored its substance to nitpick its vocabulary. Very Butlerian.
Judith, just because we've been expanding ideas about what a woman can do or how she can act, doesn't mean that actually being a woman has changed to the point that men can also be women. Our biology hasn't changed.
Historically men and women have being fluid cathegories up to roughly the last thousand years. Many non christian cultures have room for AMAB and AFAB people to move towards the opposite gender. The norse, the celts, many middle easter ancient cultures, many native american cultures, the roman and the greek have this features in one way or another. So, the idea of women and men being this monolithic fixed unity that cannot be changed is fairly new.
I watched this video with an open mind but after finishing this one hour interview, I could say that Butler is “The Queen of Word Salad”. Loads of word salad when the answer can be said in three sentences max. Let alone that most of her answers are descriptive instead of fully addressing the main question. Also you can tell that she doesn’t know what the position of her opponents are. Take for example that Gender Critics actually ENDORSE ‘Gender nonconforming’ and many of them are. Butler is the prophet of poststructuralism, which is illogical, incoherent, and in practice very anti-science.
She is also immersed in a world of conjuring enemies where things are purely black and white. It closes the door for any possible self-criticism and self-reflection within this paranoiac movement she wants to create.
I came in here with an open mind, too- well, as open as I can allow lest my brains fall out.
That one hour is enough to be fully convinced that Gender Theory/Ideology has no leg to stand on.
I can watch debates from the Gender Critics for hours and be enriched with their coherence and rationality. I‘ve always wondered why she has not been on a debate, now I know why. She knows she‘s a fraud.
We were more progressive by the late 90s than we are today, transgender ideology is regressive and confining with it's labels. Watching this was tough.
This is, ultimately, an academic discussion being had at a certain level using academic language and terminology. Yes, Butler could use simple language, but that's not what this discussion is for. She is being asked to speak as an expert in her field to an audience that is already familiar with this stuff. There will be other more simple discussions for you to find, I wouldn't start with this.
When I listen to quantum physicists, I technically know all the words, but I don't understand all the concepts they are referencing. People expect to be able to understand philosophy/humanities jargon, but don't have the same expectations to the sciences.
Great interview. Thank you Ash for always asking the right questions. Never really heard Judith Butler speak before - only knew their name from all the tansphobia panic, great to see they were not snide or cruel to anyone and answered every question with intelligence. Look forward to reading their book.
The problem is that even when we are polite, transphobes will spin it any way they can unless peoppe take the time to watch videos like this, and most right wingers don't watch this channel unfortunately, because it'd pretty leftist
Judith Butler is a singular woman. Why are you using "their" to refer to her?
@@janegardener1662I doubt you’re asking in good faith, but just in case, they are a singular non-binary person.
It sounds like you thought you were getting out of your echo chamber, when in fact, this is just you discovering another voice within the same echo chamber.
7:00 So after minutes of talking in circles, this expert can't define what a woman is either, and that's one of many, many problems about gender ideology. It trumps humanity and common sense. This is why the world is better without this than with it, on balance. The definition of a woman has been straightforward throughout history. Why are trans ideologues changing the definition of what a woman is and forcing others to accept it, when they can't define it themselves, and when their expanded definition of womanhood trample upon the rights of others?
I'd like to point out that the interviewer didn't ask Butler to answer what a woman is, but rather talk about what do people intend when they make the question "what is a woman"
What is a woman? The answer is either “a human with XX chromosomes” or it is “a feeling.”
Historically, the definition of woman has been “a human with XX chromosomes,” so that definition has precedence. The Trans ideology would like to change the definition to be “a feeling.”
Changing the definition of a word can cause confusion and unexpected consequences, so there has to be a very good reason for us to make such a change.
Under what circumstances would we change a definition?
We might change the definition if it helps a larger majority of the people.
Women are more than half of the population. Transwomen are only a small precentage of the population. If we want to protect a largest number of people, we should prioritize the safety of women over the safety of a small subset of men.
The definition of woman being “a feeling” is harmful to transmen too. The “feelings” definition could cause health issues. Drugs affect XX and XY people differently. When a man goes to the doctor and says that he is a woman, he could get the wrong medication. “Feeling like a woman” will not change how the drugs will affect his body. His XY chromosomes dictate what medication he takes. A man feeling like a woman will need medication for men.
When they were talking about prisons, it was said that women could get raped, but that transwomen might get raped too.
The argument they made in favor of moving transmen into women’s prisons is that transmen might get raped if they stayed in men’s prisons. They disregarded the possibility of an increase in the number of rape of women, and said that you were a bigot if you even mentioned it.
They asserted that transmen must be moved to women’s prisons because the problem isn’t transmen, but rape in general. They said that we must focus on stopping rape in women’s prisons altogether. But wasn’t their concern of transmen being raped as led in men’s prisons? Why don’t they focus on stopping rape in men’s prisons? It is widely known that rape in men’s prisons is rampant. Why not focus on stopping rape in men’s prisons altogether. That would help the greatest number of people.
as fate has it, you've just validated Judith's response to the question that was actually asked.
Just from the start she is gaslighting us. "What is a woman" - the "stays in the kitchen" was never part of definition of what woman is. There was an expectation in some societies that presupposed certain role for a woman, but woman itself was still the same. Adult human female. You do not need to say how long hairs she happen to have, what she likes to do and what she has to do to make clear definition what that word means. In all languages around the world at least to my current knowledge. Feminist changed what role woman can choose for herself, but didn't changed the definition or meaning of the word woman.
Exactly
💯
Succinctly and eloquently stated!!
Her 20 minute bout of logorrhea when asked, ‘what is a woman’, was just an embarrassment of pseudo intellectual transcendental nonsensical word salad.
Butler seems to not be able to comprehend it's imperative for women's rights to differentiate between "a woman can be everything" and "everything can be a woman". The former opens the world for women, the later puts us back in the box, because for any concept to be meaningful, there has to be a coherent definition behind it. If that definition isn't grounded in biology - such as a woman is a woman because of her biology as a woman no matter what she looks like, does, says, etc. then what is a woman? By Butler's words, if anyone can become a woman, then for women to be anything at all, you have to fall back on stereotypes or just erase the concept completely, because there is no inherent concept to step into.
A trans woman is a trans woman by approximating the concept of womanhood, but they inherently can't enter biological womanhood. By this same token Butler is suggestion, what is the limitation to womanhood? Because any concept has a limitation for it to have a meaning. It's actually by far easier by her logical than any patriarchal one to limit women from the concept of womanhood through their behavior, looks, words, because if they no longer are defined as women by their biology then they can be excluded from it by any other concept.
Precisely
Judith Butler is a global treasure
Of 129 trans identified males in UK prisons 78 are convicted sex offenders. Isn't anyone seriously worried about this? This is a much higher % than the male population.
This isn't of course to say all trans identified males are perpetrators as these are prison-specific figures.
Good to see Judith much more concerned about the welfare of men in prison than women here. Not sure which stats Ash is using here to seriously suggest that trans identified men are the most vulnerable in prison.
Ash is probably referring to PMC6830990 and or PMC10756016, which states that on many occasions that incarcerated trans women have it worse in many ways, including resource access and sexual violence inflicted onto trans women. The former also does specifically mention where error and limits can conflict with the result, which can come as an issue with the data collected.
Respectfully, I also have had many suspicions with how the data in the Parliament evidence (referring to the 78/129 statistic) referenced is collected. The pool of trans women is quite inconsistent, sometimes exceeding Prison and Probation reports on their own times, and is overly vague across the paper (of which I suspect is due to a strong emphasis on evidence collected by single-issue groups), there is too little data to make any conclusions. That's not to say this article isn't valid in all aspects, it at the very least shows that self ID access shouldn't be entirely unfettered, although it does not mean to abolish it entirely.
Source? Ya made it up.
@@brentboymebob8754There are protection wings in men's prisons where they can put men scared of other prisoners. Absolutely nothing to do with women whatsoever - not one man should be in a women's prisons don't care if they've had surgery or whatever. Not women's problem.
@ayeright320 You should look at the studies I just linked, they literally mention that protective custody is ineffective for solving the problem in it's entirety, because the prison never works in mental help, counseling, or providing medication. It's even been mentioned that prison staff of the mens prisons often discriminate against the trans women in particular.
Not to mention, excluding trans people from prisons provides more problems. Trans men also come into custody, and regardless of your thoughts on their identity, they are still masculine people that get incarcerated, and like anyone else, they can be abusive, violent, and if the law does not care about surgery, still penetrative.
@@brentboymebob8754 Prisons have better things to do than pander to these people. Everyone in prison has mental health problems no one gets fussed over because of their lifestyle choices.
Bless you Ash Sarkar for your advocacy and integrity. And big love to Judith Butler too of course! I think their insights around gender are getting sharper every time they speak.
Everyone else stopped being interested in gender stereotypes in about 1950 but Judith's still trying to put us in little boxes
@@ayeright320 That seems like such a strange perspective to me. Do you have a concrete example of Butler’s gender stereotyping?
@@Bette_B123 C'mon you only have to go about 5 mins through the interview to get to the first example. That's just being lazy...
@@alst4817 Can you be more specific? Clearly I wasn’t watching closely enough.
Neoliberal, Corp driven ideology. Butler’s been paid well.
NZ Author Renee Gerlich’s brilliant 12 min talk encapsulates it. Recently Norman Finkelstein spoke about this in an interview also.
“Integrity” 😂 the heart & soul of Neoliberalism of course.
You ask excellent questions. :)
Within a couple of minutes of starting this she makes a comment about "gender non conforming uncle" - that can only mean something if she had a stereotype in mind. Everything she talks about is with reference to stereotypes - that's all gender is a collection or old fashioned stereotypes.
How so? Is gender-nonconforming uncle a stereotype? I've never heard it.
And trans ideology is strengthening those stereotypes.
@@milascave2What is he not conforming with?
@@Qq-xs1fzfor sure. Tomboys are now trans. It has taken us back to the 60s
@@milascave2 A gay uncle (an effeminate gay uncle;. not complicated at all; obvious)
This was a very weak interview imo. If you want to get to the meat of the argument you have to ask the "right wing" questions. The way I see it, is if someone went into this interview gender critical they will come out gender critical after watching.
only softball questions
We already know quite well the "right wing questions", and their political purpose: to prevent any structured argumentation, to cut the grass under our feet before any real discussion start, to frame the conversation as badly as possible for the minorities and their rights. The same pro-fascists propagandists have been repeating them as loud as possible for years, and too many liberals are intoxicated by the same rhetoric.
At least, we have here one hour without the usual right wing pollution. This may sure make some rightwingers and transphobes unhappy, but every one of our trans, intersex, non binary, non gender conforming existence make them unhappy anyway, making cisnormative people happy is out of reach for us.
Yea, that sounds right.
Undeniably true. And BTW, I agree with the quote marks around "right wing" - this is SO not a simple right/left issue.
I agree. This interview was not robust enough and didn’t push back on Butler’s various assertions and opinions.
I don’t think feminism, ie acknowledging women have needs and these should be fought for or protected, is right wing.
This interview is just legendary, I've come back to it so many times since it was uploaded. Ash's questions are all super pointed questions which, had they been asked by a conservative 'gender ideology critical' person, would have all been framed as 'gotchas', but because they were asked in good faith they led to some super interesting conversations that really dug into the core of Butler's work. Ash knocked this one out of the park, loved it.
Judith Butler is good at deflection and misdirection but not at making a point. What exactly was she saying?
Oh that's right ..nothing.
Here’s a thought, an “ethical” man does not enter a womens changing room and reveal himself knowing he’s scaring or making uncomfortable everyone inside so he can feel better about himself!!
He knows why he does it… it gratifies him.
And that relates to trans people exactly how?
@@sodaaccount it doesnt really relate to trans people, but it relates to self ID
@@expedition346 No it doesn’t. Its the sane scarecrow always used by the right/conservatives. It doesn’t govern bathroom usage and those countries/states that have it didn’t report any abuse of the law. Why would any man change their identity to be ridiculed by smooth brains just to do what he could do anyway, entering a restroom hes not supposed to be in?
This fear is not based in reality…
@@expedition346 TH-cam censored my reply. If you sort by newest it will be there…
I think you're mixing up what is femininity with what is a woman. Whereas the mutation of what is masculinity does not undermine what is a man. Nobody is saying that if you have a penis you're a rapist. I don't think that's helpful to suggest that because women are standing up for their rights that they think all men are rapists. Women do live in fear of men and so the trans women question is something that needs to be discussed in terms of women are allowed to speak without being ridiculed or dismissed as illogical. Trans men's rights are not impinging on the safety of men. Men haven't had to fight for their rights. Women have. Women have had to fight for their safety from men. I don't have a problem with the mutation of femininity, but I am defensive about the question what is a woman. Why are we asking that question? Why when women in women's prisons are wanting them to protect themselves from sexual violation is it a prospect, but when the trans woman is in a male prison it is definite that she will be sexually violated. It's trans rights over women's rights when it should be equal. And if you're saying the sexual violation of a trans woman in a male prison is a definite because they are men, then the trans woman is just as a big a risk, but women's rights to safety are undermined. Your point that women is prison are a high risk of being sexually violated, so why listen to their concerns is not very convincing.
butler seems to want to countenance these anxieties that women have around 10:00, but again its also rare to see her actually in dialogue with someone bringing up these points
I love how Judith asks for statistics for the risk of having trans women in women’s jail, but gets to just infer what would happen if a trans woman is in a man’s jail “we all know what would happen”. You showed your inconsistency but get to breeze right past it.
They have protection wings for vulnerable or at risk inmates, men's prisons aren't safe for many men, do they all get to go to the women's prison too?
Funny you NEVER hear of Transmen going into men's prisons.
It is the most bizarre thing to have feminists advocating for men over actual women.
She mouths contradictions continually and seems oblivious. No intellectual rigor to her thinking at all.
The risk of having trans women in women's prison is lower for women than the risk for trans men if they are in men's prison, but that's just because of numbers. With transwomen in women's prison, we have a low number of transwomen compared to women while with transmen at men's prison, we would have a high number of men compared to a low number of transmen. Basically, a rabbit is in less danger if there are 100 rabbits and 1 fox in a forest than if there are 1 rabbit and 100 foxes. That does not remove the danger however, it just means it's lower than it could have been.
The difference is that there is statistics for sexual assault against Trans woman in mens prison.
Because we do all know what would happen, and your pretense of ignorance is utterly unconvincing.
All oppression is connected, animals also deserve liberation 🐣
A squirrel lives in my garden rent-free.
Making all oppression to be connected eliminates the significance between them.
@@chibu3212 What significance? That our capitalist imperialist or any authoritarian dictatorship depends on oppression as a feature of that system continuing?
But what *is* an animal?
@@incurableromantic4006 A creature that identifies as one is an animal. Oh wait ....
Butler is a master of denial in every possible direction. A woman runs away from truth
you maybe are an afraid person and you think there's a "truth" as if universal view could be
Who's truth?
@@Kirsty-tb4qp exactly
There was no simple definition given but that's not denial. Biologically not all people have simple sex markers (xy/xx). There are XXY, XYY, multiple combinations. It's a complex topic without even adding gender roles to the conversation.
Judith Butler has absolutely perfected never answering the question asked.
At a certain point, one has to wonder if you're even listening.
Judith is asked layered questions, which require layered responses. Having an attention span that lasts longer than three sentences really helps to parse the language she's using here.
Oh I understand what she's saying, it's just there's no substance to the answer.
@@theotherzaphriel488where is the lack of substance in the idea that cultural expectations of gender are different from the biological expectations of sex?
@@zacharybosley1935 mainly the follow through of thought. The cultural expectations of the sexes are determined by their biological contribution to the family unit and based on average physical strength. I don't see where she mentioned that they're born of actual limitations and strengths and although one size doesn't fit all, it has served a historical importance in a protection of the biological imperative.
that's because the "actual differences" don't meaningfully contribute to how those expectations are sculpted in the present day, boss. You gotta recognize that the norms of the hunter-gatherers have less than zero utility to a fully industrialized culture. Historical precedent is just as illogical as any appeal to tradition, especially when we have been re-evaluating those expectations since before first-wave feminism.
Acknowledging biological differences does not meaningfully justify the status quo.
Judith Butler has become my favorite human being. All prisoners deserve to be protected from predatory behavior.
If Butler is in favour of unlimited migration then Butler is an unwitting supporter of the economic neoliberalism Butler affects to despise.
…and, ironically, an unwitting supporter for increasing the number of people in the country with what she’d call transphobic views.
No. Migration predates neoliberalism and ideology in general. I thought you lot claimed that all leftists wanted open borders? Make up your mind 😂
Judith Butler proves that any idiotic ideology can always be backed up with seemingly plausible rationalizations that a lot of otherwise well meaning and highly educated and intelligent people will fall for.
Novara Media, which otherwise does a lot of good journalism, should know better.
People can rationalize anything. Even the Holocaust was rationalized by human minds.
It's an intriguing contradiction: initially, the assertion that men should not be presumed to be rapists by default, yet if a transwoman enters a men’s prison, they face a risk of sexual assault.
Exactly 😂😂
But it’s true? Trans women in male prisons are at a higher risk of sexual assault. It’s not “assuming every man is a rapist” it’s just stating a fact. The department of Justice found in 2015 that 35% of transgender prisoners had been sexually assaulted in the last year and this number could be incorrect due to how often rapes, especially against trans people, go unreported
It's only really a contradiction if your brain is very small.
There is no right or left when it comes to what is a woman. Adult human female.
I am not right wing. I have always been a leftist. But I find this type of discussion of identity worse than frivolous and actually antithetical to what leftism is supposed to be about, i.e., improving the material quality of life for working people.
👏👏
How is gender liberation antithetical to improving the material conditions of the working class? Are workers oppressed by the transgenders? This is how the right intends to divide us. You are falling into their trap.
I agree. I think that type of left is in the past now. It's all about outrage, identity and "equity" at all costs, even if it makes no sense.
Isn't leftism meant to stand up for the underdog? To raise the lives of the disengaged and disenfranchised. Trans people are currently at the bottom of the culture war heap along with refugees and it has REAL effects on their lives and mental health.
It doesn't effect YOU and that's fine. I love that for you. Sadly it effects alot of people, it's not indulgent to speak about real harm
That's the thing though, it goes on far more. I mean, take, America for instance right now, if a certain someone wins in november there it's likely hormone replacement therapy (HRT) for all women will be under attack by the companies because they've been asked to stop giving it out even making it altogether. Some dystopian future if you ask me. What about those women that need help in menopause with hormones..? And other things generally. the "trans debate" or "trans issue" goes on far more than just trans people generally.
I'm disappointed in Ash, thought she was intelligent but seems to have a large blind spot. The backlash from women is nothing to do with being anti-trans. Its about our fear of our well- earned rights being undermined yet again by men. Rowling has not once said anything anti- trans....she's just calling this out as an ideology, not unlike any other belief system/religion. I will not collude with this deluded behaviour.
I came here to take a deeper look into pro trans trans movement and I listened for 19 minutes and 44 seconds, and Butler hasn't directly answered a single question! Everything that comes out of her mouth is twisted.
There is no logic to the pro-trans movement, in fact when faced with logic it withers up and dies.
The entire movement is twisted
@@urbansetter1 thats the entire point of the theory. Sometimes also called "sophistry"
The problem here is that some things are quite complicated, you see
To post-modern thinkers, everything -- and I mean EVERYTHING -- is relative.
Thank you! Both of you so much
The biological essentialism argument only works if you stop studying biology before the age of 16 and then claim to be an expert based on that.
The Yin has a Yang in metaphysics.
A Buddhist might say:
You have lived in a female body a thousand times, and in a male body quite as often, and now you are still not getting it?
At the same time I totally agree to Butler saying that people have the right to choose a style of living and presenting themselves.
Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston would beg to differ, and I'm pretty sure they got beyond GCSE...
Didnt know female and male anatomy became the same after the age of 16. Thanks for info.
@@RikPurde Ah the good ol' appeal to authority ruse - Dawkins said sex is binary. Whether or not that's true it does not make it congruent with gender.
However, he did explain how transphobics would get that wrong with his meme hypothesis.
@@aky10011 It also appears that you don't understand how variation is an essential component of evolution and social animals aren't constrained to sex specific gender roles.
“The most striking difference between ancient and modern sophists is that the ancients were satisfied with a passing victory of the argument at the expense of truth, whereas the moderns want a more lasting victory at the expense of reality” Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism. Butler is a Sophist personified.
It’s fascinating how criticism of Butler so rarely touches on anything they’ve written or said. Here: “Butler is a sophist.” Why? Dunno. Because you said so, I suppose.
@@sasha_something . I find it equally fascinating, that the confirmation bias, and celebration of cognitive dissonance evoked by the words of Butler is rife.. She espouses rhetoric that is at best contradictory, and at worst disingenuous, but she remains the go to figurehead when it comes to all things transgender, so much so she has made a successful career out of it. Her 1990 book, Gender Trouble as one example, introduces the now-mainstreamed (academic) concept that gender, sex, and the “category of woman” are “fluid.”
"The main conundrum faced by gender identity ideologues today (and, by proxy, women’s rights advocates), which they have refused to respond to in a cohesive way, is that, 1) If there is no concrete definition of “woman,” what is a “woman’s right”? And 2) If a woman is not a material thing, but just a vague idea, why the concerted, often violent effort to insist “transwomen are [literally] women”? What does that mean? What is a woman? And why is it important we “accept transwomen as women” (particularly if there is no such thing)? What are we accepting them as, and how does it improve a male person’s life to be “accepted as a woman”? Hence my use of Sophist to describe her.
@@rexcarrulers6504 When I clicked on this video, I was prepared to give this perspective a fair hearing. But they (plural, the two of them) lost me with the casual, group-loyalty-signaling use of the derogatory term 'terf'.
@@ronmackinnon9374terf isn't derogatory it just means trans exclusionary radical feminist
@@marcelusdarcy “terf” is sometkmes used derogatorily
This is utter rubbish; she speaks but says nothing. Her words are nothing more than a meaningless religious chant for the faithful.
It’s interesting how many times reinforcement of societal gender norms was confirmed in this conversation.
It's accessible. And everyone needs a jumping off point that is grounded in their reality. I myself appreciated some simple anchors. Given at the end you reflect on it, but the fight isn't for ground zero on social identity. Its about taking ground back from ignorance.
You don't teach math with algebra. You start with the numbers.
@@philsanders9625Then why not start with biological reality rather than the seemingly idosyncratic social norms that have developed over the course of millenia?
Then you might learn why those social norms exist in the first place, and thereby learn why it's idiotic to use them as a proxy for becoming the opposite sex.
@@philsanders9625 and when talking about gender and sex stereotypes, you start with the immutable nature of sex. A transwoman is only a transwoman because they are a male sexed person.
I grew up never being told what it "means" to be a man or a woman, my parents are feminists. I can't help but think that religion plays a large role in people holding onto gender roles.
But even if you weren't "told" directly, society tells us the way things are. Most learning is aquired, not instructed, such as language. You need to know that bigots, such as Richard Dawkins, also don't like transgendered and queer people. Religion has a par, but being conservative is more of a factorx and that doesn't necessarily equate religion, especially if you look outside the US. Sorry, I thought I had to add that, just saying are implicit values that we learn or aquire in society without having lessons on it.
Yes, because religion can be an expression not of spirituality but of authority. God the father, is the chief guy in charge and he must be obeyed. Faith constitutes the rules that lay down fundamental rules of being that cannot be contravened.
@@alvodin6197I bet you use the word 'bigot' a lot. Dawkins is a liberal. He's also a scientist.
@@kevinjohnson9533 religion is only ever an expression of authority. Faith is different thing altogether
@@JohnnyComelately-eb5zv He's also been roundly condemned for anti-semitism, Islamaphobia, and promoting classist eugenic ideology - as well as several pseudo-scientific ideas.
What a great conversation. Challenging, informative inspirational and importantly a lot of fun too! Well done Ash and Judith. ✊🏼
Pseudo-intellectuel claptrap.
What you mean to say is you're offended by you can't explain why.
That's okay, I'll do it for you: It's because you are obedient.
@@paulsmart4672There's nothing obedient about disagreement. You seem to agree with what you have just heard. That stinks to the core of obedience, passivity, ignorance and thoughtlessness.
@@familiecole fact
@@paulsmart4672 Don't be so kind. There is ZERO intellectual value, this is as anti-intellectual as it gets.
@@paulsmart4672 Perhaps, but atleast he can string a sentence together.
Quite a biased spin Butler puts on the gender ideology question. She front loads the entire discussion by framing it in terms of of right vs left.
No, Judith. The question “What is a woman?” Can mo longer be answered with common sense. We NO longer share “common sense.”
And how dare you speak for “feminism” at large?
When she said that she doesn't understand any of the gener crtitical stuff, I thought "I'm not surprised". One needs a functioning, open, and not ideologically corrupted mind for that
Well said!
It doesn’t even require an open mind. Just common sense.
@@dewilew2137 absolutely
Sorry I am with Kathleen Stock on this one as I suspect are most reasonable people. This person's opaque and barmy ideas have caused considerable damage to the trans debate. Novara Media are showing themselves to be completely out of touch here which is a shame as they are pretty good on other topics.
I have no idea how you got 'toxic and divisive identity politics' from this chilled out talk lol
Which part did you find to be toxic? Genuinely interested because I listened and thought Judith was considerate and intelligent. Many of the discussions I hear on this subject (all sides) are often cruel, mockery with debate that doesn't go further than meaningless slogans.
Would genuinely consider your take if I misheard something?
What 'most people' think is precisely how marginalised groups become stuck in that space of marginalisation. It's not a byword for 'truth'. However, 'most people' might surprise you, and agree with Judith Butler, against Kathleen Stock, that rather than focusing on specific cases of policy implementation (such as where to imprison a trans-woman convicted of rape), which is not Butler's job, we should be ensuring that no one, whoever or whatever they are, is subjected to a criminal justice system that leaves them vulnerable to violence or abuse in custody. It's not rocket science. And it's obviously right, and ethical.
@@yaznin2474I highly doubt they watched the interview.
I am 'Butler-critical', though they'd say, as both a radical feminist and a Hegelian etc etc that's part of the point. But Kathleen Stock has allied herself with some deeply noxious elements - 'strange bedfellows' almost doesn't do it justice. It's akin to Foucault etc supporting the theocratic Ayatollah's party in the Iranian Revolution because they thought it would open up a 'new space' for rights once the corrupt US backed Shah had been deposed: except Stock's support has more valence insofar as she potentially launders the reputations of reactionaries amongst otherwise left-leaning people, rather than just being a fairly 'performative' gesture in Foucault's case...
You were asked whether you could define in good faith what a woman. After 12 minutes of nonsense your answer was... "why define a woman". Am so pleased Judith that you don't build bridges...
would love to know what your definition of a woman is without resorting to a circular definition, i.e relying on “adult female” to save you
LOL, "adult human female" IS the definition of the word "woman". Nothing circular about it. Read a book - the dictionary.
@@sillyguy951 the words "adult" "human" "female" dont need "woman" to be defined so its not circular
Adult human female is not a circular definition for woman.
@@dakinichick yeah that's a very simple and clear definition. but go read the definition of "female" on dictionary and say farewell to all the simplicity.
This is the part of Novara I’m not left enough for
Novara is not left enough for you on this issue.
Identity politics are the very definition of Moderate/Centrist. You are not alone brothers and sisters.
@@climaksy1659 What's the point of a Left that doesn't challenge socially constructed identities?
Ya chatting slop. Social liberalism and economic liberalism are not inseparable. In fact, social liberalism and leftist politics can be very happy bedfellows.
@@climaksy1659 Clip kicks off with Butler critiquing neoliberal and its multifarious social impacts -all fine. Then you remember they donated to Cop-ala Harris in the 2020 primary. Wendy Brown is definitely the 'based' one in that partnership.
Q: What is a woman?
Judith Butler - Takes 7 minutes to NOT answer a question a 12 year old with some biology knowledge could answer in less than a minute.
When people cannot answer basic questions of fundamental reality - this sets off most people's BS meters, including mine. The Transactivist movement would win more hearts and minds, if their experts could clearly and succinctly answer the foundational questions upon which their movement is based.
That's incredibly oversimplified lol
You can't reduce a woman to a bunch of parts
"12 year old with some biology knowledge" is an important omission on your part.
Its great when you click newest on comments, i wonder when TH-cam will do away with that like the dislike to give a false representation of popular public opinion.
The newest comments also include people whos comments are later deleted because:
Unwanted commercial content or spam
Pornography or sexually explicit material
Child abuse
Hate speech or graphic violence
Promotes terrorism
Harassment or bullying
Suicide or self injury
Misinformation
Legal issue
Sure thats public opinion, but also extremist views, neutral people comment less, so get a bias.
There is a extension for the browser called "Return TH-cam Dislikes". I may not agree with you on things but i still want a objective and scientific view.
TH-cam should change to suit your preferences, but the meaning of the adjective transgender is a change you can’t make in your mind?
Most people don't comment because of trolls and the oversmart "debate bros" so the like/dislike thing gives a better representation for popular opinion.
Was so glad I got to attend this, Judith was great and I got to ask them a Q at the end - thanks for hosting :-)
I'm a bit disappointed that we didn't get to hear any audience questions 😔
Also, jealous! 😁
@alioxinfree Bit of a shame about the mic feedback in this, huh? I didn't want to moan about it, but come on, it's Judith Butler! Get the tech shit together!
She talks absolute nonsense that would fall apart on the first challenge. No way she is taking questions
@@ayeright320 They did though.
@@EliasJWhite No one was listening. She should be in jail for the poison she's spread.
Please invite some educated pushback, as the debate is not simply "Butler is correct on gender".
Is the debate, then, if transgender people exist? Your opportunity for “educated pushback” was this comment section I guess
And what is 'educated pushback'?
@@kimberleylouiseprance445 a counter point argument.
This is an interview, not a debate. We can listen, then decide for ourselves whether "Butler is correct".
Also by becoming educated most pushback disappears
Women are adult human females.
First time I've heard Judith, very impressive. How they are able to reduce a controversial & often emotive topic to simple, yet extremely focused logical propositions should be a lesson to our politicians & policy makers.
This is all waffling and sophistry. Hardly anything logical about her statement.
@@nataliekhanyola5669 Of course you can intellectualize prejudice anyway you like, to claim a persons logical world view doesn't meet your personal cultural bias, so not add up by your logic doesn't mean the other persons thinking is illogical, you just lack empathy or understanding of nuance for their particular points.
@@sophiepooks2174"you lack empathy" there you go - the ad hominem attack because this person can see what rubbish this women talks and you can't.
Interested that the question is 'what is a woman? not 'what is a man'. Trans women are sometimes quite aggressive about their right to female identity. It's very complex psychologically, much more so than the trans rights lobby would admit.
Well, males tend to be aggressive.
Nothing about "trans studies" is scientific. These studies are based on the assumption that people are born with "gender identity" - some feelings or essence of being a man, woman, between that, neither, sometimes this and sometimes that, etc. that has nothing to do with the sex of the individual, is unchangeable and immutable, and if there is some incongruence between this and the "gender they assigned at birth" - which basically means their sex, as no one "assign gender" randomly - you might experience some unbearable pain called "gender dysphoria", so you must changed your body so you could be more comfortable and live as your "authentic self".
None of this had ever been proven. None of it. The idea of some "gender identity" separated from the body is extremely bizarre to begin with in the realm of science, and very much reminds the idea of a soul. The same way you can't prove that soul exists, you can't prove that gender identity exists. Since it has no material manifestations whatsoever, and no defined symptoms or characteristics you can point to, it can't be measured, observed or definited. It just remains "a feeling". But we know feelings are fluid and changing, and can be influenced by others, so why do we assume gender identity does not? Why do we assume this is some innate thing? Why do we assume it can't be changed, or can't be influenced by things like your peer groups, media, trend, wanting to belong to something, wanting the attention declaring yourself trans and transition give you?
We base transition of minors on these assumptions treated as facts that had never been proven. This is grave, especially when we talk about children transitioning, because putting a child on puberty blockers and then immediately after cross-sex hormones means they would never go through natural puberty but some assimilated proccess driven by cross-sex hormones - we have no idea what the implications of that are, they would forever need external sex hormones as their body could not produce their own, and would be sterile. If they decided to detransition, they have no original body to get back too. That's horrifying. And for what? Throughout history we have seen that most gender nonconforming kids grow up and don't become trans. Many of them turn out gay, others not. Only very, very small minority of these people become trans. So why risk it?
Sex is actually immutable and cannot be changed. Throughout our lives, we remain the same sex. This had been observed and proven by scientific means. Healthy males and females have different levels of the different sex hormones. This had also been observed by scientific means. What happens when you give the wrong levels of sex hormones to females or to males for a long time? We know some of it, but so much we don't know yet. I guess we will figure more out in the next decades. I of the individual, is unchangeable and immutable, and if there is some incongruence between this and the "gender they assigned at birth" - which basically means their sex, as no one "assign gender" randomly - you might experience some unbearable pain called "gender dysphoria", so you must changed your body so you could be more comfortable and live as your "authentic self".
None of this had ever been proven. None of it. The idea of some "gender identity" separated from the body is extremely bizarre to begin with in the realm of science, and very much reminds the idea of a soul. The same way you can't prove that soul exists, you can't prove that gender identity exists. Since it has no material manifestations whatsoever, and no defined symptoms or characteristics you can point to, it can't be measured, observed or definited. It just remains "a feeling". But we know feelings are fluid and changing, and can be influenced by others, so why do we assume gender identity does not? Why do we assume this is some innate thing? Why do we assume it can't be changed, or can't be influenced by things like your peer groups, media, trend, wanting to belong to something, wanting the attention declaring yourself trans and transition give you?
We base transition of minors on these assumptions treated as facts that had never been proven. This is grave, especially when we talk about children transitioning, because putting a child on puberty blockers and then immediately after cross-sex hormones means they would never go through natural puberty but some similar proccess driven by cross-sex hormones - we have no idea what the full implications of that are, they would forever need external sex hormones as their body would not be able to produce their own, and would be sterile. If they decided to detransition, they have no original mature body to get back too. That's horrifying. And for what? Throughout history we have seen that most gender nonconforming kids grow up and don't become trans. Many of them turn out gay, others not. Only very, very small minority of these people become trans. So why risk it?
The fact that this frankly *spirtual* idea of gender identity is referred to as a proven fact in these so-called scientific studies is absolutely outrageous, and the fact that you can't even question it or offer an alternative concept, offer an alternative explanation to what is called now "gender dysphoria", or try to explain the undeniable statistics of the unprecedented rise in people identify as trans in any way, is truly frightening. We now witness in real time how politics and social ideas impact actual science - all scientific studies are built with the purpose to affirm these idea, conclusions are draw to affirm these ideas, every study have to includes words of faith in their study, such as how much trans people suffer discrimination and stigma (source: none. This is just a known fact, apparently), every study that dares question these ideas or offer alternative explanations is silenced, scrutinized and vilified, and the researchers and scientists are discouraged from publishing such studies, denied founding, silenced, vilified, risking their jobs and positions, and are threatened and have their lives ruined by trans activities and "allies". It's serious scary.
Absolutely. Where exactly does one feel gender dysphoria? Stunning that the medical😅😮 community is willing to perform “gender care, including radical surgeries” based solely upon a child’s feelings-especially when the “care” is not based on sound longitudinal studies. I have to believe that the medical community has bought into participating in this anti-scientific practice primarily for profit. “Gender care” has become an industry-fueled by a radical, wrongheaded ideology.
Such a wall of text, yet you still
have no clue. What a waste of time.
gender ideology, much like biology, is just a series of words we use to describe the world that let us understand our lives better. current scientific research shows some people have better life outcomes when they're able to transition, and when they receive external support during their transition. why you would treat a dictionary with more respect than thousands of medical professionals is as fascinating as it is embarrassing
No proof of trans people and yet there are trans people. Okay.
Can I just say that so much of what you’ve said here is actually the subject of Butler’s work on gender. So if you spent less time typing out screeds of blind hatred and sanctimony and more time actually digesting the work of academics and philosophers, you may actually understand. Butler’s ‘Bodies That Matter’ addresses gender in relation to the body.
5:26 Femininsts keeping the question open - I dont think femininsts ever debated what a women was? At least not in the main stream. There was an understanding that women exist and the question was around what is their role and what are their limits in society? with the intension of expanding that range. With respect to broadened the category they ask "why stop here?" The response is "why not stop here?" Every category must have a limit. An all encompasing category has no meaning. The the question really is where is the end point for that category?
I missed the part where Judith wanted to have only one category for...everything? It would make things difficult to discuss.
Butler literally wrote a book asking that question and uses lots of quotes from French feminists also engaged in that discussion and this is decades ago! You are just advertising your own ignorance and lack of theoretical knowledge and reading
So gender identity is important when we’re talking about victims. But it’s transphobic when we’re talking about perpetrators. Got it.
0.5% to 1% of all people are trans. If all of them are perpetrators, you would feel that way more.
Its like saying, most school schooters are gamers. That is true, but only a minor fraction of gamers are school shooters. We shouldnt reduce a group to extreme individuals of that group.
@@E_m1ly_6302 strawman
JB can't distinguish between what a woman is and what some society thinks a woman should be doing. This is basic common sense.
Such a stupid and ignorant comment that just highlights a phobia of nuance and thinking and typical anti intellectualism
We should all just rely on ‘common sense’ - like when people used common sense to justify slavery or women not voting?
@@wephilips6651 Do you think there is a difference between what a woman is and what society says a woman should be doing? For example, is "woman" defined by, say, the requirements to keep house, or take care of children? Is "girl" defined by the requirements to wear pink and play with dolls?
As a trans man, I was never a lesbian! I was always interested in men, and especially gay men!
Did find it kind of sad that the conversation almost only allowed the discussion of trans women, their hypervisibility and our invisibility are the same side of the shite coin
Policing of women's bodies and identity and invisibility of men's struggles absolutely two sides of the same coin 😢
Everything has pros and cons. You also get less hate on the other hand.
@@Miriam-nb9sh less hate???????? Would you be well????
@@anfearaerach Miriam doesn't understand that side of the debate, much less the trans women/woman side of the debate. To fully understand it, you need to know both sides there (trans men and women)
😂 so you're a bigot then
I feel like Butler didn’t really give a real concrete reason as to why Tranracialism should be ridiculed and rejected but not Transgenderism.
There's not sufficient intellectual honesty or internal consistency in the definitions and reasoning used by the modern transgender movement for her to do that. They know there's no logical defence to limit 'identification' to gender under their ideology, but it's not acceptable to many people that accept their ideology to apply it to race.
So they can't offer an internally consistent condemnation of the idea of race identification, without it also applying to gender identification, and they can't accept it as being part of their ideological framework.
So when you ask the question you get waffle as an answer.
@@Narapoia1 Exactly. Well put.
Truth, it's all a transhumanist movement
@Narapoia1 I can give you a clear answer as a trans woman. Please explain to me what hormones that I can take to become a different race?
Humans on a development level have both sexes inside of them to some extent. We all start female. 50 percent of the time it develops onto male. Basically, we all have inside of us gender and sex already and it's there to be used regardless of race.
Race doesn't work like that medically and a white person doesn't likely have any capacity inside of them to become Asian as they weren't born with that inside of them.
There. Perfectly, scientifically answered.
By the way, yes I am the one you are refusing to answer in the LBC. Where I have completely pulled apart your moral panic over us and provided zero backing for any of your wild claims. Most notably comparing our healthcare to lobtamies which I found hilariously inaccurate.
@@calumlambert but there are no hormones you can take to become a woman, only simulate womanhood and that’s not the same thing. Scientifically the entire human race originated in Africa so why can’t a white person say he has ‘African inside of him’. Also what if a white blonde person discovers that he is 13% percent ‘Japanese’ in him, can he then claim to be transracial? Get all the surgeries on his eyes? Dye his hair? Learn Japanese? Live in Japan? Does he become Asian/Japanese?
No one is a pure example of any race , to some extent you could argue that we are all inter-related , so why can’t we identify as each other’s races?
The onslaught of gender ideology is a threat to women more than men and it makes me sad to see women seeming to back it to the hilt. Id love to see how they dealt with Helen Joyce.
Couldn’t agree more!
Neoliberal, Corp manufactured ideology.
See NZ author Renee Gerlich’s brilliant 12 min talk on it, Norm Finkelstein recently touched on this in recent long interview also.
What is 'gender ideology'? When TERFs say it the obvious implication is they don't believe trans women in particular are a legitimate category of humanity. Of course the slippery slope to that is eliminationist actions and rhetoric.
This such an excellent & accessible interview/conversation full of commonsense, intelligence and sprinkled with wonderful humour. Definately a delight.
Commonsense?? What is a woman - waffle waffle waffle nonsense.... Still no answer....
Trans people exist, they have always existed and they will always exist. You can debate us until the cows come home if you want to. Doesn't change a single thing. My advice would be to get on with your own life and stop obsessing over what other people do.
@funnyflix895I'm glad you are offended.
@funnyflix895sorry your parents didn’t love you, but you’re not going to hate trans people into nonexistence, nonetheless.
@funnyflix895how does what they do affect you?
Ok lets start the debate. Is sex ' assigned ' at birth? . Oopsie you lost already.
@@Trollika_Devidid you listen to any of this or is this your standard talking point you cut and paste everywhere.
17:33 is where I stopped listening, with Butler actually claiming that we terves recommend that transwomen be sexually violated, after a good ten minutes of wind to the effect that woman is a category without boundaries, with everything and nothing inside it. This particular boomer is the platonic ideal of academic insanity. Her dishonesty about the opposing side is insulting and not worth listening to behind this point.
one terf, two terves?
Well by forcing them to go in the bathroom that matches their sex instead of their gender, you are literally forcing woman into men-toilets etc.
Wich often leads to sexual violation.
One thing for the terfs (not terves):
What about trans men? They are now forced to be in womens spaces where they also dont want to be. Yes sexual assault is a lesser problem, but still you will whine. And why? Because its not about that.
@@E_m1ly_6302 “Well by forcing them to go in the bathroom that matches their sex instead of their gender”. strawman. apparently no one has thought of third gender bathrooms.
“What about trans men?” no one talks about trans men because they dont pose sexual-violent threat to men; why does no one realize this?
To post-modernists, everything is relative; there is no stable meaning. It's a free pass to mouth nonsense.
Absolutely fantastic. Thank you so much for conducting this interview!
Iconic moment:
"Ash Sarkar: As you say in your book, no one person or class can own a gender category...
Judith Butler: [interrupting] Well Beyoncé does"
Who'd have thought Judith Butler would out-sass Ash!
but categories are invented as it develops visually.
cringe overload
Sex is not assigned, it is observed. Gender is what happens in cultures although it is connected to sex.
I dont think being unhappy with the expectations of your gender, as dictated by society, is reason enough to decide that you were born the wrong gender. Loads of people don't agree with society's expectations or experience of being a certain gender, or race or religion.
It's often not about other people's expectations about how to live, so much as one's own. If you've got to live in that body and those roles every day of your life, why not customize them to suit you?
Yeah I agree with you
what do you mean by “gender”? you seem to be conflating concepts
Only through a return to a class based politics which fights for universal freedom and global solidarity can current problems, including otherness, be solved.
Well said
I find a purely Marxist approach lacking in intersectionality - As if illustrating it, it has been a recurring problem with revolutionary politics that it often turns into a lot of straight cis white men talking about what liberation looks like for both themselves and everyone else. Class politics alone fails to encapsulate all possible intersections of oppression, likely because certain forms of oppression predate the advent of class politics, and even within otherwise solid class movements you can find misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, racism, etc.
@@alphajackal6648 In the case of antagonisms in relations between sexes and sexual identities, the struggle for emancipation does not aim at annihilating some of the identities but at creating the conditions for their non-antagonistic co-existence, and the same goes for tensions between ethnic, cultural or religious identities. The goal is to bring about their peaceful co-existence, their mutual respect and recognition. Class struggle does not function like that. Class struggle is a “pure” antagonism.
@@RADMIL-ro1rl I disagree - gender identities exist in relation to heteronormative standards, as do racial identities with racist standards(See how prior to Bacon's Rebellion, white and black were not political categorizations). When you abolish heteronormativity, gender becomes meaningless, as there would be a number of genders equal to the number of people in the world. Furthermore, historically speaking pure class warfare isn't sufficient for encapsulating other struggles and gaining their support - Leftist movements dedicated purely to such have a history of being very white, straight, cis-male, which is part of why those other marginalized groups tend to splinter off to form their own movements. On a practical and ideological level, sticking purely to class is insufficient to engender solidarity.
No, because the purpose of class politics isn't to raise one group's status in relation to another. It's to abolish the distinction between them through the reorganization of society.
It’s not anti trans, it’s pro women, and pro women’s safety being a priority. Everyone deserves equal rights and protections, and safety should be prioritized.
Transwomen have no negative consequences on womens safety. Priorisation in peoples safety is unethically
one of the most cited academics? after listening for 20 minutes, I have to say this title is a sad indication that academics are losing their grip on reality.
In today's society there are very few expections of how a boy or girl should act or represent their gender.
what is “expection”?
@@expedition346 A typo.
Why not get Hilary Cass involved next time you sit down for a cosy chat. She might introduce some reality into the conversation.
Yeah, lets invite a person that ignores 98% of all studies available on trans healthcare for their review and then even backpaddles on the report. Not even going into the bias she obviously has...
@@sodaaccount Oh really? What's your basis for saying that?
@@davidwarden4974 Reality? Just read the "report" and you know what I mean. It is clearly disclosed that 101/103 (EDIT: iirc) studies were excluded because they were "weak". Some of those weak studies were used anyway as they painted a transphobic picture, LOL.
As to her backpaddling, she gave an interview to the Kite Trust. There she acknowledged that it would be inhumane to conduct double blind studies on trans people (the reason they declared 98% of all studies as weak). “In the data the Cass Review examined, the most common age that trans young people were being initially prescribed puberty suppressing hormones was 15. Dr. Cass’s view is that this is too late to have the intended benefits of suppressing the effects of puberty and was caused by the previous NHS policy of requiring a trans young person to be on puberty suppressing hormones for a year before accessing gender affirming hormones. The Cass Review Report recommends that a different approach is needed, with puberty suppressing hormones and gender affirming hormones being available to young people at different ages and developmental stages alongside a wider range of gender affirming healthcare based on individual need.”
@@davidwarden4974my reply got hidden for some reason. If you sort by newest you will find it.
You mean the Hillary Cass that just recinded positions that her report said?
Jb needs to step off.. She created a ton of these problems that are very much ripping apart families. Why are we deferring to Them?
Whilst this was an interesting conversation, nothing Butler said has made me rethink my position in respect to trans.
Unless you're either trans or one of our healthcare providers, we aren't asking for your approval, FYI. Nor should we need to, this doesn't concern your life.
@@angie99656so non trans people needn't watch this and can't possibly have an opinion?
@@garyg1705 you don't have a legitimate opinion. That's absolutely correct you aren't part of this discussion.
Learn some concept of what's your personal business.
@@garyg1705 how could what someone else is doing with their genitalia possibly have any bearing on your life unless you've been invited into that person's life.
@@angie99656 why don't i have a legitimate opinion? what is my opinion?
An absolute charlatan posing as an intellectual. Continental philosophy after Nietzsche had taken an incredible nosedive.
I'm glad to see that someone here can see through her!
Judith Butler is a veteran and well respected feminist. You not agreeing with her does not negate that.
@@sarah-janelambert8962 Her framing of feminism in this is absurd.
@@sarah-janelambert8962 Putin is a veteran and well respected Russian politician. Must be a great guy, then...
@@jamakaya1332 It is my experience that the majority of single issue GC campaigners are not in fact feminists of any kind. I am a second wave feminist from the 1980s onwards and biological essentialism was never a part of our feminism.
Thanks so much for having this guest on. What an enlightening discussion.
Brilliant. Great interview Ash and Judith❤
I live in Thailand, gay, lesbian, and trans people have been visible and normal part of life for the past 100 years or so. Nearly everybody will have at least one if not a few gay, lesbian, or trans friends, even kids know what they are and think nothing of it, christian churches also pretty much dont bother with the "issue". I can't see any Western conservative concerns coming true, not even remotely. To top it off, drag is so normal here you would see it just about everywhere. Its not like its causing kids to become confused, given they mostly don't care and laugh about it.
A hundred years ago there were no predatory surgeons mutilating bodies for no good reason. No comparison to modern Western inflexibility that funnels all non-comfirming towards medical butchery
That WAS the way things were in UK. We have had all sorts. It is the pernicious hatred of the majority people which is being validated by being enshrined in law and "advice" and applied in an unequal unfair way.
Plus dressing as the opposite sex and adopting their mannerisms is fine. We should be able to express ourselves but children have been manipulated to believe that they have only one way to go...not gay, not transitory with free choice to flow with their mood. A permananent painful full stop to their lives.
And bioligical women have been demonised and put in danger by men exploiting the system.
@notsurewhattobelieve2990 I wholly agree with what you said here, couldn't have put it any better. I am one such person, I used to obsess over being "normal" I have made permanent changes myself, and now I regret a lot of it, but then I can't go back anymore....so live and let live........wish I'd have thought that way 10 years ago, wish I knew being a femboy or tomboy was absolutely okay.......I was raised in the Texas, and Evengelical on top of that.....so being normal, or at least appearing normal was everything. The trans thing is so crazy these days though.......with the pushing bit, like putting people in the boxes, that's not even acceptance of diversity anymore, it's more like a sorting box you can not escape, that sounds more like traditional gender roles to me than anything.......and the current policy regarding trans people in sports and bathrooms is a complete farce. It isn't one bit fair to women, period.
4:42 Apparently the history of women only goes back as far as there is language...
Like, the social constructionists speak as if the majority of hominid evolutionary history doesn't exist.
without language, there are no social constructs, there is no history, because nothing would be intelligible
Sure - time to interview some protohominids and hear what they have to...umm...
Some comments saying that Butler doesn’t make any point clearly or that they deflect the questions didn’t pay attention to the part when they ponder about the significance of the word critical and how it implies examining presuppositions of any kind, linguistic, social, philosophical, cultural, which is what judith does best, not only here but in all their written works. That kind of analysis doesn’t lend itself to snappy quick answers, it requires background explanations, to go back to other points already made and for the audience to keep engaged with it. So yeah, if you came here expecting to get a few one liners that you can easily agree or disagree with for sure you’ll be disappointed.
Good questions Ash, but i would like to have probed into the distinction between what someone "is" amd what someone "does". I think this is fundamental in this discussion, and without clarification it causes a circular argument e.g. "Are you a woman?" This is an 'is' question for some and a 'does' question for others.
I think one of the points made in Judith's book, Gender Trouble, is that someone's gender is the result of repeated gendered acts (hair, clothes, speech etc). So in a way it equates what people are and what they do. A bit of a chicken and egg question
Why are you missing the only and correct definition of woman and womanhood which is SCIENTIFIC because it is based on BIOLOGY? The definition of Woman DOES NOT refer to any philosophy, religion, political party, or even era, or any policy of "inclusion" or gender ideology. It's simple, a woman is the adult female of a human being, whose body is designed by her XX chromosomes for it to be capable of getting pregnant and whose GENDER IDENTITY IS embossed on her hypophysis after getting hormonal feedback from her GENITALS. From then on, you can begin talking about a social construction based on the human ability to adapt to the environment based on variables such as era, culture, etc. YOU CANNOT MAKE UP ANY DEFINITION OF WOMAN BASED ON WHATEVER YOU ASSUME ARE SUCH IMPOSED VARIABLES THAT MAY CHANGE EVEN GEOGRAPHICALLY.
Bro, "woman" is a word. A made up word. A word that we can add extra context to.
there is no such thing as a “correct” definition…eg is the definition of the SI meter “correct”? is the definition of “living” “correct”? many get this wrong
The definition of a term is stance dependent, constructed through social usage, not discovered objectively. Some terms refer to social constructs, others refer to merely biological constructs; what's so untenable about reorienting a term previously used towards a biological construct towards a social construct when we still have terms (male/female) to refer to said biological construct?
I think you might benefit from looking up the term *biological essentialism*.
There is more to human personality than a chromosome. There are archetypes and patterns of perceptual recognition for a start.
What an utter bag of hot air
One of most nonsensical parts of this interview, for me, is when Judith seems to suggest that the broadening of *the definition of a woman* is the same as, or a continuation of, the expansion *of the rights* of women. Women can be CEOs or presidents now, so if they can be men then even better!
No? Part of the expectations of women previously were that would not be in positions of authority, like a president. That’s an expectation of women - bound them to the idea of a domestic place. That’s a conception of what a woman was - now that’s expanded.
What in Jesus Christ’s name has this individual ever been saying? This might be the most insane thing I’ve ever heard. I tried so hard.
Great interview, would love to see Novara doing more of these kinds of interviews and feminist events.
This ain't feminist
@@soulfoodie1 You don't have to hatewatch TH-cam.
Orwellian use of the word 'feminist.' Strange times.
@@JohnnyComelately-eb5zv there's nothing Orwellian (really you meant dystopian) about calling contemporary feminist debate, feminist.
@@moonpixelle No. I meant Orwellian. Look in a dictionary. It's Orwellian to describe a men's rights movement as feminist. Nothing to do with 'dystopia.' Although, if you have your way we may well be in a dystopia.
Male and female is one of the few binarys we have... Judith has helped create an ideology that has synergised with narcissism, individualism, misogyny, homophobia and patriarchy. While we are enmeshed within this poisonous, polarised debate, the poor go on being poor, the privileged middle classes comment on Novara Media :)
“patriarchy” “male and female”….its either both or none….patriarchy cant be defeated until gender is abolished
@@expedition346 Sorry to disappoint you but Nature doesn't work that way. Men remain men no matter how they 'feel'
A binary is generally an oversimplification.
Statistically, a clean binary is achieved by excluding ambiguous data from the set. Butler was talking about including the ambiguous data and dealing with the 1% or 0.1% of complex cases.
@@naomieyles210 But society doesn't organise around categories based on 1%, hence we have 'male' and 'female'. The 1% you refer to are cases of intersex or other deviations from the general norm. Trans identified females are still biological men, hence they have the same offending patterns of biological men, because they remain biological men regardless of how female they 'feel'.
@@badgermeat as a society, we do meet the needs of various kinds of 1%, but of course we fail at that, too. Failure is not a good option. Wheel chair ramps are a good example, cochlear implants another, guide dogs is another.
The 1% that I'm talking about, lumps various intersex and transgender people together. Those groups, while varied, have more in common with each other than with typical characteristics of the 49% of the population that fits male biological norms.
That 1% are victims of violent assault at 2.5 to 4.5 times the rates of the general population.
listened to the whole thing but heard nothing persuasive or to convince me that anything she said was anything but waffle.
Her point around using individual cases (e.g. rape by transgender women in prison) and applying it to the broader group is likely correct for some of those opposed to the practice or transphobes more broadly - but it does not address the subjugation of the rights of females to female only spaces. It's a symptom of it, so its not just being used as an excuse for bigotry, half of the population are being asked to give up rights that were hard won and previously unquestioned. Some females might be happy to give up those rights, others are not and it seems insufficient to dismiss their position as simple bigotry.
Agreed..
Absolutely agree.
What exact spaces are we discussing? Should we generate more exclusion or perhaps develop a new category as opposed to expanding the social categories already present?
Should we develop social categories merely based on traits recognized as merely physical?
I am not disagreeing, however I am not exactly sure what spaces are we talking about.
Besides. If we did chose to develop and implement social stratification based merely in physical characteristics wouldn't it also open doors to using other similar characteristics such as race or hair color in order to develop new kinds of stratification?
You do realize that trans women have been using female only spaces for decades and decades without issues? Also, your argument would exclude intersex women with XY because they too are biologically male.
PS I love how you people never even consider trans men in all these conversations. If it was all about biological sex, then trans men and intersex XX men would / should feel very uncomfortable and unsafe in men's spaces, but they don't. Interesting.
@@clarkbowler157 he doesn't know so there is no point asking him. I've called him on a few of his comments now. He basically speaking endlessly in this ideological drivel while accusing others of doing it.
Always sort comments by newest. People are done with trans ideology.
Adult human female!
Are you trying to say something? There is no verb in your second, broken sentence.
Absolutely fantastic. I didn't think ive ever just watched a 56 min video in one go - was great to hear Judith's thoughts and explanation on this current pile on to trans rights. Just sad that people are not respectful of trans experiences especially in some of these comments. I hope this video at least makes one person question their perception of trans experiences and reflects.
Not fantastic at all!
Butler in the first section of the video is confused. Feminists historically have of course tried to expand the acceptable boundaries of what it was to be a woman: they did so by aiming to expand upon the acceptable forms of behaviour etc that BIOLOGICAL FEMALES were allowed to display.
Removing gender stereotypes and saying a biological male can be a woman are not conceptually equivalent, because (a) removing stereotypes society applies to biological females does not remove a necessary condition for someone to be a woman: namely, that they be biologically female, but (b) saying a biological male can be a woman is an attempt to remove, or sweep under the carpet, a necessary condition for a person to be a woman: namely, it is an attempt to say a woman does not have to be a biological female.
I think it is far more accurate and reasonable to say that trans women are pushing the acceptable boundaries for what it is to be a man (and good for them!), rather, than, as Butler claims, trans women representing the expanding of acceptable boundaries of what it is to be a woman.
@@nickthepostpunk5766 _trans women are pushing the acceptable boundaries for what it is to be a man (and good for them!)_
What a great thought! I'll be using it, thank you for that.
@@nickthepostpunk5766 Trans people have always been with us . They were/ are considered Two Spirits within Native American cultures. They are as legitimate as anyone else. Bravo for Prof Butler standing up for them and the rest of our queer communities❤❤❤
@@melissabirch459 of course I never claimed anything about the historic existence of trans people, and nor did I say that trans people were not ‘legitimate’. I therefore find your reply to me a little odd …